View Full Version : cameras are tools...really?
back alley
02-03-2008, 19:58
i hear this over and over here on rff and on other photo sites as well.
i wonder when this line of thinking started? it likely started with pros who like to throw their kit around to give it that war weary look, perhaps...
but for most of us here who are hobbyists are they really tools or just gear to help us enjoy our saturday outings?
do many audio buffs say the same about their turntables, amps or cd players?
or even painters who i doubt form quite the same attachments to their brushes and pallets?
if you make a living with your gear, then i think you should call your gear tools but if it's a joyride with no income involved? - then it's my gear, my kit, my beautiful lens or camera!
can you imagine a website that might have a thread called 'turntable porn'?
joe
bmattock
02-03-2008, 20:23
Some people fondle. Some people get hung up on name brands. Some like to name-drop. Some just like to shoot photographs.
I used to have favorite cars. Now it's just transportation. Times change, attitudes change.
I like my big Fuji rangefinder, and I'm glad I got it fixed. It has brassing - had it when I got it. I don't care to cover it up, and I don't care to add any more to it. I truly don't care how it looks - only what it can do.
But I do have cameras that look quite nice, and that's fine too.
And Audiokarma users regularly post 'nudes' of the insides of their receivers, and such like.
www.audiokarma.org
back alley
02-03-2008, 20:33
nudes of the inside of a receiver?
all is lost!
;)
Al Kaplan
02-03-2008, 20:38
As long as the glass is clean and the focus turns smoothly I'm content. I've also had some lenses where the glass wasn't all that clean but I liked the effect that resulted from the internal grunge, scratches, or missing patches of coating.
SolaresLarrave
02-03-2008, 20:39
To me, the tool represents the craft and the craftsman. A good camera is still a tool, but it also shows your concern, knowledge and commitment to some type of quality.
Not to say that there are bad cameras out there. I think the era of bad cameras and tools is over.
But yes, they are tools... that show what we are and how we see ourselves as practitioners or craftspeople.
John Rountree
02-03-2008, 20:40
Actually, I think it is not a real issue for photographers. Remember, just because you have a camera, doesn't make you a photographer. Nor is everything a good photographer shoots, art. The idea that a camera "is just a tool" is a silly affectation, usually employed by someone a little on the short side of talent. But, that is not to say that you don't grow out of it once you make some good images and begin to realize the relationship between the photographer and the camera. But, that is also not to say that you have to have a slavish devotion to every new bauble that comes on the market. There is a very nice discussion of this issue in On Being A Photographer, by Bill Jay and David Hurn.
bmattock
02-03-2008, 20:49
Everyone is different.
I do not collect mechanical wristwatches from the 1940's because I wish to know what time it is. I collect them because I like them. They also will tell me what time it is when I choose to wear one of them.
Some people like kit. It's fun for them and why not?
Others like the prestige of owning the 'best' this or that and why not? If they can afford it, then who is to say they should not do it?
And some just like to take photographs and choose what they consider to be the best tools for any given purpose.
I really don't care. I have cameras that I like because I like them. Others that I like because of what they do that is different from what other cameras do. And some just look nice on a shelf.
I remember as an apprentice motor mechanic I would always clean all my tools and make sure they were hanging back in my spotless tool cabinet before I could leave work. People would come over and look at my immaculate work area and shake their heads and walk off.
My cameras are just tools but I still take an immense amount of pride in them and gain a lot of pleasure from their mechanical precision. I still have to be happy with my own ability to take decent photos though ... as I needed to be confident that I was a competent mechanic! :)
fdigital
02-03-2008, 20:57
My digital gear is just tools for the job. I don't really carry any real sense of personal attachment to it. If I had a 50 1.2L or 85 1.2L I probably would have a better personal relationship with them.
My film cameras are still tools, but I enjoy them a lot more. When I get my MP it'll be my personal lovechild. Not to say I'm going to baby it - because it's still a camera to take pictures. But theres something a little more in something like an MP
Al Kaplan
02-03-2008, 22:42
"<rambling rant complete> " Amen. Some fondlers act like we should build temples in honor of cameras. They're false gods...
__________________
photogdave
02-03-2008, 22:42
I agree with Joe.
When you're a pro photographer your camera is a tool. When you're a hobbyist it's more than that.
When you're a professional DJ your turntable is a tool. When you're an audiophile it's more than that.
When you're a Formula One driver your car is a tool. When you're Jay Leno it's more than that!
It's a tool. Even if one's not a pro, the camera stays tool. In the amateur's case It's something that boosts his Ego. An Ego-Boosting tool.
Tool.
Roger Hicks
02-04-2008, 00:33
i wonder when this line of thinking started? it likely started with pros who like to throw their kit around to give it that war weary look, perhaps...
Dear Joe,
There are two separate issues here. A good workman looks after his tools -- but he also uses them, and a camera is a tool for making pictures, whether you are making those pictures professionally or as an amateur.
Any pro who deliberately 'throws his kit around to give it that war weary look' is a cretin, and probably a useless photographer as well (I've met 'em, usually on small-town newspapers), but there's a big difference between looking after your kit, and pampering it. I look after all my cameras as best I can, but if they're used hard, it shows, sooner or later.
Cheers,
Roger
The idea that a camera "is just a tool" is a silly affectation, usually employed by someone a little on the short side of talent.
I suppose this means that most or all professional photographers are devoid of talent.
A camera is a tool.
"Tool" is not a pejorative term.
A craftsman, a journeyman, an apprentice or an amateur is a fool if he does not understand, respect and maintain his tools.
Regards,
Bill
In context "we born naked and die naked" anything we have and use is expendable, actually - can be agreed to be tools. Even our closest relatives don't belong to us and stay alive or die before us without our will, so they also are "persons, helping us better learn this world". In some sense, as ErikFive says, they are another learning "tools". So why cameras should be different ?
Oh well, I'm going to mod my nice Lynx to take 1.5V battery and I love how it sits in hands and...buttersmooth operation, I said I love it ? :D:D:D:D
I don't know.
That camera is "a tool" implies it's almost a must to have many. Right tool for the job, etc. Assuming that you have to cover normal, wide, portrait, supertele, macro, digital, pocketable, large format.. you end up with plenitude of cameras. A perfect way to justify GAS :)
But a reverse approach (right job for the tool?) seems to work almost as well. You have a camera, you take photos that this camera can.
mfunnell
02-04-2008, 01:51
Yes, a camera is a tool used for taking photographs. But a "well sorted" tool can feel better in the hand, which has an aesthetic virtue of its own and may add functionality by simply feeling "right" or comfortable rather than "wrong" and hence distracting. Or it might just be "better looking" (in someone's view) which might not add any functionality but be worth admiring for its own sake. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I tend to go more towards the functional - but that may be my own aesthetic prejudice and isn't something I'd expect others to agree about.
...Mike
can you imagine a website that might have a thread called 'turntable porn'?
joe
almost...
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=145059
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=104854
projectbluebird
02-04-2008, 02:09
Some people collect tools, photographic or otherwise.
More expensive tools won't make you better at using them, but hopefully they will have greater capabilities than cheaper ones. And there are different tools for different jobs, why do you think there are so many lenses? ;)
or even painters who i doubt form quite the same attachments to their brushes and pallets?
Just an OT aside, but I have listened to my painter friends get into heated arguments about their brushes. For hours. Arguing over which brand/shape/type is better. BTW some of them make a living selling paintings, others do it just as a hobby. Hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it?
kalokeri
02-04-2008, 03:10
I am an amateur. I do like my tools (aka cameras) and do like to play with them (aka taking pictures).
Thomas
dan denmark
02-04-2008, 03:26
a camera is a means to an end. with over 50 years behind me, me behind a camera, it is still the brush of the painter, the voice of the singer, the tool of the image maker. i rode in a Bugatti once. it got me from where we started to where we started all over again. it was an uncomfortable, noisy, bumpy ride and it did the round trip. point A to point B. but it was a Bugatti, so i thought at the time. i have a lot of cameras: all tools, brushes, voices, rugged motor cars. they all take pictures of differeing qualities, fomats, frames. different pictures. different tools. different means to different but still the same ends.
dd
jolefler
02-04-2008, 04:12
My cameras are some of my tools. (I like to make photographs from shooting through framing)
My cameras are also my jewels. (I like a little bling while I do my thing)
The "bling" goes hand-in-hand with the style of photos I enjoy making: old style B&W silver gel prints using retro looking film/paper & gear. What better than an LTM?
Sure they are tools. But I don't mean that in the slightly/wholly dismissive tone I see used on occasion.
Like any other tool they can be fetishes (fetish-ized?)--anyone priced a vintage Stanley tool lately?
I don't run my knives through the dish machine and I don't leave my wrenches laying on the garage floor.
I do take care of my tools; partly because that's what my dad instilled in me and partly so I don't have to replce them as often.
Rob
A Leica M3 was created as a tool to take photographs, not as an object of lust to be dressed in a leather skirt and kissed goodnight each evening. When it is fondled and polished and protected from the tiniest scratch, it is no longer serving it's purpose. Believe it or not, Leitz did not start out making high priced collectible cameras. The Leica was created as a tool.
Nicely put, Sitemistic.
This, in a nutshell, is why Leica is in trouble today. This is why its users are compelled to retreat to ever more remote reaches of the internet.
The original Barnack Leica had functional advantages as a photographic tool that changed photography forever. The Leica M3 was the refinement of that idea. Those cameras were innovative and had an immediate, instinctive appeal to photographers. But not today. Today, Leica users gather like wine-tasters and compare the 'bokeh' of their lenses, their special paint finishes, and discuss the relative merits of each model like so many Trekkies trying to choose which Captain Kirk they like best.
Which is fine. That's what middle-aged men do, and it's harmless enough, within reason. But it's gone beyond reason to the point where it's quite honestly getting to be laughable. And it's going to kill the company. Unless their business is now making pretty, pricey collectible 'investments' that just happen to take pictures.
The purpose of a tool is to do a particular job and not get in the way. Once you've found a tool for the job you want to do that doesn't get in your way, you're there; any time spent discussing the finish of the tool or its place in history is a diversion from that job or a pastime for your 'golden' years.
The Barnack Leica of today, in spirit, is the Ricoh GR-D more than anything Leica produces. How about that: A Ricoh GR-D competitor from Leica with the functionality of the M? Is there any market for an interchangeable lens digital P&S? with analog manual controls? :D
bmattock
02-04-2008, 04:39
I think the people who object to the use of cameras as anything but a tool to get a particular job done are not really thinking things through.
Why do cars come in different colors? Why do we buy clothes in different styles, different colors, and so on? How many people NEED an SUV or 4-wheel-drive? What purpose on earth does a Hummel figurine or a Star Wars collectible plate have? Who ever needed a set of praying hands on top their telly? And somebody for God's sake explain the requirement for thousands of copies of that painting of dogs playing poker.
There is more than utility involved.
A camera is a tool, like a hammer. True enough.
But there are hammer collectors as well, who are not carpenters.
They are interested in the history of tools, perhaps.
Or they are intrigued by the multiplicity of types of hammers made, each for a different purpose.
And they find that it is a relatively inexpensive and enjoyable pastime, collecting these hammers.
Sometimes they find they like one type of hammer style more than others, and they find other people of like mind, and they form a little online community to talk about the type of hammer they like. Call it www.ballpeenhammerforum.com or something like that.
They might even go out and pound a nail now and again, and compare notes on how well their hammer did.
Silly?
Sure, if you choose to think of it that way.
But what harm does it do?
And more to the point - how is it any of your business to condemn them?
If you believe cameras are only hammers, each suited to a particular job and to be used only for that job - then do go forth and hammer away. And leave the camera-fondlers alone. They harm no one.
And remember when you get into your SUV wearing your clothes that are not just like everyone else's that everybody makes choices based on things that don't matter - like vanity and style and just plain personal taste. You don't make those kind of choices about cameras? Groovy. But you took to time to think what you'd wear today, or what kind of aftershave you like, or what color you wanted your car to be. We all do it.
So maybe judge a little less about camera fondlers.
As to Leica - if you think that Leica survives selling cameras to people who have a utilitarian use in mind for them, you may be wrong. My own opinion is that those who still use Leica cameras strictly as tools are in the minority, and frankly, that Leica cameras still exist because of the inveterate and well-heeled collectors who obsessively buy everything Leica makes. You should thank the Leica collectors.
And not to put to fine a point on it:
Which is fine. That's what middle-aged men do, and it's harmless enough, within reason. But it's gone beyond reason to the point where it's quite honestly getting to be laughable. And it's going to kill the company. Unless their business is now making pretty, pricey collectible 'investments' that just happen to take pictures.
Who decides what 'within reason' is, my friend? You?
I also collect wristwatches, vintage audio gear, and firearms. Would you care to come over to my house and tell me how much I can have, and how much is not 'within reason'? If I seem angry, it is because I've heard that crap before. "What do you need twenty watches for?" Because I want them, I can afford them, and they make me happy. NEXT QUESTION from a person whose business it isn't, please?
Does Stanley Tool Co. listen to the needs of the hammer collector market and tailor production to suit their fancy? Of course not. That's the rub here. Not that people collect Leicas, but that Leica collectors dictate current Leica production.
It's made the cameras irrelevant and it's killing the company on the installment plan.
Would you care to come over to my house and tell me how much I can have, and how much is not 'within reason'?
Collect away. I couldn't care less what you do in your own home. I just sent a Canon VI-T away to be CLA'd partly for sentimental reasons, myself. The "within reason" part only applies when you bring your hobby into daylight and drag the most storied name in camera making to their ruin.
bmattock
02-04-2008, 04:53
Does Stanley Tool Co. listen to the needs of the hammer collector market and tailor production to suit their fancy? Of course not.
If the 'collector market' were sizable enough, they'd be fools not to.
In the absence of that, they certainly do have a marketing team, and they do research into what makes a man reach for hammer brand A versus hammer brand B. And if they find it is shinier chrome, then they up the chrome. If it is a particular color handle, then they switch to that color handle. And so on.
It isn't all utilitarian - not even for hammers. Else they would all come in a white box with black letters that said "Hammer."
That's the rub here. Not that people collect Leicas, but that Leica collectors dictate current Leica production.
That statement doesn't make sense. If not that many collect Leicas, how do they dictate Leica production? If Leica listens to a tiny minority, then Leica is stupid. I don't think they are stupid.
It's made the cameras irrelevant and it's killing the company on the installment plan.
My opinion is that without collectors and fondlers of Leica, they'd have been gone a long time ago.
nikonhswebmaster
02-04-2008, 04:54
"Tool" is not a pejorative term.
In the sense Erik used it "tool" is.
"You are such a tool."
bmattock
02-04-2008, 05:04
Collect away. I couldn't care less what you do in your own home.
Oh, but you do. And by that, I mean not 'you' personally but the generic 'you' out there who feel you know how many cameras are 'reasonable' to own and how many are not. You've each got your own mental number - something that makes sense to you personally - anything beyond that is something you can't quite comprehend, and you're against it.
The world is full of people who don't smoke - and think no one else should be allowed to either. Aren't fat, and despise fat people. Drive a Brand A car and looks down on anyone who drives a Brand B car. And so on.
Very few people can keep their noses in their own business and out of other people's.
In recent months, I've endured lectures by a friend on why anyone would carry a camera now that she has a cell phone camera that takes 'perfectly good' pictures, and why I drive a foreign car when I'm killing America, and why I insist on wearing a different watch every day when a $30 Casio keeps better time, and people who get wrapped completely around the axle about the idea that I might own a couple of cameras for no other reason than I like them.
Even photographers ask why I'd take a photo of 'that' (whatever that is, usually something they would never consider photographing) or 'don't you have enough pictures of barns by now?'
None of the things I do affect anyone else's life, safety, checkbook, or morals. All my little foibles and problems and affectations are strictly my own. I hurt no one by collecting cameras, watches, or guns, or taking photos of barns or whatever I enjoy taking photographs of. I do it because I like it.
Until someone opens their yap to tell me how wrong I am for wanting to do that.
Then I get a trifle ticked off. And tired of it. I don't tell anyone else how to live, but there's a whole herd lined up waiting to tell me what's wrong with my life.
nikonhswebmaster
02-04-2008, 05:07
Does Stanley Tool Co. listen to the needs of the hammer collector market and tailor production to suit their fancy? Of course not. That's the rub here.
Bad choice of an example...
...that Leica collectors dictate current Leica production.
It's made the cameras irrelevant and it's killing the company on the installment plan.
You are a little behind the times. Hermes isn't in the driving seat anymore.
Regards,
Bill
To me cameras are not just tools to make photos, but also medication to keep me sane in that computerized nightmare which keeps me busy from Mondays to Fridays and sometimes even the weekends.
bmattock
02-04-2008, 05:35
To me cameras are not just tools to make photos, but also medication to keep me sane in that computerized nightmare which keeps me busy from Mondays to Fridays and sometimes even the weekends.
Amen, brother. As I write code all day, it is quite nice to occasionally hear my wristwatch going tick, tick, tick; and to know that it was made by a man now long dead, whose contribution continues. While the code I write will be useless in five years if not sooner, he (whomever that nameless craftsman was) built something that could quite well run for centuries, if maintained.
I do the awful things I must, then I retire for the day and admire a well-made camera. And that is wrong how, exactly?
Bad choice of an example...
No, Fred, it's an excellent example.
Is Stanley Tool Co's entire production capacity cranking out vintage levels? No, it isn't. They innovate; they put the goods on Home Depots' shelves that meet the current needs of builders and contractors. People who actually use the tools to work for a living.
Leica should do the same.
NickTrop
02-04-2008, 05:53
tool
n.
1. A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
2. The cutting part of such a machine.
3. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession: Words are the tools of our trade.
4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument: “Modern democracies have the fiscal and monetary tools . . . to end chronic slumps and galloping inflations” (Paul A. Samuelson)...
http://www.answers.com/topic/tool-4?cat=technology
"Tool" has many meanings. A camera certainly falls under category "3". As cited above, a "word" is clearly a tool and a "report" can be a tool. A "camera" it a "tool of the trade" of the photographer. This can be extended to amatuer.
No, Fred, it's an excellent example.
Is Stanley Tool Co's entire production capacity cranking out vintage levels? No, it isn't. They innovate; they put the goods on Home Depots' shelves that meet the current needs of builders and contractors. People who actually use the tools to work for a living.
Leica should do the same.
Leica does the same. You can innovate in a hammer only so much.
Leica does the same. You can innovate in a hammer only so much.
Really? Leica makes tools for professional use? How many photographers have nothing but a Leica M, film or digital, in their camera bags?
And, to continue the hammer analogy, do you opt not to make pneumatic nail guns out of a misguided nostalgia for hickory handles and ball peens?
bmattock
02-04-2008, 06:16
And, to continue the hammer analogy, do you opt not to make pneumatic nail guns out of a misguided nostalgia for hickory handles and ball peens?
If management thinks there is more money to be made competing for the dollars of the misguided hickory handle crowd than the pneumatic nail gun folk, then they will generally do so.
And other than making the pneumatic nail gunsters apoplectic with rage, I fail to see the downside here.
Rolex stopped making watches that filled a strictly time-keeping role a long time ago. They have discovered a niche that suits their capabilities nicely, and therefore why should they compete with Casio for timepieces?
Leica makes toys for the well-heeled, which are incidentally exquisitely well-made machines that are extremely well-suited for a particular type of photography. But if they had to depend upon those who purchase them strictly for their photographic capabilities, it is my opinion they would be gone.
Really? Leica makes tools for professional use? How many photographers have nothing but a Leica M, film or digital, in their camera bags?
And, to continue the hammer analogy, do you opt not to make pneumatic nail guns out of a misguided nostalgia for hickory handles and ball peens?
...and do you only have a hammer in your toolkit?
I can think of a number of tools that haven't changed in their basic design or shape for many years, because they are optimal for their intended use.
Regards,
Bill
Really? Leica makes tools for professional use?
What this have to do with hammers, or their features?
And there's only so much truly "pro cameras" exist at any given moment, those that either sold to professionals only (none now), or have pro support service associated. The rest of "pro" buzz is just marketing sticker-job, much like "turbo" in the 1980s.
But many more makes and models are actually used by professionals daily, including Leica M (and M8).
And, to continue the hammer analogy, do you opt not to make pneumatic nail guns out of a misguided nostalgia for hickory handles and ball peens?
They make and sell R system, if we continue this line of flawed analogies. Some of the most notable, professional to their chin folks (like Salgado) use them.
I like tools that I enjoy using.
Philipp
For me, I think that Nick's definition #4 works better; I see my cameras as
4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument:
But I still do not mean to ever use the term tool as a pejorative.
And I will not presume to tell anyone how they approach this hobby/craft/profession/obsession.
My dad who has been a serious amateur woodworker for a lot of years now owns a lot of tools. Do any of them have sentimental value or other emotional investment for him? I won't speak for him but I do remember that he once broke a screwdriver blade. And was pretty upset about it. Wanting to be helpful, I reminded him that the brand has a lifetime warranty--he could just take it to any store selling them and get a new one. The screw driver with the broken blade is still in the top drawer of his work bench; it was his dad's and he's not giving that tool up, useful or not.
My point here is that "tool" or "fetish" doesn't really matter to any one else but the owner. I like and own FSU cameras. I can rationalize them any number of ways but it really boils down to: I think they are (mostly) elegant little machines, a physical manifestation of a different culture than I know, and-honestly-no one else around me is using them.
As I have said before though, I'm not a working photographer so I have the luxury of choosing my tools based on my needs and not The Job's needs.
Rob
foto_fool
02-04-2008, 08:22
I have been involved in a number of trades over my life so far, professions that used tools. In not one of them were these tools of the trade ever dismissed as "well, its only a thing".
Walk into a kitchen and touch another cook's knives and you will see what I mean. Walk inito a fab shop and say out loud that Miller welders are for wussies and dilettantes and collectors, and real pros use Lincoln - just be prepared to run like hell. People researching the esoterica of the chemical reactions of life will spend hours over beer debating the merits of different DNA sequencers, mass spectrometers, HPLC's and on and on. Winemakers get together at international trade shows and argue the merits of this barrel over that, or press, or forklift.
I use a press that cost $60K, only does red wine, and only holds 4 tons. This is the perfect tool for my artisanal production. It makes no sense at all for other wineries. But a few years ago Mondavi decided they wanted to make wines in the same style, but on their scale. They built a new winery for something like $20MM that was designed around using just this same small, specialized tool.
The urge to collect is separate from the urnge to use tools with skill and pride. The two impulses can coexist in the same human without violating any rules or leading to the end of civilization.
photogdave
02-04-2008, 08:27
Really? Leica makes tools for professional use? How many photographers have nothing but a Leica M, film or digital, in their camera bags?
Any camera can be used for professional use. A great many members here are earning money with their M cameras.
back alley
02-04-2008, 08:32
man o man!
i said this was about the hobbyist, not the pro making his living with a camera. to a pro a camera is a tool, nuff said.
but as a hobbyist a tool is the last thing on my mind. i like the colour, shape, fit & feel of my gear. i like lenses that do the job in terms of enough sharpness for the pics i like to take.
and why the heck does a conversation like this always have to come down to a leica bashing session. ever notice how that happens and how the same few folks , the leica haters, seem always ready to form the attack line.
you guys are so friggen noticable and no one is willing to say stfu to you. hate does not belong on this site/forum, plain & simple. and if you can't keep it in your pants then go somewhere else! please.
i don't use leicas, but i have and could if i chose to, but i don't have a need to complain to everyone about those who do.
get over yourselves.
joe
bmattock
02-04-2008, 08:36
The urge to collect is separate from the urnge to use tools with skill and pride. The two impulses can coexist in the same human without violating any rules or leading to the end of civilization.
I totally agree. One can even cross those lines oneself - collecting cameras AND using them as tools from time to time.
Joe, your original post made me reflect a bit, I realized that I use my cameras as both a toy (as in object bringing me lots of enjoyment) and a tool. A camera becomes a tool for me when I really “get into” shooting something in particular and almost completely forget even what camera I am holding and can only think of composition and exposure. I am of course a total amateur and take picture mostly for fun but occasionally I get asked to shoot something for a friend or family etc and – if I like the “assignment” – I find I can get completely consumed by it, it is sooo much fun!
There is a jar on my desk with half a dozen #8 V&R design brushes in it, all that I have left from the 40 or so I bought when the company that made them went out of business, best tool for the job baring none, the odd thing is I’ve worked exclusively on computer now for almost 20 years, I suppose I’m covering myself in case there’s a power-cut
I don’t see why I shouldn’t be attached to the tools of my trade however,
shadowfox
02-04-2008, 09:40
Simply...
A camera is a tool designed to create pictures...
just sometimes the pictures are in our head... not on film or paper.
It works both ways.
...and why the heck does a conversation like this always have to come down to a leica bashing session. ever notice how that happens and how the same few folks , the leica haters, seem always ready to form the attack line.
The Leica haters? What are you talking about? I've owned/used/loved Leicas. I just hope they remain a going concern in the digital future. And, as I said, catering to collectors and people (me included) who appreciate "the finer things" isn't going to do that.
And to answer your question: Cameras ARE tools. Really.
literiter
02-04-2008, 10:24
man o man!
and why the heck does a conversation like this always have to come down to a leica bashing session. ever notice how that happens and how the same few folks , the leica haters, seem always ready to form the attack line.
joe
I have two Leicas. A M2 and a M4-P with some lenses. I am fond of these cameras for what they can produce as well as the fact that I've had them for quite a while.
There may in fact be "Leica haters", but we also have the "Leica evangelists" and a rather extreme group called "Enlightened Leica owners". "Enlightened Leica owners" just ask embarrasing questions of "Leica evangelists".
Enlightened Leica owners just realize Leicas are just darned nice tools and really deserve no special respect.
robert blu
02-04-2008, 10:25
tools ? for me and wife are part of the family !
rob
ok, I know it is a little excessive...
Joe Brugger
02-04-2008, 10:37
I remember as an apprentice motor mechanic I would always clean all my tools and make sure they were hanging back in my spotless tool cabinet before I could leave work. People would come over and look at my immaculate work area and shake their heads and walk off.
My cameras are just tools but I still take an immense amount of pride in them and gain a lot of pleasure from their mechanical precision. I still have to be happy with my own ability to take decent photos though ... as I needed to be confident that I was a competent mechanic! :)
I think that approach says a lot about attitude -- the shop that maintains my car is probably cleaner than my house and the technicians are extremely good at spotting potential problems and correcting them when they're cheap -- much the same way that a good photographer is prepared to make the most of a situation.
Pro gear is brassed and worn precisely because it is used. Most pros I have worked with over the years (there are some notable exceptions) aren't obsessive about their cameras but they are very careful that they are always in working condition.
ww2photog
02-04-2008, 10:55
I am not a Camera Collector, I use everything I own. But I treat my cameras with respect. Some would be shocked to find that I use original Civil War era cameras daily in my studio, anything else would not give the same results. I am careful with my Leica IIIb that that was once owned by a Nazi officer captured at Normandy, but I still shoot with it at WW2 reenactments. I own a 1965 Jaguar XKE that I take to get groceries or out for a drive when ever the mood strikes. I don't baby it, but I don't abuse it either. Many treat their cameras like many of the cars I see at shows, we call them trailer queens. There is nothing wrong with just collecting and displaying, but I feel that cameras like automobiles, are meant to be use. Those that put them on a pedestal are missing the enjoyment of using them, and the beautify of their performance and function. As one gets older and looks back on their life, they find Its the journey, not the destination, that is the most memorable.
bmattock
02-04-2008, 11:59
I am not a Camera Collector, I use everything I own. But I treat my cameras with respect. Some would be shocked to find that I use original Civil War era cameras daily in my studio, anything else would not give the same results. I am careful with my Leica IIIb that that was once owned by a Nazi officer captured at Normandy, but I still shoot with it at WW2 reenactments. I own a 1965 Jaguar XKE that I take to get groceries or out for a drive when ever the mood strikes. I don't baby it, but I don't abuse it either. Many treat their cameras like many of the cars I see at shows, we call them trailer queens. There is nothing wrong with just collecting and displaying, but I feel that cameras like automobiles, are meant to be use. Those that put them on a pedestal are missing the enjoyment of using them, and the beautify of their performance and function. As one gets older and looks back on their life, they find Its the journey, not the destination, that is the most memorable.
These arguments rage eternally. Hot Rod collectors not only complain about trailer queens, they also bitch and moan mightily about those who restore themselves versus just writing a check to have Boyd Coddington do the work.
It doesn't matter. If it is your money, your car, do what you want with it. If you enjoy what you are doing and what you have, nothing else matters, nor does anyone's opinion of it.
If I buy a camera because I like the way it looks, or if I admire it for how well it was made, and I choose to put it on a shelf and never use it to avoid damage - so what? Who cares? How is it anyone else's business?
People used to complain about collectors taking cameras out of circulation, so they could not be used by enthusiasts. I think that is hardly the issue anymore - thousands and thousands of cameras are being dumped on eBay and so on.
Let people do what they want with their cameras. Fondle - fine. Admire - groovy. Use for work - excellent. Bang it up - cool. Protect it while using it - great. I really fail to understand why ANYONE thinks they have a right to dictate how another should care for or use their own property. If it doesn't float your personal boat, then don't do it. But don't criticize those who do.
I really fail to understand why ANYONE thinks they have a right to dictate how another should care for or use their own property.
You've made that clear. But nobody here's saying anything about it. You can decorate the bottom of your fishtank with mint black Nikon SP's for all I care. :)
What I DO care about is that Leica isn't taking chances or innovating here in the digital age, the most exciting time in photography most of us will ever see.
foto_fool
02-04-2008, 13:17
and why the heck does a conversation like this always have to come down to a leica bashing session. ever notice how that happens and how the same few folks , the leica haters, seem always ready to form the attack line.
Having a rough day, Joe?
The way I read Joe's original post, he set up the hobbyist/pro dichotomy. The evolution of the thread has introduced the collector/user split. I'm not seeing any direct Leica "bashing" by "Leica haters" here.
Sure there are some posters who seem compelled in every thread to express the same mantra of personal disdain for Leica evangelists - though not for the gear itself. I'm pretty sure it is not actually the average Leica-phile that the disdainers are railing against - more those Leica users who feel that a particular bit of red-dot branded gear gives them a special edge compared to other gear :rolleyes:. It does seem that this particular sort of scorn frequently gets conflated with a more general (and IMO, unwarranted) scorn for collectors or "fondlers".
Joe makes a good point that it would be better if these posters adopted bmattock's "live-and-let-live" approach - at least I personally would not miss seeing this divisive attitude expressed over and over.
As I wrote above, I think every one of us resides somewhere on several spectra of behavior simultaneously: user, collector, Leica/Zeiss/Canon/Nikon/etc. and on and on. And I agree with bmattock that each of us is entitled to our own equilibrium, without having to be subjected to the slings and arrows of those who don't share the same exact space. Why this should cause cognitive dissonance in some is a mystery to me.
Roger Hicks
02-04-2008, 13:18
You've made that clear. But nobody here's saying anything about it. You can decorate the bottom of your fishtank with mint black Nikon SP's for all I care. :)
What I DO care about is that Leica isn't taking chances or innovating here in the digital age, the most exciting time in photography most of us will ever see.
Yeah...
And bicycle makers are SO predictable, sticking with lightweight, two-wheeled, human-powered vehicles. Where are the 3-wheeler, 2-tonne, nuclear powered models?
What do you actually WANT Leica to do? Because I'll bet you that 90%+ of their customers -- the people who keep Leica in business by actually buying their cameras, instread of vapouring on the internet -- want, well... M-series Leicas.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
02-04-2008, 13:20
I see lots of guys in their 50's and 60's sporting beards and ponytails, riding new Harleys or restored Indians, all the things they wanted to do or own when they were 20 but either couldn't afford or Momma wouldn't let them.
I see plenty of young guys in their teens and 20's who pay big bucks to look cool in jeans almost bleached white and worn through at the knees, perhaps a rip or two someplace, and cuffs frayed up past the hem. Maybe in another 40 years they'll be the ones searching out that brassed and dented Leica M2 or old Nikon F with half the black paint gone.
Or maybe there'll be a low labor cost place, like India is today, but instead of laboriously trashing perfectly good jeans they'll be working on all of the suddenly worthless but still pristine Leicas, bought for pennies on the dollar from the widows of all those collectors we have now. Dings, dents, and brass rules!
sepiareverb
02-04-2008, 13:28
...An Ego-Boosting tool...
Now this brings an image to mind eh?:D
Roger Hicks
02-04-2008, 13:40
I see lots of guys in their 50's and 60's sporting beards and ponytails, riding new Harleys or restored Indians, all the things they wanted to do or own when they were 20 but either couldn't afford or Momma wouldn't let them.
I see plenty of young guys in their teens and 20's who pay big bucks to look cool in jeans almost bleached white and worn through at the knees, perhaps a rip or two someplace, and cuffs frayed up past the hem.
Maybe a recession won't be all bad for weeding out the financially overprivileged. And perhaps the mummy's boys.
Since the 60s I've ridden bikes, broken in my own Levis and had a beard (in that order).
Cheers,
R.
What do you actually WANT Leica to do?
At the risk of repeating myself:
1. A digital Leica "CL."
2. A Leica competitor to the Ricoh GR-D. Full analog manual controls. Small format digicams are, in spirit, the 'Barnack Leica' of today.
3. Make the M8 a true "pro-quality," no-excuses digital camera, and not a toy that a photographer keeps for "personal use." Dual card slots and weather sealing would be a good start. A dedicated ISO dial would be even better. If you could pack it in your bag and not bring a C-A-N-O-N to back you up, then it'd be worth $5,000.
Because I'll bet you that 90%+ of their customers -- the people who keep Leica in business by actually buying their cameras...want, well... M-series Leicas.
Self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep asking the same people the same question and you'll get the same answer. Until those people die off.
The Leica M was the best RF of the film age, but the film age is over.
I only have my Leicas to look at. It's comforting to look at my own reflection in the shiny, black paint of my MP. I have recently constructed an altar to Leica. It's located in a secret room in my house, and no common "photographer" is ever allowed to lay his eyes upon this sacred place. :angel:
I will NEVER lower my sacred Leicas to such common labor as "taking a picture"! :cool:
back alley
02-04-2008, 14:16
What I DO care about is that Leica isn't taking chances or innovating here in the digital age, the most exciting time in photography most of us will ever see.
kevin, how does this fit re. my original post and why does it seem to pop up in so many of your posts, regardless of the topic?
joe
literiter
02-04-2008, 14:24
1. A digital Leica "CL."
-OK sure.
[/quote]
2. A Leica competitor to the Ricoh GR-D. Full analog manual controls. Small format digicams are, in spirit, the 'Barnack Leica' of today.
[/quote]
-OK again!
[/quote]
3. Make the M8 a true "pro-quality," no-excuses digital camera, and not a toy that a photographer keeps for "personal use." Dual card slots and weather sealing would be a good start. A dedicated ISO dial would be even better. If you could pack it in your bag and not bring a C-A-N-O-N to back you up, then it'd be worth $5,000.
[/quote]
-Right on! I'd even add that since Leitz was once an innovator, why not once again? A digital "M" seems a little redundant now.
[/quote]
The Leica M was the best RF of the film age, but the film age is over.
[/quote]
-I hope there is still a little room for film in this old world and I'd like to think a few more film cameras will roll off the assembly line, but if not try to build a digital camera that will be looked upon in the future as a real innovation.
how does this fit re. my original post
You asked if cameras are tools, right? The thread wandered, as threads seem to do, but the rest seemed to follow from that.
Playing devil's advocate now:
How about that GR-D competitor has interchangeable lenses? Small, like the Kern-Switar lenses for the Bolex film cameras, with their coin-sized lens caps! :D
back alley
02-04-2008, 14:31
Having a rough day, Joe?
The way I read Joe's original post, he set up the hobbyist/pro dichotomy. The evolution of the thread has introduced the collector/user split. I'm not seeing any direct Leica "bashing" by "Leica haters" here.
Sure there are some posters who seem compelled in every thread to express the same mantra of personal disdain for Leica evangelists - though not for the gear itself. I'm pretty sure it is not actually the average Leica-phile that the disdainers are railing against - more those Leica users who feel that a particular bit of red-dot branded gear gives them a special edge compared to other gear :rolleyes:. It does seem that this particular sort of scorn frequently gets conflated with a more general (and IMO, unwarranted) scorn for collectors or "fondlers".
Joe makes a good point that it would be better if these posters adopted bmattock's "live-and-let-live" approach - at least I personally would not miss seeing this divisive attitude expressed over and over.
As I wrote above, I think every one of us resides somewhere on several spectra of behavior simultaneously: user, collector, Leica/Zeiss/Canon/Nikon/etc. and on and on. And I agree with bmattock that each of us is entitled to our own equilibrium, without having to be subjected to the slings and arrows of those who don't share the same exact space. Why this should cause cognitive dissonance in some is a mystery to me.
no rough day, just get a little hot under the collar when the converstion gets twisted back to leica and what they do or don't do.
i was talking about pros using tools and hobbyists using cameras to have fun with. and how the hobbyist can get caught in the trap of thinking like a pro while not being a pro, fer instance...the sharpest lens, wide open, the build quality of a camera body...for a pro the perspective would be different than for me.
i would be some pissed off if my camera dies while shooting, but i wouldn't be losing any money because of it. (maybe repair costs)
i honestly don't see a great distinction but i do see a distinction.
business vs. pleasure
joe
Man do you sound like a Canon fan, infected with the silly "L" marketing thing... Which is best and why and so on.
Leica is just a way of life, IMO. No need to compare it with nothing.
Erik, how was your photography class?
Its next month :)
Aaaah! Can't wait to read about it!
This is how I see it,
It's like trying to tell a session guitar player that his worn out 60's strat, vintage 335 and impeccable custom shop Les Paul are all just tools. I mean, that's his job right? to make music with those tools?
Those aren't just tools :)
Hey Bill!! (Mattock) and Al! Glad to see you fellows posting again! Your inputs/observations are always excellent.
Bill--what kind of watches do you collect? I collected--for a while--23j RR pocket watches, Neat critters! Old Lionel trains aren't toys anymore, either...
Al--thanks for your observations borne of many years ecperience.
Leica camera CAN make pictures and they CAN be admired for their mechanical precision--I don't see the conflict.
You wanna collect something and have the bux--why not??
Thanks to all...
ddutchison
02-04-2008, 15:58
Does Stanley Tool Co. listen to the needs of the hammer collector market and tailor production to suit their fancy? Of course not. ...
Well maybe not Stanley, but how about a superior manufacturer like Estwing (http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=32054&cat=1,53193&ap=1) (...Mmmm, leather handles!). There is no functional reason why these hammers have to look so good, nothing useful to be gained by mirror-polishing them, and almost certainly, there are better synthetic materials available for the handle (though of course, they won't display a patina with long use the way leather will).
Infact Estwing also uses blue polyurethane for handles, but continues to produce this line as well... for the traditionalist. This is the Leica MP of hammers.
And check out the florid prose in this description of a common saw (http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=57152&cat=1,42884), again, a very Leica-like emotional appeal to values of professionalism and tradition, and the craftsmanship of the tool maker - all being used used to sell a saw.
Sure, a camera is just a tool, but tools are a very special catagory of object, and are venerated accordingly. For starters, the ability to make and use them is one thing that separates us from almost every other animal on the planet (crows and some apes being the exception).
They also extend our powers, and permit us to do things that would be otherwise impossible or even unimaginable. Ages ago we relied on shamans and talismans to do this, today we rely on tools and the people who make them - in other words tools perform the same function as magic once did, and are therefore appreciated for more than their mere capabilities.
bmattock
02-04-2008, 16:02
Bill--what kind of watches do you collect? I collected--for a while--23j RR pocket watches, Neat critters! Old Lionel trains aren't toys anymore, either...
I collect (or did, leaving me with a substantial collection still) 1940's and 1950's era men's mechanical American-made wristwatches. Lot of Hamiltons, Elgins, Gruens, and so on. I have some modern watches (mechanical) made in Switzerland and Germany. Nothing too expensive - as usual, I like to collect but I keep it cheap. I have only a couple of pocket watches - including my grandfather's Elgin made in 1903. It keeps very good time.
Lionel you say?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157601890292493/
And HO as well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157603352049060/
I'm not into model trains, but I do like them. I'm more of a big antique train guy, but wife says no can bring home.
This is how I see it,
It's like trying to tell a session guitar player that his worn out 60's strat, vintage 335 and impeccable custom shop Les Paul are all just tools. I mean, that's his job right? to make music with those tools?
Those aren't just tools
I've been thinking along this same line today. I read the posts yesterday, and the analogy of the hammer just didn't seem to fit. To me, the camera is analogous to a musical instrument. Think, as cmogi10 did, of various electric guitars. My Rick 330 feels (and sounds) different than my old beat up G&L.
bmattock
02-04-2008, 16:09
What I DO care about is that Leica isn't taking chances or innovating here in the digital age, the most exciting time in photography most of us will ever see.
Yes, and you've made clear that you believe collectors are responsible for that. I find that line of reasoning illogical, so we have to disagree on that, it seems.
I'm neither a fan, nor a detractor, of Leica. They're fine instruments - I'd love to have one someday. I do believe they are kept alive primarily by their well-heeled collector/fans, and they'd be bankrupt otherwise.
They don't change quickly because they don't change quickly - that's their culture, cachet, and raison d'etre. While this can be charming and has certainly given them long-term appeal and a niche market, it also can work to their detriment. They did it with their too-little-too-late SLRs and now they are doing it again with their digital offerings.
Again - I'm not for 'em nor agin 'em. Wish them well. Hope to see them survive. But I do not for a moment believe they are kept afloat by the purchases of professional photographers.
HCB and Winogrand have left the building.
Bill--OMG! You are Mr Trainland??!!!???
Now I AM impressed---
I've read about this--neat!!
bmattock
02-04-2008, 16:24
Bill--OMG! You are Mr Trainland??!!!???
Now I AM impressed---
I've read about this--neat!!
I just stopped and took photos! Happened to be on my way back from my nephew's wedding in West Des Moines, IA and saw it on I-80. I never say no to a train museum.
Phew!
Glad you cleared that up==
I was packing my car--ready for a visit!
Keep collecting--!!!
landsknechte
02-04-2008, 17:51
The people that voice the loudest disdain for the collectors are just as pretentious as those that claim that only those that use / don't use such-and-such photographic technology are true photographers. Quite frankly, it reeks of the romantic myth of the starving artist.
Do I agree with all the collectors? No. Personally, I think that collecting most anything that's intentionally created to be a collector's item is rather silly. That's just me though.
Do I use all of my cameras? Nope. Some of them are historically interesting, but ultimately crappy "tools". Some of them are uselessly obsolete. Yep, I bought a few of them because they're just plain pretty. I'll admit that gleefully. Is there any other reason to buy a Beau Brownie versus a plain black box camera that costs all of 50 cents at the flea market?
Are cameras tools? Sure. Are they just tools? Depends on how you look at tools.
foto_fool
02-04-2008, 18:44
...the romantic myth of the starving artist.
I have a friend living out near Bodega who is a photo artist. Mostly he shoots color stuff through very long lenses on a Pentax 67, scans, and makes large format gicleee prints on interesting media - silk lately. He crafts his own frames for his works from exotic hardwood, and sells enough to stay housed and fed.
His next project involved a BMW 650 (one lung 2-wheeler), a Leica R9 with the digital back, some fast lenses, hummingbird feeders, and maps of back roads through Central American rain forests. Some of his early works in this line have been stunning.
I have not heard from him in a while. I hope he hasn't starved, or worse. But... what a romantic end :rolleyes:.
nextreme
02-04-2008, 19:19
This is how I see it,
It's like trying to tell a session guitar player that his worn out 60's strat, vintage 335 and impeccable custom shop Les Paul are all just tools. I mean, that's his job right? to make music with those tools?
Those aren't just tools :)
Right on !
It's really not a big stretch to believe that we are able to produce items that yes, technically they are "tools", but because of the care, design, engineering put into producing it, elevates it to something more.
And if we're talking about hammers, I know a few pro's that will only hammer in a nail with their own hammer, no one else's.
Actually, I don't Leica was ever kept afloat by the purchases of professional photographers. Anybody who's seen their ads dating back to the 1920s & '30s can see that the main market back then was the same as it is today: well-heeled, "advanced" amateurs. The same was even more true of their main prewar rival, Zeiss Ikon & the Contax RF. Pro photogs & the advanced amateurs who emulate them serve the same purpose for camera manufacturers that racing does for auto makers: prestige, marketing, &, lastly, a testbed for new technologies. Pros & advanced amateurs don't make up to a significant market by themselves, though together there are enough of them to sustain a small company like Leica (in contrast, Zeiss Ikon sold to the broader market, too, w/a much wider variety of cameras in different formats). This is basically true today of almost every camera maker I can think of. Nikon makes most of their money selling point & shoots, not D3s & D300s. Heck, isn't Canon mostly a copier & printer company that happens to sell some cameras on the side?
The way I see it, after the market to shifted decisively to SLRs in 1959, Leica was forced to make a virtue out of a bad situation & specialize in RFs. And, yes, I would agree that collectors & RF diehards kept the company going for the past few decades. So I'm glad to see Leica offering a digital body @ all & bought 1 of the 1st M8s. However, barring an alliance w/a much bigger optical/electronic company, I can't see them competing in a serious way for the pro camera market any more than I expect to see Morgan sponsoring a Formula 1 team.
Again - I'm not for 'em nor agin 'em. Wish them well. Hope to see them survive. But I do not for a moment believe they are kept afloat by the purchases of professional photographers.
HCB and Winogrand have left the building.
nextreme
02-04-2008, 19:51
Yes, that states the obvious. It also doesn't change the fact that people can regard objects beyond the simplistic intention of it.
"We shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us"
-- Marshal McLuhan
myoptic3
02-04-2008, 21:12
I would guess that the pros throw their gear around because someone else's money paid for it. It's different when you have to dig into your own pocket to buy or repair things. For sure cameras are tools, but they are also wonderfully engineered possessions (Spotmatics excepted) that are fun to use. For a lot of us, the whole thing is Escheresque .....cameras used to take pictures of other cameras. Or wierder still, people w/ cameras taking pictures of people w/ cameras who are sometimes taking pictures of people. Now I'm dizzy. Perhaps I should go take a picture.
myoptic3
02-04-2008, 21:19
I can't wait to scoop the guys at grandprix.com w/ the new Morgan Formula One car rumor! If a soft drink maker of stimulant drinks can sponsor a race car, I wouldn't be that surprised to see a Morgan sponsorship. How about a Morgan Nascar deal?
Things changed when people earning money from photography changed to image taking (digital). With digital both, the image taking device and image processing software are of same importance, the "digital"- camera became just one part in the chain of tools for image-producing.
In former times, using cameras without any kind of automation, the photographer needed more skills to take a photo, thus the camera was more the basic and important tool to "get the shot". Today's auto-everything-featured cameras with a high fps makes it easier to get at least one usable shot, which than can be polished up using photoshop or other software. With the old-style full-manual camera, the latitude in wet-darkroom post-processing was much smaller, thus the raw-material (correct exposed film) had to be of better quality. So cameras are still tools but their role in the complete imaga-taking-chain has changed, IMHO.
Roger Hicks
02-05-2008, 02:17
At the risk of repeating myself:
1. A digital Leica "CL."
2. A Leica competitor to the Ricoh GR-D. Full analog manual controls. Small format digicams are, in spirit, the 'Barnack Leica' of today.
3. Make the M8 a true "pro-quality," no-excuses digital camera, and not a toy that a photographer keeps for "personal use." Dual card slots and weather sealing would be a good start. A dedicated ISO dial would be even better. If you could pack it in your bag and not bring a C-A-N-O-N to back you up, then it'd be worth $5,000.
The Leica M was the best RF of the film age, but the film age is over.
And you're willing to fund this?
If not, where is Leica going to get the money?
As for 'the film age is over', well, yes, of course: no-one rides horses any more, either, and television has made radio completely obsolete.
Cheers,
R.
It strikes me that if your purpose in owning cameras is simply to take photographs, then whether you're a pro or a hobbyist, your cameras are a tool. Having said that, collecting is a perfectly legitimate reason to own cameras and photographic equipment, in which case they become slightly more than a tool. A lot of hobbyists - as well as some pros - sit somewhere in the middle: they both take pictures and collect cameras for their own sake.
Most of my cameras fall into the 'tool' category but I do own a few - my OM1 and my father's Zeiss Ikon folder, for example - which have sentimental value for one reason or another and so, to me, are more than tools.
nextreme
02-05-2008, 03:35
Please show us the standards body that has proclaimed the minimum number of photos that must be taken per year to call yourself a photographer.
Cameras can be more than tools. In the right person's hands.
Cameras can be more than tools. In the right person's hands.
I don't really buy that. Michelangelo's hammer and chisel and Monet's paintbrush remained tools despite what they produced.
I agree. And I think the steadily improving capability of video cameras + the change in media venues is blurring the line between photography & videography, @ least in fields like journalism, etc.
Things changed when people earning money from photography changed to image taking (digital). With digital both, the image taking device and image processing software are of same importance, the "digital"- camera became just one part in the chain of tools for image-producing.
A wood-framed F1 or NASCAR car would be something to see.
I can't wait to scoop the guys at grandprix.com w/ the new Morgan Formula One car rumor! If a soft drink maker of stimulant drinks can sponsor a race car, I wouldn't be that surprised to see a Morgan sponsorship. How about a Morgan Nascar deal?
Cameras can be more than tools. In the right person's hands.
If it takes "the right person's hands" to make a camera more than a tool, it stands to reason that the person is more important than the camera.
Sitemistic: "But if you are going to call yourself a photographer, the definition requires that your primary goal in owning a camera is in actually taking photos."
Bah! Humbug! I call your bluff--!!!
Attend a wedding where there are 2 disposables on every table.
Watch the folks snapping away and then leaving the cameras for the bride/groom to develop the pix==and see some great photography afterwards! Several people at each wedding will have "the eye"--photographers? Yep! Own a camera? Maybe...maybe not--but the photos make the "photographer"..camera owner or not.
Al Kaplan
02-05-2008, 15:07
Making a decent living as a photographer doesn't require the skill to always get great pictures. It does require the skill to always come up with decent useable pictures.
In the Pop Photo forums, I always put a short line of dashes, then end with "It's not the camera, stupid, it's the EYE".
We couldn't take pictures without cameras, but there is always the fact that what we see and take pictures of is (most of the time, I hope) something that we are either attracted to or want to preserve some form of memory of.
I too treasure my cameras, try to take good care of them, and I've never in many decades parted with one I owned. Which means that some of them I don't use much any more. But I still believe that we are sort of frustrated artists, too. So maybe this discussion is a bit like the chicken and the egg - which side do you want to put your faith in.
A Stradivarius is a priceless violin. But it can't make music sitting in a case on a table. It takes the talent of someone trained to play it. Ditto a Steinway piano. They are a means to an end, but the end can't be reached without the intervention of someone willing learn to use it. Same with a camera.
nextreme
02-05-2008, 16:06
I don't really buy that. Michelangelo's hammer and chisel and Monet's paintbrush remained tools despite what they produced.
We would have to ask them if they regard their tools as just that, or if they are not revered for the qualities that they possess.
nextreme
02-05-2008, 16:26
Guys, my point was simply that at certain times, certain objects are regarded with a higher esteem than the their most simplistic definition. The question was not "do you buy your cameras to collect or to shoot with". If you regard your camera as a tool, then does that not make a disposable point and shoot it's equivalent ?
nextreme
02-05-2008, 17:21
Hmm. I think we need another thread:
Are leica collectors tools ?
;)
Al Kaplan
02-05-2008, 17:37
Not in the least! Different cameras are tools for different things. A 4X5 monorail view camera can do things an SLR can't do, and vice versa. Don't give me the modern cop out "I can fix it in P-shop!" Some lenses give fantastic bokeh, others don't. Some render colors better than others, or are better for infra red photography. You pick the tool for the job. Yes, you can hammer nails with a jack plane or tighten screws with wood chisel. Hell, they even make different hammers for different things: tack hammer, carpenter's hammer, framimg hammer, one handed sledge, two handed sledge, and if an old timer catches you using a hammer on a chisel? Watch out! That's why they make mallets.
If you regard your camera as a tool, then does that not make a disposable point and shoot it's equivalent ?
Sure. If it gets the job done.
Mitch Alland gets better results with a Ricoh GR-D than most people, myself included, get out of their M camera.
nextreme
02-05-2008, 17:47
Sure. If it gets the job done.
Mitch Alland gets better results with a Ricoh GR-D than most people, myself included, get out of their M camera.
Then why own a Leica ?
Al Kaplan
02-05-2008, 18:00
A pro or serious amateur doesn't obsess. He knows which tool is required for the task at hand, picks it up, and uses it. You don't need to own every tool ever made.
I don't look at my cameras as tools. Being a hobbyist I tend to look at my cameras as companions. I don't talk to them, at least not yet.:D Companions, because I tend to carry one with me every time I leave the house. I guess you could say there big boys toys! Some of you guys that call your cameras tools really treat them like children. You wipe them like a child and some of you even go so far as to dress them like a child. As in $160.00 or more expensive leather.:eek: Not saying that's a bad thing.;) But tools?:rolleyes:
I don't look at my cameras as tools. Being a hobbyist I tend to look at my cameras as companions. I don't talk to them, at least not yet.:D
You don`t talk to them ?? :eek::eek::eek::eek: ;):angel:
You don`t talk to them ?? :eek::eek::eek::eek: ;):angel:
I sing to mine. We make beautiful Music together. :D
'Cause, for some of us @ least, it's more fun to use (as well as being more versatile).
Then why own a Leica ?
gnashings
02-06-2008, 14:55
It is the cool thing to say. I don't see too many musicians calling their instruments tools - even if their day job is to record a McDonalds jingle. But among photographers, it just somehow developed into the "I could care less" statement of true photographic cool.
Someone said that a camera (or was it a Leica of some sort.. isn`t it always) is just a tool, not something to be dressed up. Well, I was made to eat, ****, reproduce and die. But I sure am glad there is more to life...
Cameras and guitars are good comparisons. True, most musicians do not call their guitars tools but they are. Eric Clapton can pick up any guitar and make it sing. The magic is in him, not the guitar.
If you or I play a $5 ebay beater or a $5000 Martin, our talent does not change. The tone and playability will be different but the talent remains the same.
Buying a $5 ebay beat camera or a $5000 camera do not change my talent / eye / approach to photography. One may be easier to use or look better but what I bring... That's what counts.
They are all tools when it comes down to it. Some photographers or musicians would like to think that they will be better if they buy a certain camera or guitar. The tool does now improve the talent just by showing up. A good tool can help you improve your skills - with work. But a bad tool can also help you improve skills - with work. And just because you are not a professional doesn't mean it is not a tool.
Steve
williams473
02-06-2008, 16:26
I don't know that it matters that much - how we perceive our cameras is part of what makes us individuals, so if someone does or doesn't consider it a tool doesn't have to be absolutely right or wrong.
For me, the camera is a tool I use to make negatives, just like the developing tanks, enlarger and/or scanner is a tool to get to the print. One thing is true - without SOME sort of tool, whether it is a camera obscurra or a rangefinder, there is no photo.
Al Kaplan
02-06-2008, 16:27
Yes, there's some truth to that. I used to hear people say that the lousier your negatives are the better the printer you'll become
To my mind, Al, a good photographer is one who takes decent pictures and does his (or her) own printing. When I got into the game, camera work and enlarger work were both parts of the same whole. I believe that is true of you as well.
Al Kaplan
02-07-2008, 05:44
Payasam,
After about 6 months in photography (that would be the end of 1962) I bought a Durst R-305 enlarger and my Dad bought me a 50mm f/2.8 El Nikor after using a friend's darkroom for awhile. Three years later I upgraded to an Omega B-22 XL enlarger. I still have and use the El Nikkor and Omega along with the safelight, Nikor tank and reels, and 8 X 10 trays I bought back then. I've added to it over the years, mostly with used stuff.
Sometimes I honestly get the feeling that I don't have to know how to print anymore. It's like I'm being guided through the process by friendly spirits residing my darkroom. It's become as automatic as that big Fuji machine at the Walgreens one hour lab. It has a sensor that chooses color balance and exposure. I have one that chooses contrast and exposure. My hands shape themselves to throw some pretty complex shadow patterns for burning and dodging but they know how to get in the correct position to make the proper shadow patterns, and for how long. The timer stays put at 10 seconds. If I need less exposure I "dodge" the entire image for a few seconds. If it needs more I use the on-off switch for a few seconds. I've been meaning to add a foot switch for forty years. That extra might be through a higher or lower contrast filter, and I often burn in through different filters for high lights and shadows. But ask me what I'm doing? I'm mostly unaware of doing it.
Yes, Mukul, in the darkroom the equipment, myself, and the spirits are all part of a unified whole. There's a harmony at work.
gnashings
02-07-2008, 09:47
I really don't think that seeing your cameras as more than just tools equates to being a gear-obsessed status junkie. I don't think any of my cameras could be seen as "status" gear - most of you guys wouldn't use my kit for a door-stop if you hads the choice - but they are all instruments to me, for one reason or another they all make me feel a certain way and I am _sure_ they influence the photos I take with their personality. Its not a matter of wether or not they are higher quality - I could care less, I am well aware of the limitations and strong suites of all my gear - its a case of getting a vibe, a feel, from each speicific camera or lens. Also, because they are mostly really old, and all of them second hand, I think they are fellow travellers with stories to tell and I enjoy their company, each in their own way.
And no, I don't think Eric Clapton would ever refer to any of his guitars as a "tool", and most musicians I know (and I know a few) would be offended at the suggestion. To most, its not a case of better guitar=better music mentality, but they have a great deal of intangibles that makes them very, very partial to certain instruments over others. I don't pretend to know Clapton, but I would suggest that he would be much the same. Actually, he describes the time when he was at his lowest, selling guitars to feed his habits, as one of the darkest times of his life - and from the interviews I have read, it certainly didn't seem like he was selling hammers.
I think this kind of discussion is really fuelled by the unique nature of photography. You can take a camera to a store and photograph a toilet plunger for the purposes of showing it to your better half for approval. Meanwhile, what the greats do with a camera is the furthest thing from this kind of mundane application. No one brings a guitar to hardware store, comes home and when asked about which plunger he bought answers with "I can't quite describe it, but if it was a song, it would look like....ths: *strummmmmm*"
Personally, I would venture that in my case, in a combo comprised of myself and a camera/lnes, the tool is most often behind the viewfinder:) And I stand by my initial assessment.
Spider67
02-07-2008, 10:15
I once asked "Toy or tool" meaning not the camera in itself but the choice some of you would make when you need a camera to have the job done and which you would take when you just wanted to enjoy a certain way of taking photographs.
Tools: Nikon FM, Bessa R, Retina IIc, 35 RC, Kiev 5
Toys: Most of my FSU's, Kodak Brownie, Pentax auto 110
Strange: Musicians can talk for hours about the wondrous properties (their) Stardivaris or Amatis but photogs talking about their equipment are weird gearheads.
Will ever anybody ask a musician or tennis pro why he has several rackets or guitars whereas it's what do you dowith all those things (Ancient egyptians will understand me I've just chosen a lovely spot for my cursed grave and chosen the Cameras that will follow me to the afterlife....)
Yes bmattock I understand the group of people who are firmly tugging your's and each collectors nerve: Those who have a firm concept how things should be and who only can answer the question why it has to be like that by answering " that's the way things have to be"
Of course there are limits collecting like Collecting so many classic cars that your company goes broke and workers from your company seize your collection in order to pay the company's debts (happened in France) or trophies of serial killers.
But otherwise....live and let live...and don't ask collectors rethoric questions that are meant to boost your appeal. How would it be if intsead of a rethoric question modest noncollectors would state "Look at me I don't collect anything, this amkes me sane, normal and likeable" Well I would like to see the reaction of anyone listening.....
Gabriel M.A.
02-07-2008, 10:30
can you imagine a website that might have a thread called 'turntable porn'?
No need: It's already on the cover of lots of LPs, specially if it's a compilation by a sports car dealership :)
BigSteveG
02-07-2008, 11:00
There seems to be an underlying attitude that collectors do not take photos or use the cameras and if they do, for some reason, the skill is low. It's funny, but the more I think about it this issue my collecting nature has always been intertewined w/ my hobbyist or artistic leanings. As a kid, I collected comic books and books in general ( still collect books also). Early in school and throught college I wrote for school magazines, creative courses and campus newspapers. I wrote well and even won a few little awards. As teen and well into my 30's I collected LP's, 45's and 78's. At that time I learned how to play a little guitar and joined garage bands. I played relatively well and others seemed to enjoy listening. I have a few "collectable" cameras. An M2 (a very nice user), a Yashica Lynx 14 (definitely collectable), a new MP purchased 1 1/2 years ago ( I don't if that's considered collectable), and couple of TLR's (very collectable) which I don't really enjoy using and more than likely sell for something I do enjoy using. I have set up a traditional wet darkroom which I am currently refining. I don't really shoot enough to save money in comparison to using a pro lab. I do it because I enjoy it. I also enjoy going on photo workshops in places other than where I live. I do consider myself a collector of prints and of photo books. I think it really doesn't matter if a person does "collect". The truth is I am a middle aged man w/ more discretionary income than I really need. So I indulge in my "hobby". That includes a little collecting here and there. That includes a little camera fondling. And that also includes a nice shot once in a while too.
bottley1
02-07-2008, 11:56
The way some people on this forum elegise about their cameras, they are most definitely NOT tools, more like ethereal metaphysical fluffy things made from manna from heaven that would get blown away with a gentle summer breeze—especially when they are using them to capture the essence of fleeting moments of their (decisive) vision…..
There seems to be an underlying attitude that collectors do not take photos or use the cameras and if they do, for some reason, the skill is low.
It's worse than this:
you (not you, Steve ...) belong to a minority that over a few years was able to afford over, say US 10k of equipment, including various brands of cameras and lenses, several Leicas, ZIs, various digital and film equipment, possibly an M8.
then you mature to becoming a serious photographer; from now on, cameras are just "tools" for you, whatever that means ... Of course, you shoot "street", because that's what one does with RFs.
after this graduation, your current "tools" of choice are simply the best, and all other equipment options are "for collectors/display only". This is also the right time to start some
Leica bashing, BTW.
all this on a Forum owned and sponsored by camera retailers, which by definition joins equipment fans and photographers, often combined.
Quite sad really, if you consider that many RFF members don't even have the budget for some basic CV equipment.
Roland.
Roger Hicks
02-07-2008, 12:56
It's worse than this:
[LIST]
you (not you, Steve ...) belong to a minority that over a few years was able to afford over, say US 10k of equipment, including various brands of cameras and lenses, several Leicas, ZIs, various digital and film equipment, possibly an M8.
Roland.
Dear Roland,
Hey! Where are you getting that lot for $10,000, or 5000 quid, or 7000 euros?
Seriously, point taken. I just think you need to double the number.
Cheers,
R.
foto_fool
02-07-2008, 13:06
Quite sad really, if you consider that many RFF members don't even have the budget for some basic CV equipment.
This is why it is poor form in polite company to talk about how much money one makes, what things cost, and how much "stuff" one has accumulated. It still is, isn't it? Or am I just an anachronism? ;)
Roger Hicks
02-07-2008, 13:17
This is why it is poor form in polite company to talk about how much money one makes, what things cost, and how much "stuff" one has accumulated. It still is, isn't it? Or am I just an anachronism? ;)
I fear you are. "Money and fair words", spoken with a shake of the head, is not a phrase much understood today.
Then again, very few people understand what a prat it makes someone look when they boast about their possessions. Nor do they understand that pity, rather than admiration or envy, is the most usual reaction from those who would rather have a life than possessions.
Cheers,
R.
foto_fool
02-07-2008, 13:30
Yes Roger, my gear came for "money and fair words!" - something I have not heard since my grandfather passed away (bless his half-Irish soul). And I fear that even more than the "money" part, the "fair words" bit is too frequently by the wayside.
Roland, where has any "collector bashing" taken place here? Are we sure it's not just people being over-sensitive?
I, for one, don't have anything against collecting, per se, even though I don't do it myself. My only objection is that Leica seems to be catering to collectors to the detriment of innovation, which seems a bass-ackwards way to run a company. And, IMO, some of the Leica purpose-made collectibles were LOL funny, and go a long war towards explaining why Leica as a maker of photographic tools has lost so much respect over the years.
I don't collect, but I do keep old stuff around for no useful reason. For example: I have a Schneider-Kreuznach 6-66 f1.8 zoom lens for a Beaulieu Super-8 movie camera that's just sitting here with no camera body to call home. I keep it, I think, because if I sold it, that would mean I'd "given up" on Super-8 as a medium, and I can't quite bear to do that yet, no matter the realities.
doesnt that make you a collector Kevin :-)
Al Kaplan
02-07-2008, 16:25
...or a horder?
doesnt that make you a collector Kevin :-)
I think, technically, I have to have "two" of something first. :D
fine line I'd say, art collectors of say paintings never have two of the same :-)
Al Kaplan
02-07-2008, 20:26
Most likely they collect paintings by a paricular artist or genre or period or style. They might collect only pen and ink drawings or just intaglio prints.
"Most likely they collect paintings by a paricular artist or genre or period or style. They might collect only pen and ink drawings or just intaglio prints"
or for most people here, just substitute a few words :-)
Most likely they collect cameras by a paricular maker or genre or period or style (Rangefinder) They might collect only olympus or just fixed lens camera's.
"We don't take pictures with our cameras. We take them with our hearts and we take them with our minds, and the camera is nothing more than a tool."
-Arnold Newman
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.