The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The search for "accuracy"... fed up

ustein

Contributing Editor
I often think what if we would stop making any progress in cameras today and keep them just in good shape. My theory is that the art of photography would not suffer a bit :). Of course the camera manufacturers would .
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I often think what if we would stop making any progress in cameras today and keep them just in good shape. My theory is that the art of photography would not suffer a bit :). Of course the camera manufacturers would .
:thumbs: I couldn't agree more. If there's one thing I find not necessary to improve my own photography it is more new stuff. (I confess that I still buy it ...).

Shelby, as others have said you were doing some beautiful work with your Aptus/RZ with a system that was relatively unstressed digitally, optically or mechanically. The good news of course is that buying back in to the system, particularly if you stick with the beautiful rendering of the Aptus II 6, gets cheaper these days vs more expensive.
 

Aryan Aqajani

New member
Let's look at all this objectively. You sold the Leaf kit because you needed something that could handle wedding work. You bought the Leaf kit because despite the images you made with the Sony, you needed something to feed your soul. You see yourself as a professional, an artist, and a broke student.

Why not separate things out a bit? D800 (or a900 if you wish) as your professional tool. This camera makes money. When it is in your hand, you are a professional and you are at work. Then buy a RZ with a 110 and your favorite film. This camera is to make art, not money. When it is in your hand you are an artist creating your vision photographically.

Of course, since you are a broke student, I know where you can get a good deal on an a900. :poke:
All I can say is that you can make money with RZ67 and film as well! No need to get a DSLR to shoot couples, families, portrait and fashion! For sure it would be a hassle to take it to reception to shoot groups! Also, not a good option for sport photography but so many wedding and portrait photographers including make money out of this beast! The great example is Jonathan Canlas who shoots weddings, engagements and families with RZ67 and Contax 645 all on film! It all depends on if you want to embrace the hassle or not! However, that hassle is rewarding!!!
 

Aryan Aqajani

New member
I don't know Shelby....

is it worth spotting a negative for dust at 1 to 2 hours in CS6 to get the same result or fairly similar result to adjusting contrast and curves with the Leaf? Kinda takes the fun out of it.....And the expense is not insignificant....


Bob
I only spend 5-10max getting the dusts off the scans! If you spend 1-2 hours in photoshop, you may consider wearing gloves when handling film negs and use air blower before scanning!
 

thrice

Active member
I only spend 5-10max getting the dusts off the scans! If you spend 1-2 hours in photoshop, you may consider wearing gloves when handling film negs and use air blower before scanning!
+1

Keep your double darks in zip lock bags, vacuum them every now and then.
load film in a vacuumed changing tent (not bag).
Wet mount with a betterscanning kit.

Dust, what's that?
 
R

richard.L

Guest
Peaches and Regalia -- 7,000 times --
"you don't have to play every note, every time, the same way. Play the song, not the notes, and we had fun all 7,000 times we played that fn ljlk I(Il "

from someone else:
my music isn't the notes, it is the stuff between them.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
And.....no reason why you shouldn't have at least two camera systems. This is Dante's Inferno after all. :)

So many people it seems try to find that one camera system that can do it all---a jack of all trades so to speak, and in reality (imho) that means compromise at some level, and the brunt of that compromise always seems to hit hardest where it matters most: our own personal satisfaction/gratitude/pursuits in the "art" of photography.

I recently returned from a trip to the Canadian Rockies, having purposely chosen to bring a Cambo WRS with only one lens and an IR converted little Panasonic GF1. No Phase DF. No Canon DSLR. Why? Because I have the most fun with the Cambo/IQ180 and the GF1. And I had a blast!

I've always thought that a DSLR and a MFDB were a perfect complement to each other; I've never understood hearing talk of moving from one system (dslr) to another (mfdb). Each are unique and have their place in my studio. But most importantly, don't forget the "fun" aspect in choosing a camera platform(s). Too many people discount the "fun factor" in choosing a camera platform, and that's the one that gives you the most ooomph and satisfaction.

So from my heart (I know, twisted but sincere), Shelby, be like Jean Girard when you speak to your new RZ (we here in Dante's Forum have already decided you will make this new purchase; it will also make it easier to explain to your wife): "I will battle you with the entirety of my heart and you will probably lose. But maybe, just maybe. You might challenge me. The Beatles needed the Rolling Stones. Even Diane Sawyer needed Katie Couric. Will you be my Katie Couric?" - Jean Girard, Talladega Nights

Keep the D800 because it rounds out your kit (and earns money too). But, you need the Mamiya RZ with filmbacks and a MFDB.

Shelby, the Mamiya RZ is your Katie Couric.

:D ken
 

Professional

Active member
Salesman: "Hi Sir, how can i help you?"
Person: "I want to buy a new camera"
Salesman: "any particular brand?"
Person: "I want the best system you have"
Salesman: "It is not the gear, sir, it is the PERSON behind gear"
Person: "Yes, you are right, please give me Phase One IQ180 and H4D-200ms and Leica S2 and Pentax 645D and Alpa STC and Nikon D800 and Canon 1DX or 5D3 and ......"




It will always be wanting and upgrading to new gear over again and again even we are the factor to play behind the gear......










and the series is continuous......




after 40-50 years, the person says: "I tried 20 systems, what's wrong with my photography? My skill improved and my gear is latest, and still i can't feel my photography?"

What is the solution?.....................







Myself Tareq i have one of 2 solutions:

1. Shut up and keep shooting with even 100 gear.


or











2. Give up and stop photography completely or 95%.


























GOOD LUCK!!!!!
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
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 :D)

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.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Of course these sorts of things are very personal.
For me, I shoot for awhile with one camera, then perhaps get the feeling that shooting with something else might be satisfying.
I switch around between a tech camera with IQ180 or a film back, a Phase One DF, and a Nikon D800 not so much based on any particular fir for a particular sort of thing, but that does come into play, but based on what I feel like shooting at the moment.
I guess the D800 fits the bill when I have to hammer out some images right NOW and the rest when I feel more circumspect with film at the extreme end of that.
My biggest regret as far as gear is concerned is that I can no longer use a rangefinder like I once used to as there are times I really wished I could.
I suppose I could live with only a D800 and get by, and it is a very competent camera, but somehow it just does not feed the soul as well as some of the other options at my disposal.
I am graced with the fortune of being able to hang on to all of this stuff and from time to time wonder if the sheer dollar value of all that gear is worth keeping my options open.

-bob
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
You were born to be with the RZ! Your pictures with the RZ were remarkable and standout.
I've missed your portraitures and hope you will come back some days when you are ready.

Regards,
Pramote
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
I for one am sensitive when it comes to gear. I have great difficulty to stay creative and inspired with a camera/lens/whatever that does not talk to me. I need a relationship, feedback and results that we together are happy with - me and my gear.
Everything in my camerabag are friends, built to last, built with precision, built with passion and this rubs off on me out in the field. I feel secure and trust my friends to perform when I ask them to do this and that, no matter what.

I am not fond of plastic friends, no matter what amazing specs that lures inside their bodies. They may outperform what I have, but the bottomline is that I would not have found 'my' images with it. I would have nobody to talk to.

Most know where my heart is when it comes to gear. I am absolutely certain, without a doubt in my mind, that I grow as a photographer because of my gear.
 

mediumcool

Active member
This response has turned into a bit of a rant, but has helped crystallise some thoughts.

I have three digital systems (no film); a Panasonic G3 which mostly wears a 20mm f2, a Pentax K-5 with six lenses, and a Mamiya 645/Aptus22 with five lenses (not bragging here: all the Mamiya lenses are manual focus and manual stop-down). :thumbdown:

The first two systems I mostly hand-hold, but not always; I have different-sized bags, two small Gitzo tripods and heads that I can use for a particular job/adventure. I shoot for money, and for pleasure.

The Pentax is the in-the-middle contender, also 16MP, good for action and in low light (just bought a 24 f2 online for it). Great results from the Sony sensor; do I wish it had more megapixels? Sometimes. It can also work with M645 lenses via an adapter—I particularly like using the 110/2.8 on it at full aperture.

The Mamiya is a beast in comparison (though petite compared to the RZ) and it encourages deliberate, slow work, 90+% of it on a tripod. Do I wish I had the M645 with me when I see a great shot (out shopping or on a walk)? Not much. The G3 in my jacket pocket does an adequate job with 16MP—its only downside is not-so-great dynamic range. I even use it with my three manual K-mount lenses on a tilting adapter.

The M645 is big and heavy, and slow in use, with a large Gitzo ball head on an ancient Manfrotto. But the results are worth it, when I am seeing well. But it has only 22MP, not a great deal more than the smaller kit. But I still like using it more; it’s more deliberate, more serious somehow. Now a 36MP “35” SLR like the D800 may supply a decent MF “look”, but I don’t care about that (and can’t afford one and the lenses required anyway).

I agree with Shelby’s statement about “subtleties”; different styles of camera equipment (SLR, rangefinder, tech camera) do influence the way one shoots, in part by determining what is readily and effectively photographed in a particular situation. The large camera in particular forces me to slow down. Do I feel blessed? Yes, but there’s always something more to lust after. ;(

We are in a Digital Golden Age in the US, Canada, Australia etc., but spare a thought for the enthusiastic but under-equipped photographers in Asia, Africa, or South America; how would they feel about our existential angst and creative blocks? Disdain, probably. :loco:

For the first time in my life I have no excuse for not making good (and maybe even terrific!) pix aside from my mobility problems (poor health and no car at the moment).

Must get out this weekend … :D
 

dchew

Well-known member
We have gotten to a point in technology where virtually any camera can be used to make very high grade images, and very large prints. From a quality perspective, most of us don't "need" medium format, or even an dslr. The quality bar has been lifted so darn high. We can all create awesome 13x19" prints or larger from practically a cell phone.

That means quality just isn't that big of a deal from camera to camera. We are left with a decision based more on what Dan points out above than any sort of technical factors.

I get a big kick out of the, "Which camera will give me better big prints, [insert MFDB] or the D800?" posts. I recently responded to one of these on Lula with a bunch of non-quality reasons on which the person should base their decision. Right afterword a big D800 fan said, "You forgot dynamic range."

No, I didn't.
:)

Ciao,
Dave
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 :D)

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.
There is something related to all this that hasn't been directly discussed yet ... while it is a complex "something", I'll go out on a limb and sum it up with one word ... purpose. Then I'll continue with a somewhat disjointed elaboration ... disjointed because frankly it isn't quite clear to me as I struggle with what to do with my photography. You aren't alone Shelby.

"Purpose" is the proof that tools do make a difference ... at least to some extent. When the tools are at cross purposes is perhaps when the frustration can set in. When the purpose is well defined, the tools are usually well defined. Technology may present a bump in the road for some end purposes, however if you take something like "wedding Photography" the gear path is pretty clear. After that it becomes a matter of subtleties, idiosyncratic personal preferences, and style.

I'd also offer that we are not in the golden age of photography, we are in the golden age of photographic equipment and dissemination of images. While the technology and processes have changed dramatically, the medium of photographic expression really hasn't. It is accessible to more, done by more, seen by more ... however the question is: has the art of modern photography advanced in relationship to the rocket sled technological ride? For example, when Leica introduced 35mm photography with a tiny camera, that technology also dramatically altered the potential art of photography.

Back to the concept of "purpose". Many, if not a majority, of photographic enthusiasts enjoy mastering the process ... more than anything, the process of making an image defines the purpose. Yet always lurking in the shadows is the notion best defined by one of my favorite Picasso quotes, " A painting kept in the closet might as well be kept in the head."

In short, while photography is a highly personal endeavor, its eventual purpose is to be seen. Those doing this for pay have a built-in purpose, and apply their vision to the task at hand. As those tasks change, so do the tools. As I ween myself from wedding work in pursuit of other types of paying work, the gear choices are self apparent. I think Guy has recently done the same.

Defining purpose is a key element in the pursuit of photographic art ... even the great experimental painters that changed the history of Art, had an intent in mind.

There-in lies the rub.

Photography tends to defy the saying "Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it" ... with Photography, it tends to be "Those who do know history tend to repeat it". Are we doomed to repeat history in ever greater numbers, seen by more and more people ... a poor creative shadow of the giants that preceded us? Can this cycle be broken?

Personally, I think it can be done ... and it has little to do with the technology except to make sure it is not at cross purposes with the creative intent. The hard part these days is getting anything recognized in order to be seen. An incredibly huge amount of images are generated and disseminated now, and a vast majority of those have a lifespan of an electronic gnat. This is probably a good thing since most deserve a short life-span ... yet all too often the baby is thrown out with the bath water. The democratization and homogenization of photography has produced a formidable visual cacophony. Add to that the demise of an actual photographic object ... a print or book, amongst the general consuming photographic public, so even the subtleties one can struggle to achieve are lost in the electronic Tsunami.



In summation ... (IMO), undefined or hazy purpose can often be at the root of dissatisfaction and frustration. If we jump around in purpose without thought and philosophical pondering, if we do not focus our efforts, we will jump from one tool to the next without ever mastering one that was well chosen for the purpose we creatively defined before doing anything else.

Your thoughts?

-Marc
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
In summation ... (IMO), undefined or hazy purpose can often be at the root of dissatisfaction and frustration. If we jump around in purpose without thought and philosophical pondering, if we do not focus our efforts, we will jump from one tool to the next without ever mastering one that was well chosen for the purpose we creatively defined before doing anything else.

Your thoughts?

-Marc
My thoughts Marc, priceless. Honestly. I'm going to quote this paragraph in my photography classes for the coming year.
 
R

richard.L

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

This thread really isn't about helping me pick a camera system. I. 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"...
gear does make a difference. It gets in the way. It seems as though it has tripped you. don't know how high you were going to climb, but this rope, these shoes, don't seem to be propelling you to the place you think you can get.

Back from the Spur hotel where James McMurtry offered a solution for writers block...

He pulled out a box of sharpened pencils and a BLOCK of paper.

Write. Write. Write. WRite ....
 
Last edited:
Top