"Is it the equipment?" story that strikes home

[farlymac]

I must say that there are a few parallels in this article I saw today between the writer and myself. Though I've been in and out of photography for about the same time he is talking about, and used a lot of the same cameras, I've never done the kind of retrospective he has undertaken. However, I've done plenty of critiquing of my own work over the years, and do know that you can take good photos with a crappy camera, and vice-versa. But it was good to see it in a written form that confirmed some of my own observations.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/21/...rs/#more-81904

PF

[GaryLH]

Thanks for the link. I have been shooting since start of high school (68) when I got my first camera (used Minolta sr1) I saved for from working odd jobs.

I can very well relate since I pretty much went down a similar path about 4 years ago.. Did a very similar analysis..

Gary

[Messsucherkamera]

This is a great article.

There are common threads running through if that run through my own experiences in photography as well as many commonalities that I have read in the writings of noteworthy photographers who have told their own stories.

Equipment is a factor, there's no denying that. But equipment can take you only so far. Beyond that point other factors come into play: Photographic skill, technical knowledge, training, photographic vision, experience, commitment, drive, passion, persistence, aesthetics and insight are the qualities that determine how successful your efforts are.

The most important thing is this: No matter what, keep shooting. There is no failure. There is only feedback. Keep working and shooting until you get the results you want.

[tunalegs]

I find my equipment gets simpler as time goes on.

[charjohncarter]

I agree with every word, but why did he have to buy all those cameras? He must have known the difference between 120 and 35mm before he went on Ebay. Don't get me wrong I use 35mm for convenience just like everyone but I would always prefer to use 120.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by charjohncarter

I agree with every word, but why did he have to buy all those cameras? He must have known the difference between 120 and 35mm before he went on Ebay. Don't get me wrong I use 35mm for convenience just like everyone but I would always prefer to use 120.

I went back and bought certain cameras purely on nostalgia. It sounded like he did the same thing initially.

Gary

[matt_mcg2]

I agree with Mr Fizzlesticks regarding Mr Norgay's other output, but the article is OK. Although the insights aren't shocking. Larger negatives tend to win out; technique matters, etc.

I went back and scanned some of my old negatives as part of a similar process [only 10-15 years old, so not that far back] and it was interesting to compare with stuff I do now. I don't think I've really learned anything much in terms of composition and reading the light. Certainly more consistently competent now, but my best pictures aren't really any better than they were when I started and there's more experimentation in the earlier stuff. My basic shooting technique is more consistent, but the old stuff isn't terrible. So a decade or more of regular shooting has made the worst of what I do better, and my shooting/processing more consistent, but the best isn't much better.

In terms of kit, the stuff I started with (mostly FSU stuff -- in 120 and 35mm) stands up pretty well in terms of quality of output, even if it was a bit clunky in use. There was a huge jump in image quality when I switched from cheapish point and shoots to FSU rangefinders (and medium format), but much smaller incremental improvements as I then upgraded over time to better and more expensive German and Japanese made equipment.

[tunalegs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks

I took a look at your link and there was something really odd about that person, for one, posting under the name of a famous sherpa. So I went farther and took a look at his posts. He is pretty offensive. Take a look for yourself-

http://www.reddit.com/user/TenzingNorgay

But that is what you get from reddit.

Looking at it, it seems the site just stole his post, pasted a few images in (none by the author) and called it an article.

Beyond that, the internet is basically just Familiarity Breeds Contempt the Video Game.

[citizen99]

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I find my equipment gets simpler as time goes on.

Same here .

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I find my equipment gets simpler as time goes on.

Me too.

Cheers,

R.

[Lss]

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I find my equipment gets simpler as time goes on.

My gear mostly gets dents and scuffs.

[icebear]

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I find my equipment gets simpler as time goes on.

Originally Posted by citizen99

Same here .

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Me too.

Cheers,

R.

I didn't care to read the article.
For me most important:
Whatever you use, know your equipment so well that it doesn't get in the your way of photography.
Everything else is up to you, not your camera

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by icebear

I didn't care to read the article.
For me most important:
Whatever you use, know your equipment so well that it doesn't get in the your way of photography.
Everything else is up to you, not your camera

Just two words to add:

Know and like...

Yes, you can get great results from kit you have to struggle with. But why bother?

Cheers,

R.

[boomguy57]

I think although the article didn't make any new argument, he adds to the existing narrative we have about gear. More gear, new gear, pricier gear...they don't make you better at making images. Gear can help overcome some of the technical issues (faster lenses, film grain, diff focal lengths, sensors, etc) but they can't fix technique and skill.

There are some truly amazing cameras out there, but that doesn't mean that they work for me. Ansel Adams was a genius, but with his set-up I'd look like a chump, get frustrated, and give up. Large format isn't me. Likewise with landscapes. So we choose gear that lets us take the images we want, how we want. One has to gel with one's equipment, and it has to get out of the way. My "old" D700 is that way; I've had it for almost 4 years now and it never lets me down. Never. It always nails the shot under any conditions I put it in. However, I don't really enjoy shooting with it. The RF is much more relaxing and enjoyable to shoot with, but I miss more shots. There are times when I wish my MP was a tic faster, but that's all to do with me (mostly).

Gear is a tool. For making images, and for the final output. One should enjoy using it and it should get out of the way so that you can make the images. If the camera interferes with making images--even a little--it's time to move on.

[Rangefinderfreak]

Most of the guys I know buy new equipment for the simple reason, they subconsicously feel they will not improve esthetically or technically so they lay a "smoke screen" by testing new equipment, hoping that will lead to better images.

[icebear]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Just two words to add:

Know and like...

Yes, you can get great results from kit you have to struggle with. But why bother?

Cheers,

R.

argh ... yeah these darn assumptions, I never use anything that I don't like, so for me that was a given

[Paul Jenkin]

I've been shooting film since I hit my teens in 1974. I also had a spell shooting weddings and portraits for a bit of extra money but hated the pressure of shooting to other people's briefs and expectations.

I was lucky enough to be able to afford an OM1n and OM2n and a Mamiya C3 but I lusted after some other kit but never quite managed to acquire it. As a middle-aged man and with the price of the kit I lusted after reducing, I've made a point of acquiring a lot of the things I always wanted but could never afford.

I'm not sure if it's better equipment, modern emulsions, greater technique, better temperament or a combination thereof but I perceive that my output now is way better than it ever was 20-30 years ago. I still have an OM2n and the negatives I'm getting these days by using Ilford XP2 Super are way better than anything I shot back in the day.

Mind you, I don't wet print anymore - I scan negs on a V750 and have them printed professionally (when I want a print, that is).

My guess is that most improvements I see are down to better quality / more consistent emulsions. However, I still pine for the loss of Kodachrome......

[redisburning]

the reason people buy the best is because they want to be the best.

it doesn't make you the best by itself, but sometimes we go too far and make statements like "the camera doesn't matter" which I will never agree with.

Consider that Senna won the driver's championship the year he joined a new team with a better car. If you have the talent, a better camera [for you], no matter how small the difference, will result in better output. Better might be more consistent, it might be a shot you wouldn't otherwise have gotten, it might just be more confidence.

btw I've shrunk my gear as well and I have less than most of the rest of you lol.

[ColSebastianMoran]

In the film era, the equipment made advances, but how important were these advances? We've all seen that truly excellent photographs can be made with older lenses and bodies. That argues that the advances were not so significant.

Now, the film on the other hand... Films really improved in many dimensions over the years.

Now, with digital, the new generations of equipment are enabling significant leaps in images. I am pleased with the color portraits I shoot today in dinner-party lighting. I could not and cannot do that with my old gear.

[DNG]

Not a new revelation, but it is interesting that he bought all those cameras of the past..

I bought a Nikon FE, a camera I owned in the early 90's. and I am still wanting to buy 2 more I used to own....

Voigtlander Prominent (v1) with the 5cm f/1.5 Nokton (My 1st camera for $50.00 (1968) used in "E" condition).
Robot Royal 36 Model II, with a 45mm f/2.8... Bought used for $125. (1974)

[farlymac]

My philosophy on camera gear is if I can afford it, I'll buy the good stuff. Since I don't make a living at photography, I'm under no pressure to produce results, or to have a decent ROI. But I like to think I can get decent photos from what ever I'm using, unless it's just physically impossible. A crappy camera is, after all, not going to get better no matter what technique is used.

There are cameras that I have lusted after over the years, only to find out they are an ergonomic nightmare to operate. And then there are the little surprizes along the way that get me interested in the other models of the line, so I seek them out. I'll never find the best camera for my use, as I have as many ways to want to shoot, as there are different cameras.

I did rebuild my first camera outfit out of nostalgia sake. And reminded myself at the same time why I got rid of it in the first place. But it will look sharp in the future display case it will reside in when I get a larger place to live. I took some decent shots with that outfit when I first owned one, and the test roll I shot 40 years later didn't come out too bad either. Would have looked a lot better with good lenses though. And the camera is such a bear to work with, and change lenses on (why I traded it for a bayonet mount system). But early on, I knew I could do good work with a camera, and others told me so too. I just took a different path to where I am now than the guy using the famous name. Military duty tends to get in the way of things, and after that little episode, it was a long time before I got interested in even owning a camera again. By then, I had started a career job, and just couldn't seperate myself from that to do photography full time, though I gave it a go a couple of times.

As I look over my old photos, I see where I could have done better by using a different film, or format, and sometimes better equipment. I see the technical mistakes I made along the way, but for the most part, I'm not embarrassed by what I've shot over the years. I just never made much money at it. But I still have fun discovering good cameras to shoot, and new-to-me techniques to use. One should always strive to improve.

PF

[jordanstarr]

The big problem with all of this is the subjective narrative of "better" or "good" or whatever. I know I can make a 35mm pinhole camera out of a matchbox that can potentially take "better" photographs than an M9 with an FLE 35mm Summilux for $15,000+. But what is the point in trying to convince it either way? Great photographs have a narrative that is so beyond the topic of gear it makes photographic forums (like this one) obsolete unless the entire concept is to expand creative expression.

[Richard G]

If I look back 40 years at my images since I started shooting, over that time the four great leaps forward were taking pictures of friends and family in my late teens and twenties with a Leica and fast (400 ASA!) film and fast lenses; a holiday to Italy in my mid 20s when I saw a lot of things photographically, almost certainly underpinned by having looked at a lot of photographs up to then and having by then an appreciation of different light and there in Italy, getting that light; and the last four years coming first to photo.net and then RFF more importantly; and this year frequenting the gallery, looking at all the pictures there, putting some of mine up and looking always at more pictures and taking more pictures. I have a few old cameras but don't need to shoot my new Rolleiflex to know that it too could deliver a lovely picture like one or two I took in my 20s, just as the iPhone can too. And I agree with Roger about doing better with a camera I like, and with the others, a camera that gets out of the way.