The search for "accuracy"... fed up

[mediumcool]

Avedon allegedly said that he would stand on his head to feed his family—but he did use an 8 x 10 view camera for a lot of his work …

 

[fotografz]

What am I getting at? That I don't always buy into the "stick with something and make it work" ideology. Once you hit a certain technical level, synergy and "feel" become an important part of the equation... and with digital photography, I think the "feel" of the files is part of that (along with the ergonomics of the camera system)... so I don't buy into the "he's stuck with a particular camera system for x years, so he must be better" vibe that I often get here. I see sticking with a particular camera as a sign of synergy... some get to it quickly, others go through an intensive period of trying various machines out until settling on a given platform.


Totally agree, like I said I can shoot anything on the market and get winning images. It ain't the freaking camera . I can spend 5 minutes with it and I'll be fine. Bottom line you have enough experience with cameras they are all basically the same process. Sure getting used to something takes some time no doubt. I'm sorry this feeling your having has zilch to do with a physical object per say it's more something that you can get a result from and you feel good. Key here it's you and your emotions. I shot every system on the planet some I like some I hate and some I feel I blend better with and can work it the way I want. As a Pro its whatever works as a hobbyist it's what I may enjoy more shooting more. I think it's gets very confusing on being parcel to a brand and not exploring other things. Dare I say kool laid drinkers. All these systems are just to damn good now than even 2 years ago. If you can't get a great image it's you folks sorry. We simply can't blame the cam , not now the all produce. If anything it's a comfort level that lets you enjoy shooting something. If you hate it mentally you will get **** for images, if you like it just like a driver in golf you'll hit it better. That's simply a feeling nothing more. The talent is there just maybe not like something. I get that what I don't get is this mastering stuff, your a long time photographer you can master or get by with anything at least you better or your check will go to the next guy, that's part of being a Pro as your job is to solve problems and you need to work it out or your broke. As you said the D800 makes you money so does mine, to me that's the end of the story. I want to feel good I may shoot a M9 but that won't make me money. Decide if your a Pro or you want to be a hobbyist. Just grab the damn hammer and get to work. But you need to get the funk to go away, frankly whatever it frwaking takes do it. Been here done that and for some it maybe just buying something new to get the spark back, for me it seems to work for awhile . Don't like it than sell it and try something else. It does you no good to buy a system and force yourself to like it. This stuff is disposable, there is no value here. As a Pro the only value is you get paid . PERIOD

The journey here is your life being a photographer and there ain't much better as a profession for the soul. Gear has nothing to do with that, it never will.

I think we are confusing physical mastery of gear without attaching the purpose to it. I agree that once you master the principles of photography, you can pick-up most anything made and make it work for you in fairly short order. The trick comes in making it work well for the purpose at hand.

Personally, I've learned that first hand from using a rangefinder camera, which I assigned a purpose to and worked at mastering it to that purpose. While I can use other types of cameras to do similar work, I've come to the conclusion that it is never quite the same and using other cameras is more hit-and-miss, or facsimiles of the whole gestalt of rangefinder work. That's the mastery I am speaking about.

Some of my favorite quotes:

“ You’ve got to push yourself harder. You’ve got to start looking for pictures nobody else could take. You’ve got to take the tools you have and probe deeper. – William Albert Allard

"A very subtle difference can make the picture or not." Annie Leibovitz (Kind of speaks to the search for both subtleties in subject AND subtleties in how it is rendered as a photograph. BTW, I personally think she was in error when she walked away from her RZ).

"People are under the illusion that it's easy...Technically, it is complex. You have a million options with equipment to distract you. I tell my students to simplify their equipment." Brett Weston

"The camera for an artist is just another tool. It is no more mechanical than a violin if you analyze it. Beyond the rudiments, it is up to the artist to create art, not the camera." Brett Weston

"A lot of photographers think that if they buy a better camera they’ll be able to take better photographs. A better camera won’t do a thing for you if you don’t have anything in your head or in your heart." – Arnold Newman

"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase." - Percy W. Harris



Anyway, I'm sure I'm in the minority on this topic :banghead: :ROTFL:

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The trick comes in making it work well for the purpose at hand.


Marc I don't disagree here mostly but that line is our bloody job and if we can't do it than we have issues. It's like saying a tech cam can only do one thing, well it can do other things well also people just don't associate them with other photography. I think by nature we label these cams for certain things without exploring what they can do in the hands of someone that can handle just about anything. I honestly think we give up label it a landscape camera and go buy something that we think is designed for PR work let's say. Sure there we always be specialized gear no question, but what I think happens in a lot of minds is the oh it can't do that type of work. Well it's really us that puts any limitations on these things. I think we as a photo community need to put more value on us as the technician and artist and not the gear to accomplish just about any type of shooting. I think we tend to cop out on making a piece of gear actually work on a subject that it is not really designed to do . Take the challenge and make it work for and not blame it. I used gear that maybe should never have been used in some folks minds on certain jobs, it's just harder work but that is also what we get paid to do and for the hobbyist take that challenge and solve it. Otherwise we don't learn either.

In Shelby's case and yes I'm hammering at it him on purpose for a good reason too. I'm trying to give him a spark as I could have used this on occasions when I have had my funks. It's about US and our ability to conquer the day with anything that's in our hands it's our challenge to make it or not. Thinking gear ahead of thinking image is bad thoughts. Solve the problem first than figure out technically how to get it done. We are putting the camera first here sometimes as the tool , well really we are the tool and we need to realize that.

 

[Don Libby]

I've subscribed to the notion of "does the camera return the favor when you turn it one"?

I've used many cameras for film and digital and some were just tools to be used and abused while a small amount have been great friends. My WRS has been one of my greatest friends and it continues to return the favor.

Just killing time while I'm attempting to do a time-lapse of a blooming bud on a cactus.......

 

[darr]

... well really we are the tool and we need to realize that.

+1

 

[gogopix]

I've subscribed to the notion of "does the camera return the favor when you turn it one"?
......Just killing time while I'm attempting to do a time-lapse of a blooming bud on a cactus....... [/FONT]

Wonderful.

i think that captures it! (pun intended )

 

[Wayne Fox]

I simply meant that I was fed up with trying to find a tool the accurately produced (without jumping through hoops) what I saw in my mind

Interesting thread. I suppose if we could intercept what we have in our brain that might be possible, but hoping the camera can do this seems a case of wishful thinking.

It seems photography for many of us remains a mix of artistic endeavor and meticulous craftsmanship, but the second frequently seems to get in the way (or at least distracts us) causing us to forget the artistic endeavor is far more important.

I try to embrace all things and settle where I"m comfortable, realizing nothing is perfect and try not to worry about so it won't affect my work. I also try to simplify how I shoot (manual mode, even manual focus more and more) so thinking about the craft requires less effort. If something makes me change too dramatically I normally abandon it. Tech camera is an example. If it had 5D quality live view I'd give it another go, but despite slight quality gains, the style just didn't fit me. But I did try it ...

 

[SergeiR]

Avedon allegedly said that he would stand on his head to feed his family—but he did use an 8 x 10 view camera for a lot of his work …

He also did explain why he used 8x10. And it was (allegedly) not for image quality Or colour reproduction (har har)

Anyhow, its just always boils down to simple thing - find tool that helps to create, and make process enjoyable. And INTERESTING.

 

[Paratom]

So, let's make something a bit clearer...

This thread really isn't about helping me pick a camera system. It isn't about finding a reason behind my decisions to try different gear... those decisions were all made for reasons that I don't really regret (generally feeding my artistic soul or feeding my family... and my family comes first, usually )

What I do regret is how convoluted and uninspiring the whole process of finding your "mate" can feel at this point (for me)... and was wondering if others felt the same. I've been a bit bummed that a tool (again, for some of us) CAN and DOES make a big difference.

Is it THE difference? I'm not so sure...

I just can't, and I mean CAN'T, subscribe 100% to the idea that it's only "the photographer, not the gear"... there are subtleties to the relationship between the artist and his tools that can't be discounted regardless of whether we're talking trumpet, photography, painting, woodworking, and so forth I do believe it's mostly the photographer. But gear matters. This is an artistically uninspiring time of my life. I go through these times, including periods in my "regular" life where things are pretty damned gray... and reaching for a tool that offers some synergy with my artistic mind is a good way to break through the clouds. I don't feel that synergy right now... thus, this post wondering whether others get fed up with great gear not working well for them.

So the SPIRIT of my post was to spark some conversation about how being in a golden era for photography (I believe we are/were) still presents some difficulties to some of us with certain sensitivities to gear... and was wondering why/how some of you deal with those sensitivities. Will I end up back on an RZ? I don't know. I'll probably end up on something like it, but that is for another day.

Keep the comments coming... it's VERY interesting reading everyone's take on my original post.

I have accepted that photography for me is not only about the result, but also about the joy to take an image, fun holding a nice piece of equipment in my hands etc etc. Does this make sense? I dont care.
Regarding the results - I do know that the camera also makes a difference for me - here and then I look how many "keepers" I get from which camera and there are some cameras where I get a much higher percentage than with others.
I guess we are all here for some parts gear heads (which doesnt mean than one cant be a good photographer...even though I dont consider myself as one) otherwise we would post and read so much in such forums.
The risk I see is that one focuses so much on gear testing, comparing etc. that one sometimes forgets the reason why one does photography (which can be different for everyone).
Regarding Shelbys comment about accurancy vs an images which give us the feeling to see the same we saw in reality is exactly my criteria as well.
So even though I do know for example the M9 doesnt have the most accurate colors is one of the few cameras which comes closest to my vision in regards of image "look". Maybe I would even prefer the word "image look" instead of "image quality".

What helps me in all this that once I have a system I really like and which really works for me - keep it. If you have second thoughts about eventually selling it, wait some time until you are really sure.
This brings a certain constancy imo.

 

[fotografz]

The trick comes in making it work well for the purpose at hand.


Marc I don't disagree here mostly but that line is our bloody job and if we can't do it than we have issues. It's like saying a tech cam can only do one thing, well it can do other things well also people just don't associate them with other photography. I think by nature we label these cams for certain things without exploring what they can do in the hands of someone that can handle just about anything. I honestly think we give up label it a landscape camera and go buy something that we think is designed for PR work let's say. Sure there we always be specialized gear no question, but what I think happens in a lot of minds is the oh it can't do that type of work. Well it's really us that puts any limitations on these things. I think we as a photo community need to put more value on us as the technician and artist and not the gear to accomplish just about any type of shooting. I think we tend to cop out on making a piece of gear actually work on a subject that it is not really designed to do . Take the challenge and make it work for and not blame it. I used gear that maybe should never have been used in some folks minds on certain jobs, it's just harder work but that is also what we get paid to do and for the hobbyist take that challenge and solve it. Otherwise we don't learn either.

In Shelby's case and yes I'm hammering at it him on purpose for a good reason too. I'm trying to give him a spark as I could have used this on occasions when I have had my funks. It's about US and our ability to conquer the day with anything that's in our hands it's our challenge to make it or not. Thinking gear ahead of thinking image is bad thoughts. Solve the problem first than figure out technically how to get it done. We are putting the camera first here sometimes as the tool , well really we are the tool and we need to realize that.

Well, I did say don't be so impatient. Take any given piece of gear and give it a chance to see what you can do to master it for broader applications ... plumb the depths of the abilities until you fully know what it can and cannot do. I still contend this takes time no matter how good you are at photography.

However, I will disagree regarding the implied use of anything for any job, or style of photography.

Pro sports photographers don't use a rangefinder. It can and has been done, but is a crippled tool for that application no matter how you slice it ... in that competitive environment amongst a sea of white lenses, it would be suicide.

Shelby makes money shooting weddings, and again while it can and has been done using an RZ, it is not only impractical and over-kill for most shots, it is dangerous in context to modern wedding photography ... missed moments that clients pay for are inexcusable because the wrong gear was forced into a situation. No matter how good you get at it, you WILL hit the "ability wall" eventually, and pretty fast at a wedding, trust me on this one.

Personally, I can't use a 35mm DSLR (or any focal plane shutter camera) for a majority of my current paying work and chosen creative style because I need high speed sync with all lenses in concert with powerful strobes to control ambient ... both in my ambient washed white studio with windows, and outdoor in bright contrasty situations, or to over-power the sun.

So, IMO, an important part of technical proficiency is selecting the right horse for the right course ... which goes right back to intent and purpose.

Shelby's problem seems to boil down to liking the aesthetic of the RZ images but the process of getting them is at issue, where the D800 makes it easier to get, but he doesn't love the look and feel of the results. All compounded by other financial priorities so he can't have his cake and eat it to.

Based on knowing Shelby's work in past, the ideal set for him (IMHO), would be the RZ he had and the A900 he had ... breath-taking work with both kit.

If he moved off all the above ... I personally wouldn't know how to advise because it would be pure speculation and subject to his very personal take on any given piece of gear.

But I'll do it anyway ... :lecture:

Keep the D800 and secure a couple of Leica R optics for the artistic stuff. From what I've seen to date, the Leica lenses have that look, color and character Shelby is missing (I suggest the R-35/1.4 and 80/1.4 or at least the R50/2 ). If manual focus is at issue, get a mag made for the eye-piece. I did that with my D3X for using the Zeiss manual focus lenses ... if I recall correctly it was the large D2 from Brightscreen which made a significant difference. If Shelby's eye-sight is worse than mine then he would be legally blind :ROTFL:

BTW, I also used a flip mag from them on the RZ prism finder, and it also made a huge difference. Or, it is important that the diopter in the RZ WLF is matched to your eyes ... I was miss focusing with a Aptus 75S back until I changed that out for the correct one.

-Marc

 

[MaxKißler]

BTW, I also used a flip mag from them on the RZ prism finder, and it also made a huge difference. Or, it is important that the diopter in the RZ WLF is matched to your eyes ... I was miss focusing with a Aptus 75S back until I changed that out for the correct one.

-Marc

Interestingly, the standard diopter correction lens in the WLF is -1.5 ! I didn't had issues with focussing but always wondered why. So I tried the 0.0 version because I'm permanently wearing glasses to focus. I'm near sighted and have -6.0 on both eyes (so anyone lamenting on bad eyesight better be quiet! :lecture: :ROTFL: ). I've gone through several and found out that the standard -1.5 diopter version works best for me (and probably for everyone with perfect eyesight).
I understand that presbyopia can be an issue here, so as Marc suggested: Try all of the diopter correction lenses (or wear reading glasses) and focussing will be an issue no more.