PDA

View Full Version : Holier than thou


Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 11:28
...because I have LESS kit.

Not me, obviously. But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

I've been taking pictures seriously since 1966. I have a ridiculous number of cameras, some of which have NEVER been used -- often because they were gifts, or 'too cheap to pass up'. Others are historical accidents, or cameras that have been bypassed by technology or my personal evolution: much used once, little used now. Yet others are mistakes: I thought I'd use 'em much more than I do.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of pictures on www.rogerandfrances.com, mostly taken with M-series Leicas, so I don't feel an enormous need to defend myself as a photographer (as distinct from a collector/fondler). Even so, I sometimes feel that some of my kit gets in the way of taking more pics.

Any thoughts about your own kit/picture relationship?

Cheers,

R.

Gumby
11-06-2009, 11:40
No, I have no significant thoughts to share.

FPjohn
11-06-2009, 11:42
Hello Roger:

Perhaps, there is some virtue in economy of means.

yours
FPJ

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 11:45
Hello Roger:

Perhaps, there is some virtue in economy of means.

yours
FPJ

Dear FPJ,

I'm sure there is.

But I suspect there may be as many bad photographers of the 'one camera, one lens' persuasion as there are of the 'buy it all' persuasion.

That's why I wondered what others thought. There is, after all, a difference between economy of what you have and economy of what you use.

Cheers,

R.

NIKON KIU
11-06-2009, 11:46
Too much gear can create confusion.
Simplicity creates a comfort zone, lets one focus on the image rather than what to use.
For you that may be moot point but for some...
I hear HCB did most of his work with a 35mm lens.

Kiu

Carlsen Highway
11-06-2009, 11:46
I have one Leica, one lens. And a cardboard box full of dead, dying and injured.
You are asking me to attach meaning to this; I am unsure whether that is wise.

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 11:47
I don't give it too much thought, honestly. Sure, for one person one could argue that I have a "lot of cameras" or a "lot of lenses." I certainly have a lot of film as one peek in the fridge would attest to... But I really enjoy taking pictures and I actually do use every last bit of it all. I have no trailer queens in my parking lot! I like the gear-sided part of photography as well. The careful selection of bodies, lenses, even systems as a whole, films, etc.

I don't see why one should restrict themselves in any way unless they feel it helps them concentrate and not be spinning their wheels on gear selection or something... Of course there's a lot to be said about "one camera, one lens, one film." But that's not ME. I usually choose a particular camera and a subset of lenses for a particular situation though.

One day I might decide to go shoot 35mm. Either film, or digital. Another day I might grab the Hassy. Or the Mamiya. Sometimes I grab ONE lens and specifically work it (especially when I get a new one).

I don't know. There's too much cool kit out there to put up imaginary boundaries for myself and I certainly won't tell anyone else how to shoot. Take whatever gear you think you need and have FUN.

The magic words are highlighted.

Unless of course you can't afford/don't want to buy more. My first year with a Leica was one camera, one lens (IIIa, Elmar 5cm). As soon as I could afford it, I bought a 9cm Elmar as well (halfers with my fiancée, £5:10:0d each).

Cheers,

R.

sojournerphoto
11-06-2009, 11:53
I suspect I fall somewhere in the middle, 2 identical but for colour rf's (after I sell the Bessa's...), a couple of dslrs and my old Canon AE-1.

I keep thinking that I'd like a GF-1 and/or an M9, but just for the next few days at least, I am staying away because I know that it would for a time distract me from what I'm currently enjoying. When I have a good reason to buy one, or the urge is just too strong (I admit) then I probably will.

No great meaning, but I do understand that I need to use something for a while to learn what I can do with it.

Mike

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 11:53
Too much gear can create confusion.
Simplicity creates a comfort zone, lets one focus on the image rather than what to use.
For you that may be moot point but for some...
I hear HCB did most of his work with a 35mm lens.

Kiu
Dear Kiu,

Often said to be 50, with a 90 as second choice; I don't think it was 35, though I could easily be wrong. My suspicion is that 'one camera, one lens' improves one's photography by removing unnecessary choices and lens-swapping time.

But I also suspect that one can come out of the other side of gear addiction, just choosing what you want for a particular trip/day/subject.

Cheers,

R.

emraphoto
11-06-2009, 11:55
in my humble opinion "good" photographs come from a lot of things and kit is way down on the list.

with that being said, as i progress as a photographer i find i carry less and less gear. more often than not 1 camera and 1 lens. either a m6 and 35 or a mamiya 7 and 65. even the focal length is pretty much the same.

Al Kaplan
11-06-2009, 11:55
I've pared down my collection of users over the past few years because they're no longer paying the bills. I still have a few antiques like an old Graflex SLR and a 5x7 E.& H.T. Anthony view camera from about 1890. The only one I miss is the Olympus Pen W.

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 11:59
I've pared down my collection of users over the past few years because they're no longer paying the bills. I still have a few antiques like an old Graflex SLR and a 5x7 E.& H.T. Anthony view camera from about 1890. The only one I miss is the Olympus Pen W.

Dear Al,

Same here, but most film cameras are now worth so little it's hardly worth getting rid of 'em. Also, the bills are not what they were (no mortgage, no credit cards) so I'm not so worried about paying 'em. And I still HAVE a Pen W (sticks out tongue, thumbs nose, while smiling).

Most serious photographers, I think, eventually do come out of the other side of GAS. At least to the point of seldom buying complete rubbish (though there is still the occasional irresistible bargain).

Cheers,

R.

Gumby
11-06-2009, 11:59
But I also suspect that one can come out of the other side of gear addiction, just choosing what you want for a particular trip/day/subject.



That was exactly my thought... I just couldn't get it off the tip of my tongue. This technique actually works for me. There's nothing "holy" about it... it's a simple matter of choosing the equipment that best matches the requirements, then using it.

I also agree with the notion that less equipment improves photography MOSTLY by removing unnecessary choices and lens/body/film-swapping time. The extension to this is that ridding one's reluctance to crop improves photography by removing unecessary choices of framing that can sometimes take so long as to result in total loss of image capture.

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 12:03
That was exactly my thought... I just couldn't get it off the tip of my tongue. This technique actually works for me. There's nothing "holy" about it... it's a simple matter of choosing the equipment that best matches the requirements, then using it.

I also agree with the notion that less equipment improves photography MOSTLY by removing unnecessary choices and lens/body/film-swapping time. The extension to this is that ridding one's reluctance to crop improves photography by removing unecessary choices of framing that can sometimes take so long as to result in total loss of image capture.
Dear Ed,

Especially bloody zooms!

Cheers,

R.

kshapero
11-06-2009, 12:07
I am somewhere in the middle but I am dogged with the guilt that I should be like HCB, one body, one lens, even though HCB wasn't like "HCB".

emraphoto
11-06-2009, 12:07
i never really got into those zooms. even shooting press gigs when EVERYBODY HAD TO HAVE THEM i just found i left them on a single focal length?

Ade-oh
11-06-2009, 12:14
Hmmm. Well, after doing a quick calculation I realise I have eight 35mm film cameras, three medium format film cameras, two Minox sub-mini film cameras, a Polaroid point and shoot with thirteen frames of type 600 film left, a digital point and shoot and a DSLR. I also have a selection of lenses, flash equipment, motor drives and all the rest of the paraphernalia...

Having said which, I rarely go about with more than one camera and one lens at a time; It depends what I want to shoot. I'm not sure how 'purist' that would make me. It's fair to say that two or three of these cameras don't often get used but I hang onto them for one reason or another.

underbyte
11-06-2009, 12:15
After shooting a lot of pinhole photography in the last 4 years, I know well that all you need to make an image is a light tight box, a decent hole, and a vision of what you are trying to capture. Absent the vision, shoot lots and sometimes you get lucky! Seriously though, I have many cameras, too many cameras, but they each have a charm and bring an enjoyment to making different types of images. I flirt with getting rid of some, many, at least a few, but as someone already mentioned, the value of a camera more than a few years old is quite low, unless it says Leica.

I can make a great image with a box made from foamcore, or with the used Leica M6 that I had been dreaming about for years and finally purchased last month. I like the simplicity of once camera, one lens, etc. but it's just one way of doing it. There is no purity, just choices. If I could afford an M9, I would certainly buy one. I can't afford it so it is moot. Every camera is wonderful, but remember that they are just tools. It seems like it is very hard to get rid of some of my tools :)

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 12:24
After shooting a lot of pinhole photography in the last 4 years, I know well that all you need to make an image is a light tight box, a decent hole, and a vision of what you are trying to capture. Absent the vision, shoot lots and sometimes you get lucky! Seriously though, I have many cameras, too many cameras, but they each have a charm and bring an enjoyment to making different types of images. I flirt with getting rid of some, many, at least a few, but as someone already mentioned, the value of a camera more than a few years old is quite low, unless it says Leica.

I can make a great image with a box made from foamcore, or with the used Leica M6 that I had been dreaming about for years and finally purchased last month. I like the simplicity of once camera, one lens, etc. but it's just one way of doing it. There is no purity, just choices. If I could afford an M9, I would certainly buy one. I can't afford it so it is moot. Every camera is wonderful, but remember that they are just tools. It seems like it is very hard to get rid of some of my tools :)

Elegant! I'll steal it...

Cheers,

R.

wlewisiii
11-06-2009, 12:25
Roger,

Right now I have a very tiny kit. OTOH, to afford it, I made a choice to sell 90% of the rest of my gear to finance it. And the reality is that for the vast majority of the shooting I do it's sufficient. Of course that doesn't stop me - sent a few bucks out for a fixer-upper FTbN & 50/1.4 Chrome Nose today ... :)

I guess it doesn't matter to me what someone else uses. I've got a small kit that - for the first time since I got serious about my photography - I can trust will work when I need it to. That's not likely a problem you've had in a long time, but over the past 5 years or so, I've gone through a heck of a lot of gear to get to this point. I'll be happy to stop for now and catch my breath while I fix the Canon and take pictures with the Leica.

William

Roger Hicks
11-06-2009, 12:32
Roger,

Right now I have a very tiny kit. OTOH, to afford it, I made a choice to sell 90% of the rest of my gear to finance it. And the reality is that for the vast majority of the shooting I do it's sufficient. Of course that doesn't stop me - sent a few bucks out for a fixer-upper FTbN & 50/1.4 Chrome Nose today ... :)

I guess it doesn't matter to me what someone else uses. I've got a small kit that - for the first time since I got serious about my photography - I can trust will work when I need it to. That's not likely a problem you've had in a long time, but over the past 5 years or so, I've gone through a heck of a lot of gear to get to this point. I'll be happy to stop for now and catch my breath while I fix the Canon and take pictures with the Leica.

William
Dear William,

Yeah, well, for me make it 1970-2000 instead of '5 years or so'. But apart from my being slower on the uptake than you, we are of one mind on this.

Cheers,

R.

dee
11-06-2009, 12:33
It's a relief not being even an amateur ' Photographer ' with no pretensions ...
or pre-tensions about snapping away LOL .
I find zooms awkward , and still like just one lens - nominal 67 on the M8 , 50 on the Kiev IV etc .
I would love a 50 eqivalent on 4/3rds instead of a manual focus 28 / 56 mm . I would never judge anyone upon their collections of anything .
It's simply ridiculous to equate how many cameras owned , with the quality of per photographs ... a racing driver may have a colection of cars , but it has nothing to do with his driving ability .

I probably have more pencils / pens / paints etc that I will ever need as a designer or visualiser . My work is not judged by this . Maybe I am just curious about another set of brushes / pencils etc . Will they increase / extend my ability ? Or confirm that what I am using is right for me ? To stop experimenting and exploring is to stagnate .

Why does this become such AN ISSUE , twix cameras and Photography ?

bmattock
11-06-2009, 12:48
...because I have LESS kit.

Not me, obviously. But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

I have a lot of cameras, lenses, and accessories. However, none of it is terribly expensive - most is about as dirt-cheap as it could be. I don't know what admiration or scorn this attracts; I've never spent too much time worrying about it. I have no Leicas, with the exception of one lonely 135mm Hector LTM lens.

However, and I think this is valid; I gain a lot of insight from using these cameras, from learning about how they work (or worked), and what their strengths and weaknesses are. This knowledge may not make me a better photographer artistically, but I think it does make me a better photographer as a technician; and as often as that's derided, I think it can be as important to be able to master one's tools as to have a specific artistic vision.

Likewise, I have a small but growing library of books and (old 1900's through 1970's) magazines on cameras and photography. I am particularly interested in the history of photography, cameras, lenses, photographers, and the culture surrounding the photographic arts in general. I do not feel that this makes me a better photographer either, but I believe it makes me better in the sense that it gives me more of a sense of place and an understanding of what it is I'm doing or trying to do and where it fits within the greater scheme of the photographic genre.

I see no purity in having less equipment, more equipment, or more or less expensive equipment. I don't subscribe to theories that you can do anything with one camera and one lens, or that old saw "It's not the camera, it's the photographer." I would prefer to say that "It's not the camera, it's not the photographer, it's the photograph." What happens to bring that photograph about can be affected by all manner of things, from a better quality lens, to a better understanding of the function of that lens (leading to using it in accordance with its strengths), or a more fundamental understanding of why the photograph should be taken in a particular manner.

We are each the benefactors and the victims of circumstance, as well as the sum total of who we are as people, our experiences and our understanding and our proclivities. All of these things affect what kind of photographs we make, as does plain old-fashioned luck and random chance.

More? Less? I just do what I want to do, as I can afford to do it, and take the photographs that I want to take. Hope that's OK with everyone, but if it's not...oh well...

Gumby
11-06-2009, 12:54
I would prefer to say that "It's not the camera, it's not the photographer, it's the photograph."

Arithmetically speaking, you're saying that: camera + photographer = photograph, right? I find it odd when the weights in such an equation are said to be unequal.

jackbaty
11-06-2009, 13:00
I'm almost certain that, for me, paring down to one camera and one lens would be a good idea - but it's never going to happen. I prefer leaving my options open, even if it sometimes paralyzes me.

Trius
11-06-2009, 13:02
I'm holier than any of you because I refuse to get sucked into this thread. :D

Gumby
11-06-2009, 13:07
apparently you did... otherwise you couldn't have told us that you didn't. :)

MarkoKovacevic
11-06-2009, 13:09
I feel that a excess of gear creates confusion, i.e. what am I shooting with today..
I even debate between having the 15mm or 50mm on the Leica, and thats my only camera.

Brian Sweeney
11-06-2009, 13:12
Too much gear can create confusion.
Simplicity creates a comfort zone, lets one focus on the image rather than what to use.
For you that may be moot point but for some...
I hear HCB did most of his work with a 35mm lens.

Kiu


Who are you and what have you done with Nikon Kiu!!!!

And I never hold more than one camera with one lens up to each eye at a time.

Gumby
11-06-2009, 13:15
I feel that a excess of gear creates confusion, i.e. what am I shooting with today..
I even debate between having the 15mm or 50mm on the Leica, and thats my only camera.

Can you really blame this on gear, Marko? Debate is a sign of passion, but only when the debate is between two or more people. Debate with ones self is a sign of indecision, or lack of clarity regarding the requirements/needs. If your comparison was 35 and 50 I might not have said anything, but between a 15 and 50 I would think that the debate should be so short that one might not notice it.

underbyte
11-06-2009, 13:15
However, and I think this is valid; I gain a lot of insight from using these cameras, from learning about how they work (or worked), and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Wonderful point!!!

I went on a buying, fixing, and building binge between 2004-2008. Most of what I bought cost less than $50 each. I learned about light seals, focal lengths, lens designs, shutter designs and more useless knowledge than I want to think about. What it also taught me was that every camera is a box. It is my intention as I pick up the box that counts. Whether it is an Olympus XA, or a friend's DSLR that I've never used before, they all do basically the same thing.

Secondly, at some point in your progress, it is important to use a manual camera (or two manual cameras, or ...:)). Taking responsibility for all of the aspects of the final image will make a person a better photographer, no matter how many cameras or quality cameras they own.

My secret pleasure for a few years was to buy something up to $50, like an Olympus 35RC or Yashica GS, just to fix it up and make images that would surpass most DSLR images made by less careful photographers. Just for the fun of it. It emphasizes how important the decision making is, not the camera.

Paul T.
11-06-2009, 13:22
Well, I would cheerfully volunteer to probably being worse for having more kit. My wife would occasionally say to me, "why don't you stick with one camera?" and I would explain why. But she was the one, with an Olympus OM-1 and one lens, who would have her photos in The Wire (when it was good) and other mags.

Back when I edited musicians' magazines, I would always deal with people who thought the perfect guitar (which doesn't exist) was the means to make perfect music. In fact, they needed to stick with their existing guitar, and explore its limitations, before they bought a second. If you've produced good photos with one camera, you've earned the right to move on. But for many of us, we think another camera is the magic bullet we need to make good photos, when the magic bullet is really in our minds.

(Oh yes. I own seven guitars. I think)

johannielscom
11-06-2009, 13:27
imaginary boundaries

Hm, now there's one. For some time in the past I have been out to acquire new gear, trade up, sell with a profit, you name it. With retrospect: all this time I was not a photographer but a handler (mind you, not a fondler, I did shoot the cameras I owned, and used them without too much care).

Recently I have finally become more involved in the process of creating images, I have started to think concepts and have put my efforts into striving for these concepts.

As a result of that some gear went, some still is for sale, some will be put up for sale. All gear I know I will not be using it for the benefit of my artistic views will go. I will use the money to trade up on some things I feel my work will benefit from.

So, I had no imaginary boundaries, and I feel better now that I am creating them.

Am I a better person/photographer because of this? No, just a different one than I was before. Actually, you might think my more recent stuff sucks :D

shenkerian
11-06-2009, 13:30
Here's a bit of reading for anyone who might think more options are always better than fewer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/science/26tier.html

I highly recommend the full book.

bmattock
11-06-2009, 13:37
Arithmetically speaking, you're saying that: camera + photographer = photograph, right?

Considering that photographs can and have been seen resulting from:

Great camera + great photograper = great photograph
Great camera + great photograper = poor photograph
Great camera + poor photographer = great photograph
Great camera + poor photographer = poor photograph
Poor camera + great photographer = great photograph
Poor camera + great photographer = poor photograph
Poor camera + poor photographer = great photograph
Poor camera + poor photographer = poor photograph

I am left with the conclusion that what matters is the end result. What goes into that may well affect the outcome, but it does not necessarily determine the outcome. Gear may help. Being a good photographer may help. But in the end, the viewer sees a photograph and likes it or does not like it, and their opinion of it generally has nothing to do with what it was taken with or who took it. The photograph stands on its own.


I find it odd when the weights in such an equation are said to be unequal.

I don't know how to answer that. I only know that I have seen photographs that reflect the combinations I have outlined above. This leads me to a certain conclusion. Perhaps others don't feel that way. OK with me.

Vince Lupo
11-06-2009, 13:38
Don't know if this equates - but I have a few friends with many motorcycles in their collection (one fellow has 14). I have one bike. I tend to ride more than they do, and I have less maintenance worries.

As far as cameras go, I could see how someone could get 'bogged down' by too much equipment - particularly if you bring too much with you on an assignment. It can bog you down both physically and creatively - at least I've found that to be the case at times.

From a collector/user perspective, I'm in a 'paring down' mode, partly due to these cameras not being used, and partly because I see money sitting there that could be put to better use. Having said that, I just bought a super-sweet Hasselblad 500ELM this week, and I'm saving up for a Leica M9, so go figure....

I don't think there's any particular virtue to having only one camera, but then again I don't think the person with the most cameras 'wins' either. And, I can also appreciate the different modes of 'seeing' by using one camera versus another. If you think of people like Erich Salomon, Felix Man, Andre Kertesz etc, they were using fairly minimal equipment and fairly 'primitive' film (compared to us, certainly), and look at the phenomenal images they were able to create. I feel spoiled with all of the current technologies at our fingertips, and those photographers are certainly miles ahead of anything I could even come close to doing....

Dave Wilkinson
11-06-2009, 13:47
Anyone notice...the guys who do the most talking about/aquiring gear, rarely - or never! - post any pictures, whereas the prolific picture posters rarely enquire about, brag about, or post long lists of.....GEAR! :rolleyes:
Dave.

Leigh Youdale
11-06-2009, 13:47
I think I've got about eight cameras. Use two with reasonable regularity (Bessa R3A and R4A), one irregularly (Rolleiflex E2), two Leica IIIf, (one I'll keep for fondling, the other is for sale) two virtually abandoned (a Fuji APS P&S and Canon Ixus 60) and a new GF1 digital.
I had over fifteen, including some lovely old Voigtlanders - two Bessa I 6x9, a Perkeo I and a Perkeo II both 6x6) and a "barn door" Vitessa 35mm. The Perkeo II and the VItessa were jewels but I didn't use them as their tiny viewfinders and lack of integrated controls made them less convenient. In the end I decided that, much as I loved them for sentimental reasons (one was my first camera and one was my father's), I was not a collector and they should go to someone who would use them. So I sold them. Didn't get heaps for them, but I also no longer have to confront them and feel I have to put a film through them to keep them in good working order. And not swapping and changing cameras all the time makes me more proficient in using the ones I do use.

FrankS
11-06-2009, 13:49
The only right way of thinking about and doing something is the way I think about it and do it, and everyone should think and do it the same way.

Now, doesn't that sound silly?

bmattock
11-06-2009, 13:50
In fact, they needed to stick with their existing guitar, and explore its limitations, before they bought a second. If you've produced good photos with one camera, you've earned the right to move on. But for many of us, we think another camera is the magic bullet we need to make good photos, when the magic bullet is really in our minds.


With respect, statements like this are what get my nose out of joint. They reek of what Roger described as a 'holier than thou' attitude, even if they were not meant that way. I tend to react badly to people telling me what I 'need to do' or that I must 'earn the right' to do anything other than just exactly what I please.

bmattock
11-06-2009, 13:55
Anyone notice...the guys who do the most talking about/aquiring gear, rarely - or never! - post any pictures, whereas the prolific picture posters rarely enquire about, brag about, or post long lists of.....GEAR! :rolleyes:
Dave.

Nope.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/

Dave Wilkinson
11-06-2009, 14:00
Nope.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/ then look....more carefully!

Paul T.
11-06-2009, 14:06
With respect, statements like this are what get my nose out of joint. They reek of what Roger described as a 'holier than thou' attitude, even if they were not meant that way. I tend to react badly to people telling me what I 'need to do' or that I must 'earn the right' to do anything other than just exactly what I please.

With respect, you're saying your generalisations are holier than mine. But of all the kids I've helped source guitars, the ones who've mastered the first guitar, rather than fantasising about buying the second, are the ones theo are still playing today. There's a big difference between mastering an art, and consumerism.

And do what you please if it works for you. Worked for Aleister Crowley I believe.

antiquark
11-06-2009, 14:11
To riff on Bill's truth table idea, the "kit vs the photographer's skill" relationship might look like:

A) minimal kit + takes good pictures
B) giant kit + takes good pictures
C) minimal kit + takes bad pictures
D) giant kit + takes bad pictures

If you're in category "A", then you can brag because you're obviously not relying on the technology. The picture quality is a result of your skill, not the kit.

If you're in "B", then you might have people claiming that it's your camera that takes the good pictures, not you.

If you're in "C", then you can argue that it's not your fault the pictures suck, it's just because you're being constrained by the lack of equipment.

If you're in "D", then people will perceive that the problem is due to the "nut behind the lens."

So if you want to cover your ass as much as possible, go for the minimal kit. If your photos are good, people will congratulate you, and if your photos suck, you can always blame the camera!

bmattock
11-06-2009, 14:12
With respect, you're saying your generalisations are holier than mine.


Not at all. Only that I am permitted to make my own decisions, and you yours. Mine are not better; they're simply mine. I like them more for that reason. I suspect you feel the same about your own.


But of all the kids I've helped source guitars, the ones who've mastered the first guitar, rather than fantasising about buying the second, are the ones theo are still playing today. There's a big difference between mastering an art, and consumerism.


This is an understandable opinion to hold, given your examples. It's still an opinion, purely anecdotal, and it's yours; not mine. Your statements are not about what you prefer to do, but what you think others ought to do. That's 'holier than thou'. The only thing I think others 'ought to do' is leave me to my own methods and preferences - I'm thrilled to leave them to theirs.


And do what you please if it works for you. Worked for Aleister Crowley I believe.

Ah, yes. If I simply live life on my own terms, I'm a bad, evil man. Just like Aleister "The Wickedest Man in the World" Crowley. Sorry, I'm not going to be painted with that brush. Oh, and I read Crowley. Suppose that's one more strike against me.

NIKON KIU
11-06-2009, 14:20
Dear Kiu,

....

But I also suspect that one can come out of the other side of gear addiction, just choosing what you want for a particular trip/day/subject.

Cheers,

R.
For me the thrill of using different things--some new, some old-- can be as promising. I yearn for the day when I can try a Zoom Nikkor 1200-1700mm--doesn't neccesarily mean I am going to take good Photos with it, but I will enjoy to no end.


But that doesn't change my favourite gear of choice, these days it's a Nikon S3 and 35mm lens. Although, time can change that.

Kiu

Al Kaplan
11-06-2009, 14:20
It's all a matter of training your camera properly to focus on the proper plane, frame, pick the right shutter speed to stop motion in the picture, choose the correct aperture for adequate depth of field, and making the exposure at exactly the right moment. Of course with today's crop of digital wondercams, if you believe the manufacturer's hype, your camera left the factory already trained. All your photographs should be perfect, real prize winners.

MarkoKovacevic
11-06-2009, 14:26
Can you really blame this on gear, Marko? Debate is a sign of passion, but only when the debate is between two or more people. Debate with ones self is a sign of indecision, or lack of clarity regarding the requirements/needs. If your comparison was 35 and 50 I might not have said anything, but between a 15 and 50 I would think that the debate should be so short that one might not notice it.

It's more about I feel that I need to use the 50mm more, because I haven't used it at all in the past month or two, versus I feel the need to use the 15mm more, because I haven't shot it enough to be good at the focal length.

NIKON KIU
11-06-2009, 14:28
Who are you and what have you done with Nikon Kiu!!!!

You forgot the question mark :p

Shhhishhh,
they don't like gear talk around here.

:eek:

Kiu

TennesseJones
11-06-2009, 14:40
i've only got one very old camera (awesome) and one very broken camera (awful)... but..

anyone who does a creative job for a living knows that anything that makes the 'making stuff' part of the job simpler and less of an all consuming nightmare is good and you buy the cheapest and most reliable version of a product that offers such assistance so you can spend more of your actual money on wine, women and song (or some such combination) Whoever makes the product and whether it's cute enough to fondle or not is less important.

i'm always stunned by how many people who want to be writers have a copy of specialist script writing programs for their pcs, bought at genuine expense when a pencil and a blank sheet of paper and looking out the window might be a better start.

but when it's a hobby and you're having fun, why not just say you like buying cameras as well as taking pictures?

anyway i don't know anything as i have one camera (awesome) one camera (busted/awful).

i've been using this forum to research a project i'm writing and i can say that lots of people on this here forum take some really great pictures, and seem really generous with their advice.

Paul T.
11-06-2009, 14:42
This is an understandable opinion to hold, given your examples. It's still an opinion, purely anecdotal, and it's yours; not mine.
I claim no more. What works for you, works for you.

If we talk about instruments, the evidence is more than anecdotal. Countless musicians, for instance, have bought Fender Strats, changed the strings aronund, bought the right fuzz boxes so they could sound like Jimi Hendrix. But Jimi sounded like Jimi, whatever guitar he used. Is that an argument against buying a Fender Strat? No. It's merely an indication that the player is more important than the instrument.

wgerrard
11-06-2009, 14:55
Some people like cameras more than photos?

Dave Wilkinson
11-06-2009, 14:55
i've only got one very old camera (awesome)

i've been using this forum to research a project i'm writing and i can say that lots of people on this here forum take some really great pictures, and seem really generous with their advice. ...even if a large percentage of it is total bullsh*t :D.....BTW - in what way is that old camera 'awsome'? :confused:

TennesseJones
11-06-2009, 15:10
...even if a large percentage of it is total bullsh*t :D.....BTW - in what way is that old camera 'awsome'? :confused:

ah, well it's just manual controls which is fun.

and it looks pretty sturdy and toughly made to me. so i think it could intervene vigorously in society, to prevent a robbery for example. multi purpose you see..

back alley
11-06-2009, 15:13
'beware the man with one gun' is a saying (apparently) among shooters.

i prefer a simple kit as i find it an aid to (my) good mental health.

do i photograph?, yes, lots.
do i fondle? yes, some.

Ducky
11-06-2009, 16:23
Being obsessive-compulsive it is dangerouos for me to have more than one of anything. Choices can keep me awake at night. Yes, I have meds.

charjohncarter
11-06-2009, 16:38
I like film cameras. I have too many, I used to try to run a roll though each every year. Now I sit back and let whatever comes, come. Actually with all the great films out there now I just say what would Efke R25 look like though this camera. Sometimes there are bad surprises and some times there are good surprises. This is from my First Six Camera:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/2699267033_e7e9df630a.jpg

Gumby
11-06-2009, 17:02
then look....more carefully!

Actually... he took the word right out of my mouth. My first reaction to your observation/question was NOPE, also.

Gumby
11-06-2009, 17:09
To riff on Bill's truth table idea, the "kit vs the photographer's skill" relationship might look like:


These truth tables are intersting and fun, but both are missing a key element. Bill's needs some sort of probability/estimate-of-success in order to properly sort the conditions; yours needs some operational definitions.

For example, I am considered a "minimalist" but depending on which minimal kit I use the probability-of-success will vary greatly. With a Hasselblad and one lens I can shoot WAY MORE successful images than with my Canonet. Wouldn't both be considered "minimal kits"?

But they are fun and lead to conversation... so thanks!

Gumby
11-06-2009, 17:14
It's more about I feel that I need to use the 50mm more, because I haven't used it at all in the past month or two, versus I feel the need to use the 15mm more, because I haven't shot it enough to be good at the focal length.

Ah, yes... I can relate. I have a lens I bought because I thought I really needed/wanted it but ever since getting it I've only used it once. I think about it too, but mostly out of guilt... Or is that remourse... I don't know ... I often get the two emotions confused.

Brian Sweeney
11-06-2009, 17:48
Anyone remember the movie "Tremors" where the worm breaks "into the wrong gosh darn rec-room"? I'd be able to photograph the worm with every major 35mm camera made from 1932 through 1980.

Gumby
11-06-2009, 18:00
You mean each and every camera made between those years, or an example of each make/model? No matter... that is quite an impressive claim!

gdmcclintock
11-06-2009, 18:06
"I am left with the conclusion that what matters is the end result." Someone wrote this phrase in this thread. I beg to differ. What matters most to me is the process not the product. My explorations of the process have caused me to purchase more medium format folders than I can use in the time available to me. Slowly I convince myself to sell the lonely cameras in order to buy more film or pay for processing. If I had funds and space enough I would place all the cameras in a display case and admire them much as I may admire a fine photograph. -George

bmattock
11-06-2009, 18:06
I claim no more. What works for you, works for you.


That's the problem - you do claim more. Your words are your noose. I'm not saying it - you are.


If we talk about instruments, the evidence is more than anecdotal. Countless musicians, for instance, have bought Fender Strats, changed the strings aronund, bought the right fuzz boxes so they could sound like Jimi Hendrix. But Jimi sounded like Jimi, whatever guitar he used. Is that an argument against buying a Fender Strat? No. It's merely an indication that the player is more important than the instrument.

Pure anecdote. I don't think you actually know the difference between a proof and an anecdote, do you?

Brian Sweeney
11-06-2009, 18:10
You mean each and every camera made between those years, or an example of each make/model? No matter... that is quite an impressive claim!

I WISH! Mostly just a few samples of each. Some more than others. 11 Nikon F2's and 9 F's. 5 S2's, 3 SP's, 3 S3's, 3 Canon P's. I could give the worm a headache by throwing Retina's at it.

Remember the Star Trek Episode where Kirk makes the gun and shoots diamonds at the Gorn? I'm betting a 1000mm F11 filled with diamonds and gun powder could do as well as the elephant gun.

You can never have too much equipment. Never know how handy it might be if a giant worm breaks into your house.

bmattock
11-06-2009, 18:12
"I am left with the conclusion that what matters is the end result." Someone wrote this phrase in this thread.


That would be me.


I beg to differ. What matters most to me is the process not the product.


That would be correct - for you. You are certainly the correct person to please for yourself. The words I wrote pertained not to pleasing you, nor even to pleasing myself, but to pleasing the ultimate viewer of our photographs. As I said, it is the viewer who decides if they like a photo or not, and they seldom give a fig what it was taken with, or how 'great' the photographer who took it was. They only care if they like it or if they do not. Therefore, to the viewer, what matters is the end result.


My explorations of the process have caused me to purchase more medium format folders than I can use in the time available to me. Slowly I convince myself to sell the lonely cameras in order to buy more film or pay for processing. If I had funds and space enough I would place all the cameras in a display case and admire them much as I may admire a fine photograph. -George

Perfectly understandable. There are many who prefer to collect cameras. There are many who prefer to take photographs. And although the usual suspects deny it, there are those who like to do both. And there is nothing wrong with any of it. Own a lot, own a little. Shoot everything in sight, or only shoot a camera to see if it works before placing it on a shelf. Whatever makes you happy. What matters is what you want. Nothing any of us do harms anyone at all. Fie on anybody who thinks otherwise.

literiter
11-06-2009, 18:16
...because I have LESS kit.

Not me, obviously. But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

R.

There are a lot of photographers, many on this very site, who really don't care what camera they use or own, as long as it produces the image they want. If they need to, they will rent a camera to fill their obligation to the image.

If the image is the most important, who cares what you have as long as you get to goodies.

These people are true artists, in my opinion. Their images always stand out. (I wish I were one of them)

Nikon Bob
11-06-2009, 18:17
I don't give the less is more reaction any thought just as I don't give the lots of expensive gear is best any credence. Both are snobby and are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Use and have as much as you like. It makes little difference in the long run to anyone.

Bob

Al Kaplan
11-06-2009, 18:17
Jimi played a right-handed guitar left handed, upside down, bass string on the bottom. He was stroking them in the "wrong direction". Any guitar he was holding he played like that. He had powerful fingers and could pull the strings sideways to raise the pitch, and do fast slides along the fretboard. We miss you Jimi!

Gumby
11-06-2009, 18:23
... and speaking of guitarists, I miss George Harrison.

bmattock
11-06-2009, 18:27
I'm going to drop this thread now, but before I do, I just want to share something with you all.

Tonight, I got a phone call. A lady who is the secretary of a veteran's group here in Detroit, who wanted to be sure I was going to be taking photos at tomorrow's Veterans Day Parade downtown. She told me something that thrilled me. She said that veterans who had been given a link to my photos of themselves on Flickr were coming to her with tears in their eyes and asking if I'd be there again this year, because the photos I took of them last year meant so much to them and their families and friends.

I'm not a great photographer. I don't claim to be. And I own so many cameras, that as far as some of you are concerned, I can't possibly ever be one. You know what, that's fine. You go on thinking that, Paul T. You think I haven't 'earned the right' to own so many cameras. Yeah, right.

I made some old veterans happy, and believe me, that means more to me than your scorn. They're actual heroes. What are you?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157608771992043/

Tomorrow, I'll be downtown with my 'too many cameras' taking photos of real heroes. You know, the ones I can't possibly take because I have so many cameras I never go out and take photos. Right, Dave?

I know what I'll be doing tomorrow - taking photographs. And dang, they won't meet with your approval. Ain't that a bitch?

gdmcclintock
11-06-2009, 18:34
" ... it is the viewer who decides if they like a photo or not, and they seldom give a fig what it was taken with, or how 'great' the photographer who took it was. They only care if they like it or if they do not. Therefore, to the viewer, what matters is the end result." -bmattock

Years ago I took an "Intro to Theater" class where the instructor, an advocate of modern theater presumably inaccessible to the general public, repeated the phrase often spoken by the uninitiated, "I know what I like and I don't like THAT!" He urged us to suspend judgement until we had educated ourselves enough to understand what the artist was trying to accomplish, then judge the work on its own merit. I wonder sometimes if this objective is even attainable. -George

MarkoKovacevic
11-06-2009, 18:40
Save the arts, **** the war.

Gumby
11-06-2009, 18:45
Spare the rod, spoil the chile!

MarkoKovacevic
11-06-2009, 18:49
Spare the rod, spoil the chile!

Good idea! Except that 'spoil' has a negative connotation - can we use 'reward,' it sounds so much better.

charjohncarter
11-06-2009, 19:02
Jimi played a right-handed guitar left handed, upside down, bass string on the bottom. He was stroking them in the "wrong direction". Any guitar he was holding he played like that. He had powerful fingers and could pull the strings sideways to raise the pitch, and do fast slides along the fretboard. We miss you Jimi!

Right, but Elizabeth Cotton did it way back, and in reality had a much more distinctive style. She was a finger picker using all of the strings but in a very different way, Jimi although one of the greats was a single string player so his upside down left handed guitar playing really was not that much different or that difficult to copy. Many great guitarists have been lefties, Paul McCartney, the Wichita lineman guy, Jimi, Elizabeth Cotton, Dick Dale, and if you include the Ukulele; Tiny Tim. It makes you wonder about creativity and left handedness. What about left handed photographers?

gns
11-06-2009, 19:19
Low E on top, looks like to me...

Soeren
11-06-2009, 23:23
At first I had only my Nikon F90X and three lenses. The decision on which to use was rather easy. Some subjects was 105 macro shots, some was 24mm shots and some lended themselfes to my 50mm. then I added a MF camera and "needed" to carry both systems loosing a lot of shots because my mind couldn't switch format that easily. As gear accumulated I learned to concentrate on one system for the day and not wish I brougth the XXX. Now I feel I don't loose shots because can't decide, I have learned the "Voluntary limit" :D I think. Owning a lot of cameras and lenses doesn't mean you can't restrict yourself to just one on one or just one system. People who claim they have always made it with the same one camera havn't tried to get out of the box enough :)
Best regards

aizan
11-07-2009, 00:21
a person busy making art wouldn't stoop so low as to thumb their nose at gearheads. i think the people who do are creatively...hesitant.

Roger Hicks
11-07-2009, 00:24
Wow! Overnight (my time) this has certainly attracted a lot of interest!

I especially liked Bill's point about learning about photography via learning about cameras: something I'd never really considered in those exact terms. And as for voluntarily limiting one's kit, well... http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20voluntary.html.

Thanks, everyone. More thoughts always welcome!

Cheers,

R.

Paul T.
11-07-2009, 02:27
I'm going to drop this thread now, but before I do, I just want to share something with you all.

Tonight, I got a phone call. A lady who is the secretary of a veteran's group here in Detroit, who wanted to be sure I was going to be taking photos at tomorrow's Veterans Day Parade downtown. She told me something that thrilled me. She said that veterans who had been given a link to my photos of themselves on Flickr were coming to her with tears in their eyes and asking if I'd be there again this year, because the photos I took of them last year meant so much to them and their families and friends.

I'm not a great photographer. I don't claim to be. And I own so many cameras, that as far as some of you are concerned, I can't possibly ever be one. You know what, that's fine. You go on thinking that, Paul T. You think I haven't 'earned the right' to own so many cameras. Yeah, right.

I made some old veterans happy, and believe me, that means more to me than your scorn. They're actual heroes. What are you?

I know what I'll be doing tomorrow - taking photographs. And dang, they won't meet with your approval. Ain't that a bitch?
The scorn is in your mind. I merely observed that many beginners in particular see the next instrument as the key to making great art, when time might be better spent mastering the first one. It is a tendency I have seen often; if your life experience tells you otherwise, then advise others accordingly.


My wife, who is wiser than I, thinks I own too many cameras. It's possible she could be right. Why does this discussion make you so angry?

TennesseJones
11-07-2009, 02:41
Wow! Overnight (my time) this has certainly attracted a lot of interest!

R.

Quite, crikey...

And here for the first time in recorded history this essential question has been answered (or perhaps asked): what connects the ethics of purchasing a second or third or fourth 50mm lens with our neccesary appreciation of the dignity of the military man?

Vince Lupo
11-07-2009, 03:05
I've often had either 'beginners' or non-photographers comment that 'I must be a good photographer' when they see me with all my equipment on a shoot. I usually reply that 'No, it just shows that I know how to spend money'.

As an aside, it would be interesting to see how any of us would do with an Ermanox and ISO 25 plate film....

gdi
11-07-2009, 03:38
Anyone notice...the guys who do the most talking about/aquiring gear, rarely - or never! - post any pictures, whereas the prolific picture posters rarely enquire about, brag about, or post long lists of.....GEAR! :rolleyes:
Dave.

Never noticed that either.

But I did notice some who participate in camera gear oriented threads and forums by insulting those discussing camera gear.

Brian Sweeney
11-07-2009, 03:49
This is the type of thread that RFF members love to heat up. Gearhead vs Artist.

But no one ever worries about giant worms breaking into their rec room. I think we all know that having the right rec room is better when giant worms break in, and that means having more things to shoot with. In this rare case, probably collecting guns is better than cameras. And as far as the odds of that happening outside of the movies, about the same as a thread with this topic not heating up at RFF. Maybe I can load Nina's rings into the Meade 1000mm F11 and pack it with gun powder to finally get that damned worm in the basement.

Dave Wilkinson
11-07-2009, 03:56
Never noticed that either.

But I did notice some who participate in camera gear oriented threads and forums by insulting those discussing camera gear. Yes - I have noticed that too! :(

Lilserenity
11-07-2009, 03:57
I've never been rich, never likely will be, but who knows. All this means is that I haven't been able to acquire equipment at the rate some people do. That's fine, I can understand someone who wants to own a lot of cameras, that's their own perrogative and why should I care if someone owns 30 odd Leicas and never uses them, that's their own decision.

Anyway, I sidetracked.

I have had a few cameras, most notably a Nikon P&S to begin with (which my parents still use, it was a film one, forget its name now but it had a zoom lens and took an alright picture), then a couple of digital P&S's -- the Sony was alright but I found myself wanting to go back to film. So I got an SLR, an EOS 5 and that's what I cut my teeth on (that and the Sony.) The EOS 5 broke and so I got an EOS 3 but I hated the big bulky weight of the cameras. I wanted something smaller. Eventually I got enough money together for a Leica M2 (only a year ago I might add!) and the rest as they say is history.

I now own a 35mm and 50mm lens for my M2, and an OM2n with a 28mm and 50mm. A SLR is handy to have but I still want it to be small. Largely it's the Leica that gets the most use.

I'm not really a gear person, but I had to acquire some along the way to find out what my style of photography was and then what would be the best tool for the job to do that kind of photography. For me it's smaller cameras.

Now that I have the M2 (and the OM2n), I don't really think too much about equipment any more as I have found what right now is the best tools for the jobs I do.

I'd say the thing that taught me more than any other was being a skint student but a lucky one that had a 50mm lens and an EOS 5 -- it was all I could afford; and I never used to like 50mm aspect but I had no choice. I had to make my photography work with that aspect, and I learnt more in that year than I have probably since, and now I adore the 50mm aspect.

I feel I am in a good place now with my photography but I am looking for my next challenge and I think that's going to be fusing my landscapes into the street photography I do -- and the latter is not my strong point.

In fact the reason I shoot landscapes and street photography are very different. The landscapes are the result of my mediocre painting skills, and the street photography because I have a very very curious outlook on the underbelly of life, I like grit.

So for me, the fact I have two cameras isn't purity, it's neither the sign of no purity; it's the sign I have settled on the equipment I like, in fact love, because the results I seek are what I am most able to get through the equipment I have. I wonder about getting a 100mm lens for the OM2n and maybe a 21mm for the Leica, but it's not a pressing issue and I probably won't do that for a couple of years especially as all I have to do is take a few steps back with the 28mm or 35mm to get that impression. Also, sticking to 50mm is forcing me to get closer, and that's really improving my technique.

Vicky

gdi
11-07-2009, 03:57
Don't know if this equates - but I have a few friends with many motorcycles in their collection (one fellow has 14). I have one bike. I tend to ride more than they do, and I have less maintenance worries.

As far as cameras go, I could see how someone could get 'bogged down' by too much equipment - particularly if you bring too much with you on an assignment. It can bog you down both physically and creatively - at least I've found that to be the case at times.

From a collector/user perspective, I'm in a 'paring down' mode, partly due to these cameras not being used, and partly because I see money sitting there that could be put to better use. Having said that, I just bought a super-sweet Hasselblad 500ELM this week, and I'm saving up for a Leica M9, so go figure....

I don't think there's any particular virtue to having only one camera, but then again I don't think the person with the most cameras 'wins' either. And, I can also appreciate the different modes of 'seeing' by using one camera versus another. If you think of people like Erich Salomon, Felix Man, Andre Kertesz etc, they were using fairly minimal equipment and fairly 'primitive' film (compared to us, certainly), and look at the phenomenal images they were able to create. I feel spoiled with all of the current technologies at our fingertips, and those photographers are certainly miles ahead of anything I could even come close to doing....

I have had as many as 9 Motorcycles at a time, but have friends with many more than that. I now have none, but when I want to ride, I can take my pick of bikes - American, European, singles, twins, fours, from the teens to present day. So I like collectors.

Collecting cameras and only caring about the photograph itself are different mindsets - one is no more noble than the other. I like old cameras, different formats, digital, and film and take pictures with all of them - its a hobby, I do it because I like it.

gdi
11-07-2009, 03:59
Yes - I have noticed that too! :(

I think a lot of us were hoping you would!

Al Kaplan
11-07-2009, 04:42
I don't think that back in the day when the Ermanox was being marketed plates had reached a speed of ISO 25. The 85mm f/1.8 Ernostar lens was amazing enough! Christies got $1,442 for one in Dec. 1996.

Vince Lupo
11-07-2009, 06:56
I don't think that back in the day when the Ermanox was being marketed plates had reached a speed of ISO 25. The 85mm f/1.8 Ernostar lens was amazing enough! Christies got $1,442 for one in Dec. 1996.

Hmm - what would film speeds have been back in the 1920's? ASA 10 maybe?

Soeren
11-07-2009, 07:17
Anyone notice...the guys who do the most talking about/aquiring gear, rarely - or never! - post any pictures, whereas the prolific picture posters rarely enquire about, brag about, or post long lists of.....GEAR! :rolleyes:
Dave.

Hmm To post here or on any other forum I need to digitize my picture and that means having a scanner which I don't :rolleyes: That said I must confess that untill now my output has been very low due to lack of darkroom and very low use of colorfilm (chromes) the last 4 years:o. But I'm learning and hopefully one day..................... :D

FrankS
11-07-2009, 07:41
a person busy making art wouldn't stoop so low as to thumb their nose at gearheads. i think the people who do are creatively...hesitant.

+1

If focusing on the technical/gear facet of photography distracts from the creation of art, then surely (and perhaps to a greater degree), focusing on those preferences of others and posting snide comments on a photo gear forum, distracts from the creation of art.

One is about collecting cameras, the other is about putting down others, and neither is about creating art.

Andy Kibber
11-07-2009, 07:42
But I suspect there may be as many bad photographers of the 'one camera, one lens' persuasion as there are of the 'buy it all' persuasion.

That's probably true, but I feel like less of a doofus taking bad photos with a couple of relatively cheap cameras than a room full of expensive ones. :)

Al Kaplan
11-07-2009, 07:47
ASA 10 was probably about right back in the 1920's. The guy who really pioneered avalable light photojournalism was a German Jewish photographer named Erich Saloman and he started out using the Ermanox.

When 4.5 x 6 cm plates went out of style a lot of high speed lenses such as the Ernostar ended up being remounted for 35mm cameras.

Imagine yourself with just one exposure and then you had to change plate holders, estimate the subject distance and set the focus of an 85mm f.1.8 lens by scale, estimate the light, and then have to hand hold the camera at very slow sutter speeds. Saloman, and others, got plenty of well exposed nice sharp photos though.

Gumby
11-07-2009, 07:49
... I can understand someone who wants to own a lot of cameras, that's their own perrogative and why should I care if someone owns 30 odd Leicas and never uses them, that's their own decision.

Anyway, I sidetracked.


I wouldn't consider that a sidetrack... it seems like the most important point!

Vince Lupo
11-07-2009, 08:57
ASA 10 was probably about right back in the 1920's. The guy who really pioneered avalable light photojournalism was a German Jewish photographer named Erich Saloman and he started out using the Ermanox.

When 4.5 x 6 cm plates went out of style a lot of high speed lenses such as the Ernostar ended up being remounted for 35mm cameras.

Imagine yourself with just one exposure and then you had to change plate holders, estimate the subject distance and set the focus of an 85mm f.1.8 lens by scale, estimate the light, and then have to hand hold the camera at very slow sutter speeds. Saloman, and others, got plenty of well exposed nice sharp photos though.

Yes, Dr. Salomon was the king, and really was the father of photojournalism - I have the book by his son, Peter, and it's a fascinating look at this lawyer turned photographer. Apparently he had a specially-designed tuxedo tails coat with pockets on the inside for all his glass plates -- probably weighed about 40 lbs! Fortunately he had the foresight to hide all his negatives in a chicken coop owned by a friend of his in Holland, otherwise who knows what would have happened to his photos. He didn't fare as well, as he was ultimately gassed at Auschwitz.

But back to the original point at hand - look at the wonderful, historic images he was able to get, and look at the limited equipment he had. Phenomenal indeed....

Bob Ross
11-11-2009, 19:05
It has always been a hobby for me. It probably started in 1950 when I developed my first print, which left a dent in my 8 year old brain. My first real camera came in 1961, a Contax II with two lenses. A great deal of stuff followed...cameras, lenses, enlargers, developers, papers, some I still have and some are long gone to the land fills.
Enjoying the craft as a whole to me includes its history and its application. The history is written in the evolving equipment/media and the evolving photographers showing us what they see and what they want us to see. The application is there in every photograph we see or make.
So I have a collection, not only of equipment, but of creative moods. My muse has multiple personalities. They all go together in my own personal lost history of the craft. When my excess gets in the way, it goes into the closet, until my muse says to get it out again.
Bob

Frank Petronio
11-11-2009, 19:54
But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

You can be amused but this is an absolutely correct, true statement. Holy even.

Gabriel M.A.
11-11-2009, 20:41
But I am amused by the way that having fewer cameras/lenses is regarded by some as evidence of purity of vision.

Careful with the dichotomies so popular on the Intertoobes.

Where some see a purity of vision, others see evidence of tunnel vision, as that often perpetrated by hyperorthodoxy. The masses more easily follow (and hence more easily can discuss) apparent simplicity than simply intelligent complexity.

Saying this, of course, ruffles some feathers, specially those in feather-challenged aviary.

Roger Hicks
11-11-2009, 22:05
Careful with the dichotomies so popular on the Intertoobes.

Where some see a purity of vision, others see evidence of tunnel vision, as that often perpetrated by hyperorthodoxy. The masses more easily follow (and hence more easily can discuss) apparent simplicity than simply intelligent complexity.

Saying this, of course, ruffles some feathers, specially those in feather-challenged aviary.

Exactly my point: that people love simplistic statements, of which dichotomies are possibly the ultimate example ('possibly' because a command may or may not be regarded as a dichotomy).

Cheers,

R.

dee
11-15-2009, 11:42
I just have to add an Autistic footnote to this - what about when the mind sees not ' multiple cameras ' ... but same INPUT repeated ... i.e ' same camera over and over again '

Rather like an infant seeing ' bus passing again ' when Mum knows it's ' another bus passing '

For me , several cameras [ Contax / Kiev , what else LOL ] of the same type / stable create a kind of continuity , constancy , which is missing in my world , especially when that continuity streiches fromm 1937 through to the early 80s and Techs serving them today in the same area ... which is awesome for me ... grounding / locating somehow .

Also , ' several ' reinforces the stimulus - in my case Contax / Contax / Kontax ... ad infinitum ... because my mind does not asimilate and store properly .

So , do I have one camera [ STIMULUS ' KONTAX ' ] or many ?

You see , there are as many answers as there are crazee brains LOL