Gear & Our Art: 2011?

[Shelby Lewis]

Bill G... I'm speechless as to the amount of negativity in your post. I apologize that the content of this thread is so offensive to you.

Back to my idiot corner, I guess.

 

[doug]

.... I finished this feeling that I was back at DPReview listening to a bunch of idiots who have a piece of equipment that has more to offer than any of them will be able to use or understand....

Speaking only for myself, I'd much rather use equipment I can grow into rather than equipment that limits me. However some equipment is so far beyond my capabilities that I'd crash in the first turn. The S2 interests me because it would allow room to grow into a larger format while not being too far beyond my present comprehension.

 

[Geoff]

Speaking only for myself, I'd much rather use equipment I can grow into rather than equipment that limits me. However some equipment is so far beyond my capabilities that I'd crash in the first turn.

Agree with the above - but would like to expand: good equipment can also come with creative tension: it pulls you along, it makes you work, it makes you think, it delivers what you imagined.

These aren't all the same, nor do they even work in the same direction. A great piece of equipment might do one of these very well, but not do others at all (for you). It takes time to figure this out, to respond to the camera gear, and to find out which/when tool works best for you. Thats not test data, although it can help. That's using it and working it.

Once I rented equipment that figured to be the cat's meow - Contax 645 - hailed from other users, from my own viewpoint, from its quality level, etc. and it just didn't work at all for me. It went back in the bag after a few shots, and I never looked back. Great camera, but not for me.

I've shot with Rollei gear (and lenses) for 20 years, and still find ways it pulls me along. Recent Hy6 (granted its not perfect, but its pretty darn good) is now pulling and pushing me along. It makes me think as I find ways to use it, learn from it, and it delivers what might have been imagined, but was never thought possible (the joy of digital is in free risk taking). And this new pleasure comes from lenses and a camera format I've used for years. Its the little change of form factor, the simplicity of a MLU button right at hand (thank goodness for leaf shutters - a miracle on their own), and a digital back that practically can do anything once thought possible. So how can one possibly evaluate five different platforms from tests and reports, and reach a conclusion? They have to work for you, over time, and profoundly so.

The point is not that "this is the best gear", but rather, the best gear for me. It makes me work harder. Learning how to use and how to see further and deeper becomes the mission.

The Left and Right brain debate is valid. There is also the false promise of specificity: that all the answers will emerge with more precision. Some answers will, but compositional control, or content has little to do with technical performance. Only some of this can be measured on an optical bench.

Small story: my 14 year old son and I drove from in-laws to beach in California. His heart was set on tide-pooling, but we arrived at high tide and nothing to be found. After some parental "learn to work with what you've got instead", we poked around for a while.

Two days later I showed him some photos and he commented he needs to learn about composition: "I saw the same things, but there was nothing there. I want to learn how you found what you did".

Made my day. Best to all.

 

[ggriswold]

Great thoughts Geoff. If I moderated this forum I would lock this thread after your thoughtful observations.

 

[4season]

Bill,

I don't make a living from my photography, and don't currently own any MF gear, but I was actually thinking that the MF (and Lighting!) boards contained some of the best discussions that I've seen in quite some time. Some of us simply like photography so much that we're willing to pay for it!

Folks spend thousands of dollars every year in less-meaningful ways.

Jeff

 

[fotografz]

I just have to add my comments to this longer than necessary posting.....I have read each comment...the very long and tedious as well as the short replies..I recognized that most if not all of the posters on replies are either Professional Photographers....or......wish they were Professional Photographers.......I happen to know one of the people that have added their comment and whom I admire and I would suggest to you that that person probably knows more about photography than all the rest of you. That person constantly posts results that are stunning and can reflect the character of the instrument being used. I finished this feeling that I was back at DPReview listening to a bunch of idiots who have a piece of equipment that has more to offer than any of them will be able to use or understand. Having a well rounded education with perhaps a number of degrees to prove your intelligence.....or.......lack of that does not make a great photographer.

I have always said that "it is not the camera that takes the picture...it is the person behind the camera that takes the picture."

I apologize to any person who might be offended but I do think that you have spent to much time discussing a subject that most people could never wish to own......a Leica S-2 DSLR camera.

No offense taken Bill.

It is not unusual that much time is spent here discussing subjects that most people could never wish to own ... this is the Medium Format Digital forum after all

Generally, this forum is a cordial place where one can make a fool of one's self with-out to much heat. That is avoided by shunning comments suggesting some person is superior to all of you morons ... even if they are. I think it's called manners.

The only slightly offensive comment is the relentless use of the incredibly over-used bromide that "It's not the camera that takes the picture, it's the person behind the camera ... " Which is the pat answer to any inquiry or comment regarding gear ... (on a gear forum I might add). We could just put that as the title, and lock out the gear forums from any participation.

All the best in the coming new year,

-Marc

 

[Woody Campbell]

So I've just ordered a used copy of Edward Weston's Daybooks (edited by Nancy and Beaumont Newhall) from Amazon. I'll return to this thread after it arrives and I've had a chance to spend some time with it. What I think it will demonstrate is that there's nothing new in the issues that we're discussing, except perhaps the pace of change and the ease of communication (of qualified and unqualified views) via the internet. What I think I know about Weston's technical choices is that in the 1930s he used an 8x10 camera, a Century Universal, that was expensive and more sophisticated than the maddening Deardorff that we might expect that he was using, that he was disappointed in several aspects of it and developed work arounds, that he used apochromatic lenses that were exotic and expensive at the time and that he experimented with film and with processing choices and techniques. To a significant extent the tools available to him defined his art. He had an extensive correspondence with other photographers on technical issues.

In the wet darkroom era there were angry debates on the merits of D76 vs. Accufine, the merits of pyro and other similar such issues.

So the kind of discussion that we're having isn't new - it's inherent in a discipline that combines science, engineering and art. One reason to photographers test is to learn the limits of their technical resources so they can adapt their techniques to them.

There was a guy named Fred Picker who published wrote articles on some the kinds of issues referred to above for Zone VI. As various issues were discussed his advice was always "Try it." Still good advice

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well in slight defense of the members here on the MF forum. We need to remember first off many if not almost all are very very serious hobbyists. These folks are mostly likely at the top of their photographic game and yes there are Pros in here as well with years of experience. We all know it is the Photographer BUT and this is a BIG but MF is the best IQ maker you can get your hands on and they simply cost a lot of money and this is a purchase decision that is not the kind you walking into your favorite camera store and buying on impulse. This takes a lot of nerve and homework to make these type of buy's . No one takes this lightly but on the other hand look at some of the costs as a hobby. Go buy a boat trust me you in for money given the time you on that boat. We have people here that spend every free moment pursuing there Art and I mean every free moment. There simply is NO price tag on that. It's like the Visa commercial PRICELESS.

And yes Manners rule the day around here. This is GetDPI a place i am damn proud of and many many members feel the same way.

 

[mediumcool]

So the kind of discussion that we're having isn't new - it's inherent in a discipline that combines science, engineering and art. One reason to photographers test is to learn the limits of their technical resources so they can adapt their techniques to them.

Readable and relevant article by Ctein who used to carry on about dye transfer and other arcana when I was a much younger photographer.

 

[fotografz]

So I've just ordered a used copy of Edward Weston's Daybooks (edited by Nancy and Beaumont Newhall) from Amazon. I'll return to this thread after it arrives and I've had a chance to spend some time with it. What I think it will demonstrate is that there's nothing new in the issues that we're discussing, except perhaps the pace of change and the ease of communication (of qualified and unqualified views) via the internet. What I think I know about Weston's technical choices is that in the 1930s he used an 8x10 camera, a Century Universal, that was expensive and more sophisticated than the maddening Deardorff that we might expect that he was using, that he was disappointed in several aspects of it and developed work arounds, that he used apochromatic lenses that were exotic and expensive at the time and that he experimented with film and with processing choices and techniques. To a significant extent the tools available to him defined his art. He had an extensive correspondence with other photographers on technical issues.

In the wet darkroom era there were angry debates on the merits of D76 vs. Accufine, the merits of pyro and other similar such issues.

So the kind of discussion that we're having isn't new - it's inherent in a discipline that combines science, engineering and art. One reason to photographers test is to learn the limits of their technical resources so they can adapt their techniques to them.

There was a guy named Fred Picker who published wrote articles on some the kinds of issues referred to above for Zone VI. As various issues were discussed his advice was always "Try it." Still good advice

:thumbs:

Frankly, all this stuff about how the "greats" never discussed or think about their tools is nonsense. Sure, not when they are shooting, any more than most of us do (unless it doesn't work, followed by some choice expletives/deleatives).

Setting up my analog darkroom was just as complicated as this stuff we deal with now. Pouring over all the Ansel Adams zone stuff ... redoing the light source in the enlarger, testing and calibrating the lenses, on, and on and on ... and I wasn't even a landscape shooter.

I've worked with many of the "big names" in my ad career ... some had vaults filled with exotic gear that cost more than my house at the time ... but weren't above using a point-and-shoot for a global ad campaign if that was the look and feel they were after. I over heard LOTS of discussions at lunch time while shooting TV commercials ... DPs and Directors debating video and new camera technologies.

I attended Art School originally as a fine artist ... lots of discussions involving the "science" of oil painting that if not learned and ignored led to crumbling surfaces and color shifts in a year or two. We had to actually make our own paints with various pigments (including incredibly expensive rare earth pigments) and linseed oil. Did you know that in the 1800s WN offered a pigment called "Mummy" that was actually ground up Mummies from Egypt?

-Marc

 

[Valentin]

...Did you know that in the 1800s WN offered a pigment called "Mummy" that was actually ground up Mummies from Egypt?

-Marc

See, you learn something every day

I make my living by selling images. I hate it with passion when somebody makes a remark "you must have a great camera". But truth be told, the new technology enables me to make images that were not possible few years back. Yes, the photographer makes the image ... but the tools he uses play a BIG role on the output.

So, I think it's silly to keep saying "it's the photographer, not the camera". It's both.

 

[Geoff]

See, you learn something every day

I make my living by selling images. I hate it with passion when somebody makes a remark "you must have a great camera". But truth be told, the new technology enables me to make images that were not possible few years back. Yes, the photographer makes the image ... but the tools he uses play a BIG role on the output.

So, I think it's silly to keep saying "it's the photographer, not the camera". It's both.

Absolutely agree. The tools today allow us to get into situations, play with light and color in ways not readily imaginable back then. The mastery of Weston and Adams was as aggressive in pushing their envelope as well. Part of the art is working hard against the limits and knowing the back and forth across that line.

 

[mvirtue]

In the wet darkroom era there were angry debates on the merits of D76 vs. Accufine.

Them's fighting words

It's cool that you can still buy acufine. Wet work is now a thing of the past as I'm so allergic to fixer

I think the internet has made the ability to discuss technical issues very, too?, easy. Before the internet if I wanted to really know how many times I could replenish the acufine I'd either have to do the experiments myself or hope that someone at the local pro shop had done it.

 

[fotografz]

Them's fighting words

It's cool that you can still buy acufine. Wet work is now a thing of the past as I'm so allergic to fixer

I think the internet has made the ability to discuss technical issues very, too?, easy. Before the internet if I wanted to really know how many times I could replenish the acufine I'd either have to do the experiments myself or hope that someone at the local pro shop had done it.

That was what books were for ... remember them ... the things we held in our hands and learned from? :ROTFL: I have a whole shelf full of "technical" books from the age of stinky rooms where we worked bathed in an atomic red glow to the sounds of running water and ticking timer clocks ... sigh.

Marc

 

[Bob]

That was what books were for ... remember them ... the things we held in our hands and learned from? :ROTFL: I have a whole shelf full of "technical" books from the age of stinky rooms where we worked bathed in an atomic red glow to the sounds of running water and ticking timer clocks ... sigh.

Marc

Brewed my own and used to love a two part D76 derivative, sigh
-bob

 

[jonoslack]

I hate it with passion when somebody makes a remark "you must have a great camera".

So Do I - the best retort seems to be that:
It's like telling a chef that he must have great saucepans

 

[fotografz]

Brewed my own and used to love a two part D76 derivative, sigh
-bob

Drifting off subject ... but we're dinosaurs at heart, huh Bob?

I still have my wet work room intact ... filtered water, big sink, timers now forever set to 0, great Kaiser Medium Format enlarger with top Rodenstock lenses ... it all looks like Miss Havisham's wedding room ... just as I left it on the last day I made prints all those years ago.

My plan was to return to it once I retired ... so much for the plans of mice and men

-Marc

 

[Bob]

Drifting off subject ... but we're dinosaurs at heart, huh Bob?

I still have my wet work room intact ... filtered water, big sink, timers now forever set to 0, great Kaiser Medium Format enlarger with top Rodenstock lenses ... it all looks like Miss Havisham's wedding room ... just as I left it on the last day I made prints all those years ago.

My plan was to return to it once I retired ... so much for the plans of mice and men

-Marc

I am afraid it is more than the heart.
Now includes the knees, a shoulder, the eyes and whatnot :ROTFL:
Those days are long gone for me and I will never go back despite the nostalgia.
-bob

 

[Bob]

So Do I - the best retort seems to be that:
It's like telling a chef that he must have great saucepans

Jono,
you nearly caused me to lose a mouthful of coffee.
But it is true, I often get asked about the camera when in fact it is more about the light.
-bob

 

[Bob]

Someone recently did a lengthy post about the virtues of a particular camera system when he had discovered, like I did long ago, that the best camera is the one you happen to be carrying.

For me at least the "best gear" is something that does not get too much in the way of what I am trying to accomplish or at least is not too annoying and full of bad habits or unexpected behavior.

Gear I have used for awhile so that it operates in "photographer-integrated fully automatic mode", meaning that adjustments just seem to happen under my fingers without any thought as to the controls, is also favored.

It is also our duty to use every lens obtainable just at least for a look-see.

I include post processing tools in the general definition of gear. How often has it happened to you that while peering at the image in the viewfinder that you are already envisioning the adjustment layers that might be used.

-bob