chuckroast
Well-known
This whole thread put me in mind of something.
When I was a young photographer, I thought the equipment made all the difference and I sought "better" cameras and lenses.
When I was a bit more photographically mature, I thought that the equipment didn't matter. I aspired to be an artist, by golly, and artists do good work, notwithstanding the equipment.
Now with the benefit of ... uhm ... plenty of time I've come to understand that equipment is like paintbrushes. Different brushes are appropriate for different situations.
But more importantly, I've come to understand that cameras, for lack of a better term, have a "soul". When you use an Nikon F, or a Leica M film body, a Hasselblad or a great field camera, its "soul" is influencing how you work. I shoot very differently with a Leica than I do a Nikon, and differently again with a Hassy.
It seems to me, this comes from two sources. First there is the objective reality of how the machine in question is built and how it is used. The silkiness of a Leica or the jaw dropping sharpness of a Hassy lens are a matter of design and construction.
But I think it's also the case that our history with a given machine also deeply influences how we use these. Our atavisms for a given machine appear to strongly influence how we work and what we prefer to use. There is no way on earth I could objectively defend owning a Photomic FtN - I have much more recent examples of Nikon film bodies at my disposal. It's certainly not "better" that my Leica film bodies, just different. But the F was the first "professional" camera I owned in my youth. It was part of what launched a 50 year love affair with photography and couldn't imagine selling my most recent copy.
The paintbrush you choose - the one with which you most resonate - profoundly affects how you work.
When I was a young photographer, I thought the equipment made all the difference and I sought "better" cameras and lenses.
When I was a bit more photographically mature, I thought that the equipment didn't matter. I aspired to be an artist, by golly, and artists do good work, notwithstanding the equipment.
Now with the benefit of ... uhm ... plenty of time I've come to understand that equipment is like paintbrushes. Different brushes are appropriate for different situations.
But more importantly, I've come to understand that cameras, for lack of a better term, have a "soul". When you use an Nikon F, or a Leica M film body, a Hasselblad or a great field camera, its "soul" is influencing how you work. I shoot very differently with a Leica than I do a Nikon, and differently again with a Hassy.
It seems to me, this comes from two sources. First there is the objective reality of how the machine in question is built and how it is used. The silkiness of a Leica or the jaw dropping sharpness of a Hassy lens are a matter of design and construction.
But I think it's also the case that our history with a given machine also deeply influences how we use these. Our atavisms for a given machine appear to strongly influence how we work and what we prefer to use. There is no way on earth I could objectively defend owning a Photomic FtN - I have much more recent examples of Nikon film bodies at my disposal. It's certainly not "better" that my Leica film bodies, just different. But the F was the first "professional" camera I owned in my youth. It was part of what launched a 50 year love affair with photography and couldn't imagine selling my most recent copy.
The paintbrush you choose - the one with which you most resonate - profoundly affects how you work.
