Does the device change your vision?

[lushd]

Do you take different pictures when you change cameras? This has been on my mind a lot lately having just bought a digital SLR and spent a lot of time with my Leica M3.

The pictures I take are quite different with these cameras and different again with a Zorki or Kiev. I don't mean technincally - I am interested in different images with different cameras and focus on different ideas.

Am I alone and strange?

 

[Dektol Dan]

Sure!

Sure!

I write completely different songs if I grab my Les Paul first rather than my Telecaster. Same with the cameras. I guess there are unique little pictures ready to be born in each of them.

 

[oscroft]

Do you take different pictures when you change cameras? This has been on my mind a lot lately having just bought a digital SLR and spent a lot of time with my Leica M3.

The pictures I take are quite different with these cameras and different again with a Zorki or Kiev. I don't mean technincally - I am interested in different images with different cameras and focus on different ideas.

Am I alone and strange?

You might very well be strange, but you're not alone 😀

I find that in general my SLR shots are more carefully planned and composed, but my RF shots are more spontaneous (though there is overlap - I do have some have carefully planned RF shots and some spontaneous SLR shots, but it doesn't work out that way anywhere near as often).

 

[Windwalker57]

We adapt or "vision" to the tools that we have in hand. It might be a simple as just viewing thru a different lens, or more abstract as is changing from color to black and white, we 'look' for things that our current tool will do best rendering. This applies to photography, music, woodworking, etc., wherever creative thinking comes into play.

Yes, you can tell I have given a lot of thought about my creative process.

Digital photography has changed more the 'how' and the 'look' rather than the kind of kind of photos I take. But, I find my vision changes more by what lens I choose than the camera itself. I am, indeed, more into lenses.

 

[payasam]

My pictures are essentially the same, whether I use an SLR or a RF. With an SLR I seldom use the depth of field preview because I have a fair idea of what the DOF will be with a particular lens at a particular aperture at a particular distance. While with a RF I sometimes get poles growing out of people's heads, that never happens with an SLR.

 

[RML]

For me, it seems to work that way.

I mostly shoot my dSLR for assignments, and I shoot differently (of course).
But more telling, when I shoot my little FED-2, I shoot differently then when I shoot my R-D1. And when I shoot my R-D1 I shoot differently then when I shoot my M2. The differences are slight but I see them.

 

[nikon_sam]

We adapt or "vision" to the tools that we have in hand. It might be a simple as just viewing thru a different lens, or more abstract as is changing from color to black and white, we 'look' for things that our current tool will do best rendering. This applies to photography, music, woodworking, etc., wherever creative thinking comes into play.

I could not have said it better...

 

[noci]

yes, I definately think that different tools and their unique ways of rendering your artistic intent modify the actual outcome.
to me, the decision which device and its properties to use for enabling a certain vision to come to life is part of the artistic process. I found that this is not a one-way street; playful use of any camera will point you towards new vistas that will further inform your past, present and future actions. it will put things into perspective while simultaneously questioning that new-found artistic horizon.
in the end, any image refers to its own image-hood. it refers to itself; it refers to the act of having taken an image. it exposes the modalities of its making and the surrounding circumstances.
I never understood why the notion of a "clinical", i.e. noise-free, perfectly lit, sterilly composed- that is, neutered - image is the fetish-object of today's handling of photography. must be the matter-of-factness and superficial acceptance of everyday's life that suffuses even high-art circles by now. well, don't want to rant about that, tho... 😉
that one photographic mantra of "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" might be true if regarded from a purely teleological perspective. I am glad that i.e. on this forum, people still "get" the magic of an image flawed, vulnerable, exposed to its own objecthood and hurled at the viewer whose judgement, gosh, might still be questioned.

 

[colinh]

Quite clearly "yes". I take very different (and I think, better) pictures with my M7 than with the DSLR (30D). I take shots I just couldn't do with the DSLR and vice versa, but I like the RF ones better 🙂

I wouldn't have believed it before I actually experienced it.


colin

 

[KenD]

[While with a RF I sometimes get poles growing out of people's heads, that never happens with an SLR.[/quote]

Interesting! I get "poles growing out of people heads" with my SLR shooting at, say, f/16 and viewing at, say, f/1.8 - the blurred out background in the viewfinder ends up in focus in the negative / slide. With an RF everything is in focus as I view it, I may end up with blurred details that I "viewed" as sharp.

Ken

 

[darkkavenger]

I concur with your impressions, I take different photos when I'm working with my Pentacon Six instead of my Contax IIIa. It's not just the format or the lens, it's also the way I see and what I tend to photography with each camera. 🙂

 

[lushd]

Hmm - this is the picture that started me thinking about this. I would never have taken this with any of my other cameras, partly because I felt comfortable snatching it with auto focus and auto exposure. However, I thought about this and realised that the same image would have been equally possible with a Zorki 4 pre-focussed and working on sunny 16 and just as quick.

 

[Bertram2]

Do you take different pictures when you change cameras?

No, not at all. My vision develops independently from the camera.
Lens and film must fit tho, to get at the end on the neg what I had seen before I pressed the release button.

This does not exclude that some cameras make it easier for me than others, not in general but depending on what the vision respectively is.

bertram

 

[Pablito]

No difference whatsoever. Except in so far as what specific cameras might offer: AF, longer lenses, etc

 

[oscroft]

An example. Today while we were out in Bangkok I had half an hour to spare while my wife was busy, so I decided to walk around with my M6 (it's usually with me, and today was loaded with Delta-400).

I wandered over a footbridge over a busy road and stopped half way, leaned on the parapet and just watched the traffic for a few minutes, and it struck me that interesting-looking people were walking across the bridge in ones and twos. So I metered, set my 28mm lens on hyperfocal, and, with it at my hip on a wriststrap, took a roll of photos of the people walking across the bridge (while appearing to be watching the traffic and perhaps sizing up a photo of it). The M6 is really quiet - I couldn't even hear it myself over the traffic noise - and nobody seemed in the slightest bit suspicious of me. (Whether I have any decent shots is something I won't know until I get back to the UK and develop it).

I just wouldn't have considered that if I'd had an SLR with me.

 

[oftheherd]

Interesting question. I think it may have to do with the tool in use as mentioned above. When I got my Yashica 124 MAT G, I generally (but not exclussively) put b/w film in it with the idea of large prints. When I saw something that I thought would make a good enlarged photo, that was the camera I preferred to use. That carried over pretty much to the Mamiya Super Press 23, although I was more likely to use slide and color with it than I had been with the Yashica.

With the 35mm cameras I had, fixed lens rf and slr, I used different films based on what look I wated, but tended to use more slide and color, but still plenty of b/w as I could print that myself for whatever "look" I wanted. That may not have been anyone else's experience though.

 

[Bertram2]

The M6 is really quiet - I couldn't even hear it myself over the traffic noise - and nobody seemed in the slightest bit suspicious of me. (Whether I have any decent shots is something I won't know until I get back to the UK and develop it).

I just wouldn't have considered that if I'd had an SLR with me.

Why not ? People see you and recognize you as somebody who is photographing them long before they can hear the camera , especially in this noisy environment ?

The idea that a camera could change the vision is basically suspicious, isn't it ? It is something like a backdoor to the stone old wrong idea, cameras could make photos, "at least a bit" so to say, by influencing the vision. 😀
They can help you, in many ways, yes, and that' s it. I go further and say if the camera influences your vision, something basically goes wrong !
First the vision second the tool. The other way round would mean that cameras inspire the photographer. And that is the above mentioned backdoor.
One should not believe in such effects, it leads you away from developing your personal approach and style and creativity. My experience in 30+ years of trial and error.


bertram

 

[lushd]

Bertram - my pics are all my vision regardless of which camera I am using. It's just that different cameras seem to bring out different versions.

 

[oscroft]

Hi Bertram,

Why not ? People see you and recognize you as somebody who is photographing them long before they can hear the camera, especially in this noisy environment ?

That's a very good question, and my only honest answer is that I really don't know - as you suggest, even the sound of my OM shutter would have gone unnoticed in the circumstances.

The idea that a camera could change the vision is basically suspicious, isn't it ? It is something like a backdoor to the stone old wronidea,cameras could make photos, "at least a bit" so to say, by influencing the vision.

It is indeed suspicious, yes. I only have hindsight with which to look back on the day, so it is very possible that I am misreading cause and effect - it may be that I was more in a mood to take the kind of photo I ended up taking, and that led me to take the M6 with me (rather than the OM2), and so that's the camera that I took the photos with. It may be that when I said "I just wouldn't have considered that if I'd had an SLR with me", the truth was more that had I been in the mood to take photos that are easier to take with an SLR, I wouldn't have been in the mood to take the photos that I ended up taking"

I go further and say if the camera influences your vision, something basically goes wrong !

Or it may be that the camera genuinely did influence my vision, in which case I would agree that was wrong. Or then again, is there an aspect that if you know what equipment you have with you, you just fail to see (or see less obviously) the shots that would be best with other equipment? I don't really know.

But I do know that for tomorrow, I know the kind of shots that I want - I want shots of people, looking around and down from the Bangkok Skytrain stations and various overpasses along the route. And I know what gear I want to use for it - M6 with 50 and 28 lenses.

My experience in 30+ years of trial and error

Nearly 40 years here - and I take it as a positive sign that there are still things like this that I'm unsure about 🙂

 

[thomasw_]

Quite clearly "yes". I take very different (and I think, better) pictures with my M7 than with the DSLR (30D). I take shots I just couldn't do with the DSLR and vice versa, but I like the RF ones better 🙂

I wouldn't have believed it before I actually experienced it.


colin

I concur completely with this, just replacing MP/M3 for M7.