payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Melvin: "With a nice camera, even if your pictures are no good, you can always just look at the camera."
I remember what a delight it was to feel the, er, hairy end of a Winsor and Newton brush. Cocking and firing the IIIc I had was also a voluptuous pleasure.
The British photographer Bert Hardy once accepted a dare and took a rather good photo with a box camera. Neither twaddle nor bull****.
I remember what a delight it was to feel the, er, hairy end of a Winsor and Newton brush. Cocking and firing the IIIc I had was also a voluptuous pleasure.
The British photographer Bert Hardy once accepted a dare and took a rather good photo with a box camera. Neither twaddle nor bull****.
Turtle
Veteran
Absolutely agree. I spent a lot of money on a Leica system, but not gladly. I did it because it was working for me in a way that other things were not and while I winced at the expenditure, I did it not because I wanted to own the cameras/lenses, but because I wanted to make the best photos I could. with my style and type of work, that generally but not exclusively means RF. If I am shooting portraits with longer lenses then I will shoot a Canon SLR with Canon lenses because that works 'better' for me than a Leica with a 90mm APO Summicron.
It is very much about what you want to achieve. With my kit, images are often on 400 speed film and not that sharp (because it does not matter, sometimes contributes to the look, or simply not possible under the conditions I am shooting. Sometimes images are on slow film, sharp as hell and blown up to 24". You can do that with great lenses (i.e. record huge detail) but you cannot do that with poor quality ones. In that sense, I would not be able to make certain images to the same quality (then ones I really want to be very detailed).
As Chris C said, good tools allow a good worker to fulfil their potential, but they do not elevate the works of those who are not able to exploit the capabilities of their tools.
Plenty of artists or craftsmen care about their tools. Plenty of seemingly casual workers care about their tools a hell of a lot. Some talk about it and some don't ... and lots of bluffers talk an awful lot about not caring about their tools to cover for their lack of skill. It goes without saying that an artist using a finger, soil and honey to make images will not be too concerned about tools, but this is stating the obvious and many of the examples people give about 'artists that don't care' may be less extreme but the principle is the same, just the degree.
I don't try to shoot everything on ISO 25 film using the zone system, nor do I shoot everything through the bottom of a milk bottle while running about like a madman. I am somewhere in the middle and yes, the tools matter. Others may not agree, but thats probably because they have different goals or priorities.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've made good photos with crappy cameras. I haven't tried a box camera, but I have a couple of Diana cameras, which are actually worse than box cameras from a technical standpoint.
Shot with a Diana
The pic above is a cool photo, I like it. A lot. But only a fool would say 'gear doesn't matter' because it does. It mattered when I CHOSE to use the diana for the photo above and it mattered when I CHOSE the Mamiya 645 with 45mm lens for the shot below. It simply could not have been done with a Diana and it couldn't have been done with the 645 with any other lens. Sure you could shoot the scene with something else, but you'd have a totally different feeling from it. I wanted THIS image, no other. Because I had the right tools for the job, I got the image I wanted.
The narrow minded don't seem to understand that a talented photographer with a range of equipment can make ANY image he can visualize. Someone with just a single camera and one lens is artificially limiting himself. Sure, he can make a lot of great images BUT he cannot make EVERY image he might visualize. I want that ability. There is nothing more frustrating to me as an artist than seeing an image and not being able to realize it because I do not have the right tool for the job. This is my profession. I earn my living, small though it is, through the sale of my fine art photos. Sure, buyers of my work wouldnt know the difference if I only had one camera and lens....they would still see awesome photographs on my website and in my gallery and museum exhibits. I still don't want to be limited. This is my life, my vision, my profession, my passion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
On re-reading this thread, it seems that I am not alone in having failed to make the distinction between being obsessed with and giving a damn about. Now I've realized my error, I'll try to remedy it.
Too many people say, "Tools don't matter" -- which is patently nonsense. Any artist chooses the tools that will work best for him/her for a particular application. The choice may be constrained by money or other circumstances. Every artist I know buys the best he or she can afford, as Carlsen Highway points out.
On the other hand, I have never met artists who worry that much about whether they have a v2 or v3 Cornelissen sable -- though I do know some who care deeply about whether they have real ultramarine or an imitation, and who are far happier with a Paasche AB than any other airbrush.
The point at which 'proper concern' tips over into 'obsession' is obviously a matter of personal judgement, and indeed, there have been some curiously obsessive pigments in the past: anyone remember 'mummy paint'? But there is a terrible tendency for people to take one extreme or the other.
On the one hand is the 'know-nothing' stance of reverse snobbery, decrying any interest in equipment and materials as obsessive, and, often, saying that the only reason to buy a sable brush or real ultramarine or a Leica is snobbery, because 'real artists don't bother'. As I say, this is so nonsensical as to deserve no further analysis.
On the other, yes, well, there is an obsessive stance, worrying about whether their lenses are single-coated or double-coated, and whether they've got a v2 or v3 Summicron.
Most of us, as Turtle says, are somewhere in the middle, and the point he puts in bold type is, I am sure, important; but some of us (like me, and I suspect like Turtle) get really pissed off with the reverse snobs who apparently can't understand the following simple statement: Equipment matters, and you are a fool if you don't use the tools and materials you are happiest with, assuming you can afford them. I get equally pissed off with those who think that it will make a whole hell of a lot of difference to the work of a mediocre photographer whether he has a v2 or v3 Summicron.
@Stewart. I am unfortunately familiar with Ruskin's opinions, and I despise the man: a loathesome, arrogant, lying little fool. Effie made the right choice. But I only said 'tend'.
@JSU. Yes. I was talking to my father a couple of days ago: he's 82. He said he never uses his tools any more (he was a marine engineer). Next time I see him (we live nearly 1000 miles apart, in different countries), I may make off with them, if he agrees. The provenance of the tools can matter too!
Cheers,
R.
Too many people say, "Tools don't matter" -- which is patently nonsense. Any artist chooses the tools that will work best for him/her for a particular application. The choice may be constrained by money or other circumstances. Every artist I know buys the best he or she can afford, as Carlsen Highway points out.
On the other hand, I have never met artists who worry that much about whether they have a v2 or v3 Cornelissen sable -- though I do know some who care deeply about whether they have real ultramarine or an imitation, and who are far happier with a Paasche AB than any other airbrush.
The point at which 'proper concern' tips over into 'obsession' is obviously a matter of personal judgement, and indeed, there have been some curiously obsessive pigments in the past: anyone remember 'mummy paint'? But there is a terrible tendency for people to take one extreme or the other.
On the one hand is the 'know-nothing' stance of reverse snobbery, decrying any interest in equipment and materials as obsessive, and, often, saying that the only reason to buy a sable brush or real ultramarine or a Leica is snobbery, because 'real artists don't bother'. As I say, this is so nonsensical as to deserve no further analysis.
On the other, yes, well, there is an obsessive stance, worrying about whether their lenses are single-coated or double-coated, and whether they've got a v2 or v3 Summicron.
Most of us, as Turtle says, are somewhere in the middle, and the point he puts in bold type is, I am sure, important; but some of us (like me, and I suspect like Turtle) get really pissed off with the reverse snobs who apparently can't understand the following simple statement: Equipment matters, and you are a fool if you don't use the tools and materials you are happiest with, assuming you can afford them. I get equally pissed off with those who think that it will make a whole hell of a lot of difference to the work of a mediocre photographer whether he has a v2 or v3 Summicron.
@Stewart. I am unfortunately familiar with Ruskin's opinions, and I despise the man: a loathesome, arrogant, lying little fool. Effie made the right choice. But I only said 'tend'.
@JSU. Yes. I was talking to my father a couple of days ago: he's 82. He said he never uses his tools any more (he was a marine engineer). Next time I see him (we live nearly 1000 miles apart, in different countries), I may make off with them, if he agrees. The provenance of the tools can matter too!
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
point taken, Roger, I too ended up arguing a too fundamentalist position. But some stuff do matter really matter I recall a nightmare exhibition caused by a tube of Rowney Indian Red, rubbish compared to Winsor and Newton, and I compose snapshots better with a m2 than any other camera, despite trying to use more modern models.
P.S. you forgot artistic vandal, although there is some doubt now, I still like to think of him as a prat
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry, 120-170,000 years, I confused it with the Ethiopian “Ardi” fossil that was dated at 4.4 million years
http://www.fossilscience.com/research/Seafood_Makes_Waves_Humans_Leave_Home.asp
My point still stands, I value my work, therefore I use the most suitable materials and tools to produce it with, and I study and discus anything that helps me use them to best effect.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, that was what I had in mind with the bit about lying. He said he'd destroyed the pictures, and then it turns out that he may simply have hidden them instead. Typical of the slimy little turd. If he'd had any cojones at all (and his behaviour with Effie raises doubts about this) he'd have defended Constable rather than pretending to have destroyed them.
Cheers,
R.
Turtle
Veteran
I agree with almost everything you say, but it is worth remembering that not every photographer wants to be able to take every kind of picture. I am not a great fan of the 'one camera one lens' advice for the average photography buff, as most of us have a fair old range of interest or professional flexibility required. It can, however be handy (as a temporary measure) for those who have forgotten the human behind the camera and become fixated with the atom resolving capability of their dozen asph lenses. However, there are those for whom speed is of the essence and absolute split second timing everything. In that regard, if you are a street shooter of a certain type, one body with one lens with one film is really the only way to play, perhaps with another FL or two tucked away in a pocket for use when you have time and the nature of the 'less spontaneous' image still fits into your style.
Sometimes I stray into this area and find myself forcing myself to leave kit at home because I know that I will gain more by being forced to work within a narrow parameter (quickly and intuitively) than I will by having more options that I cannot exploit quickly enough. Its quite rare but I can imagine very specialised workers being better off with a lot less than you or I might wish to have handy.
Sometimes I stray into this area and find myself forcing myself to leave kit at home because I know that I will gain more by being forced to work within a narrow parameter (quickly and intuitively) than I will by having more options that I cannot exploit quickly enough. Its quite rare but I can imagine very specialised workers being better off with a lot less than you or I might wish to have handy.
SamStewart
Established
and then theres Terry Richardson with his little T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i3VETLflk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i3VETLflk