Asking about equipment... is is poor taste?

[robklurfield]

"What did you use? How much did you pay for it? How much to sell it to me?"

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Which brand of typewriter did Hemingway, Faulkner, Morrison etc use when, for which specific book? How about the quality of their work when the typewriter was switched to another model or brand in the middle somewhere?

Any direct effect on their writing, work?

None, I would assume.

Now about Nikon and Canon, Zeiss and Leica, as our tools, we think that those names matter?

Fools we are. And the public too.

I think there are a great many writers who had favorite typewriters. It was not unheard of to know that a writer would only write on an Underwood. Writers have favorite pens. Writers have favorite rituals. They write only while wearing "lucky socks," or after a glass of a specific brand of scotch.

All of that may have nothing to do with the actual words produced, but feeling confident or comfortable while working can have significant effects on results.

There's no shame in wanting to use things you like. Just because someone calls something a 'tool' doesn't mean everyone should feel the same way about it.

I remember when i replaced an old, cheap manual can opener. The old one worked fine. The new one had a modern design, with a thick rubber grip, and a more efficient design. It's a damn can opener. But, every time i have to open a can, i'm reminded of how much better the new one is, and how important good design is. They both open the can. But, one is a 'joy' to use.

Maybe i'm crazy. I'm a designer, though, so perhaps i'm a bit more sensitive to these things. But, that's my point: people have different sensitivities.

I would suggest that a person should not be embarrassed to ask the question, provided it's couched in a way that doesn't diminish the creator's input. And, further, the person should not be offended if the creator refuses to answer.

I once bought a print of one of my favorite photographs: "Mr. Nice," by Hiroshi Watanabe. I emailed him beforehand, though, to ask him what equipment he used, because i had been seeking a very specific characteristic i found in that photograph. He was entirely gracious and modest and comprehensively answered my simple question. And, my respect for him, as a person, grew to match my respect for his work.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

The technical aspect of photography can leave people chasing rainbows at the beginning, and I've been as guilty as the next guy in that pursuit. But there are differences that actually mean something, and differences that don't. If you're lucky, and pay attention, you figure out the difference between them, make your choices, and get on with the work at hand. Finding your gear, then knowing your gear to the point that it all but disappears, is pretty much the idea...stuff that works so well that it basically disappears when you're in the process. Again, the gear does matter, but the idea is to pick what works for you and just get on with it.


- Barrett

So true. Unfortunately, it has taken me a lot of time and a lot of money to find the pieces that really work for me. After 15 years of messing around with Canon, Leica, Zeiss, etc., i found my favorite lens. And, it cost me about $25....

 

[mh2000]

it's easier to get a bunch of dissimilar people from all over the world to discuss gear than actual photos. I don't think it is rude at all in a gear forum... RF=a type of gear. In a gallery, you shouldn't ask unless it is called for because of format or something interesting that is obviously a result of gear choice. Once it is hung, it is about the image, not the gear.

 

[KM-25]

I think it is fine to ask. I remember when I heard a discussion about how some photographers did not want to tell others what chemistry they used to develop film because they had "trade secrets". They must be very insecure people to feel threatened by the fact that others will gain knowledge for their benefit. I teach advanced darkroom classes, and I will tell you everything I know, my students will know too, and believe me, what camera is used etc,, is ALWAYS brought up THANK GOD!!!

But are you a full time shooter or just in education? Because with the internet age, there are tons and I do mean TONS of people lurking out there who are looking for a handout so they can start up their own business. I am not paranoid or insecure, I just use common sense in the divulging of proprietary information surrounding my business and that includes technique and or gear.

Before the internet age, it was far less of a problem. But now you have literally millions of amateurs / weekend warriors trying any way they can to make a buck, so you have to watch what you say and where you say it.

I tell all kinds of people about Kodachrome and how to shoot it, but as for the rest? I keep that to my self. That is why I am not only still in business but still in *good* business.

So don't take offense to it or label people insecure, often their lively hoods depend on it.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I can tell all my "secrets" but I don't worry about it. They don't see with my eyes or think with my brain. People can take courses at the local college (I've taught there), read photography magazines (I've had some articles published), there are all kinds of ways that they can learn. Somebody has to pass down the information to the next generation. No, I'm not "in education", I'm a photographer who has paid the bills for nearly half a century with my cameras. If it wasn't for those who helped me learn the "secrets" I would have spent the last 48 years "reinventing the wheel", as the old saying goes.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

In an episode of "Southland" the character is buying his wife a Hasselblad, because he was told "it is the best camera in the world", and I noted it had a Metz flash. It also showed a real photo store.

That said, I think we should all write to the producers and set them straight. ;-)

I saw that episode. I thought it was funny that the saleperson justified his claim that the "Hasselblad is the best camera in the world" by saying that "Cartier-Bresson thought so."

As a person trying to write screenplays, that sort of thing interests me. Did the writer include that bit because he/she thought it was true, or was it included to make the salesperson seem like 'a salesperson' with a regular line of BS?

Anyway, we're way off-topic. I agree that it would be rude/inappropriate to ask a photographer at a gallery about his equipment, unless there was some 'obviously exotic' gear or technique being used. I mean, if it's a series of pinhole photographs, is it really so out of line to ask about pinhole photography? Or, the guy who created a camera out of a huge storage container.... Is it out of line to ask about that? Oddly, it does seem out of line to ask Nachtwey, for instance, about his Canons. Which leaves the question: where's the line and when is it crossed? Which sorta means there is no line, and it's up to the individual to consider it and then risk it or not.... But, i don't think it's wrong to ask someone in a forum, or even to email a photographer to ask about any part of his technique or gear. The photographer can either respond or not. Nothing lost.

 

[SuitePhoto]

Simple rule of thumb: If the photographer is wearing a beret, don't ask about gear and risk insulting their sensitive artistic aura. 😀

Seriously - if a photographer can't get over themselves and have a simple "camera geek" gear discussion with a fellow photographer, then I really have no interest interacting with them.

 

[StanSmith]

I think it is a reverse snobbery thing. It seems people take extra pride in having shot a good photo with a cheap camera then with an expensive camera. I get this impression at other sites where Leica user bashing is the rage. "What a $5k camera can't take a good picture?"

When I watch or participate in motor sports I would like to know all about the bike or the car the winner rode in. Wouldn't you?

 

[Windscale]

I don't mind people asking and I do ask about gear too. No doubt it is the photographer who takes the photo. But he could not have done it without his gear. But then, gear need not mean the most expensive gear, or else, anyone who can afford a Leica, Hass or what have you can become a good photographer. Indeed, more than once I have seen people wearing a Hass 500CM not knowing what to do. They just wanted to impress. I found that out because many of them cannot take more pictures as their roll of film ran out and they did not know how to change the film! Throughout the years I have used all kinds of gear. But those which are still with me are certainly not the most expensive. In fact, only a short while ago I wrote in RFF that some cameras in constant use by me are triplets and homeamde cameras. And I just would not have the strength to hold many modern cameras.

The most important factors are ease of use and yet good (and light) enough to produce the pics I want.

When I see a good pic and ask the photographer what gear he used, I did not ask this out of insult thinking that it is the gear that took the pic. But I have also learnt to be wiser over the years that before I ask the gear question I would make appreciating comments on the composition and exposure before doing so. The photographer would then be very happy to discuss gear and anything else with you.

 

[aniMal]

Originally Posted by amateriat
The technical aspect of photography can leave people chasing rainbows at the beginning, and I've been as guilty as the next guy in that pursuit. But there are differences that actually mean something, and differences that don't. If you're lucky, and pay attention, you figure out the difference between them, make your choices, and get on with the work at hand. Finding your gear, then knowing your gear to the point that it all but disappears, is pretty much the idea...stuff that works so well that it basically disappears when you're in the process. Again, the gear does matter, but the idea is to pick what works for you and just get on with it.

- Barrett

I totally agree, and for me that happens to be Leica M for the most part. I clearly remember the time after I dropped all my Canon gear and got an old M - it felt like starting from scratch again. But it really made me think about the picture more than the gear, and also made me much better at getting a feel for how my settings would affect the picture. For a long time now I have felt that any dSLR gets much more in the way for me than an M when working, and that is the only real reason for me to use Leicas. Recently I have started using some old Pentax gear just by chance, and the MX really is one of the best cameras I have used handling-wise...

It all depends where it comes from, for me getting the right gear is necessary for getting the right images without the gear getting in the way. Also it is a real joy switching between my M7 and M8, it makes working with film an digital as identical as possible!

So, this kind of gear-talk is fine with me. What I absolutely abhor on the other hand, is getting too deep into specs... When the gear-talk is totally disconnected from the images themselves, it is like talking about the material and quality of the frames at an exhibition...

Most of the time I think it is quite easy to feel where it is coming from, both in others - and with oneself with a little more effort to be honest 😉

Sometimes the gear itself clearly affects the images though. Recently I have gotten into 4X5, and it is such a thrill to work in a totally new way for me. Working with that pace makes me look for different images, which fits in nicely with a project I am doing now.

Also, sometimes small differences in equipment might be crucial. One of the best things with the M8 is the wheel for zooming in on the preview image. When going into info mode and then looking at the shadows and highlights, you get the levels of the respective areas. It is just the perfect way of calculating the exposures for my 4X5!

I guess one reason that people get caught up in the gear-thing, is also that being happy with the gear makes you focus on the image. And what if the process just stops? For me I now feel that I have the perfect set of gear for myself - and then the result is totally up to me when I work on a project...

Gear is about getting a result I believe, and gear-talk is equally about getting somewhere. When it comes from that angle it is OK, but when it comes without any ambition of making good images, it is just a real nuisance...

 

[Mephiloco]

I think it's in poor taste to take offense. If asked me what kind of gear I use(d) in a particular shot, I'd have no problem telling them. If someone asked what kind of knives I use I'd have no problem endorsing Hattori or Global. I learned years ago in almost every field that gear is irrelevant, people before us have done much more with a lot less, it's more about mastering what you're doing regardless of the equipment. I'm sure Cartier Bresson could take better pictures with a Holga than any of us with a M7 and a wide variety of lenses. I'm also sure that Federer could beat most of us with an old steel tennis racket that weighs several pounds while we're using the latest offerings from Wilson and Prince weighing 1 lb or less.

When I ask what kind of equipment someone used it's usually out of curiosity as far as 1) the focal length/exposure etc 2) their personal preference as to equipment.

I do the same thing with music gear as well. When I hear something I like I try to figure out what kind of guitar/amp combination was used to get that sound because I really like it or it might be something I can use as a starting point. For example, the guitar solo on Aqualung was done on a cheap battery powered amplifier with a 5" or so speaker that Martin Barre bought off a street musician for like 15 quid on the way to the studio. Things like that interest to no end.

and it appears I've digressed somewhere along the way.

 

[Mephiloco]

and like the previous post says, sometimes there's something about having something new that completely reinvigorates you. When I first got my canonet, or my first SLR, I was taking pictures I hadn't ever thought of taking with my previous equipment. When I got my current strat I was playing constantly for weeks better (at least to me) than I had played in years. It's probably all psychosematic and related to having something 'new and shiny' but none the less it controls your attention more and makes you devote more time to it. When I got my newest amplifier I wasn't like 'oh, neat, blackface fender.. alright then.. what to do today maybe I'll go for a walk,' everything revolved around the new toy.

Sometimes you ask just because you want to emulate. 'Cartier Bresson used a Leica? Well **** I'm getting a Leica and I'm going to be JUST LIKE CARTIER BRESSON.' or in my case 'PETE TOWNSEND USED A SG? WELL HELL I'M GETTING AN SG' just to find out I hate Gibson SG's (they feel weird to me) but I like Strats so I can be the next Hendrix, so its ok.

God damn me and my tangents

 

[kitaanat]

Due to my work that relate to highend digital camera back and I have opportunity to play with many cameras from a very old pinhold cameras, RF, SLR, DSLR, MF, LF and many lens in my office that I can bring it out to take a photo as much as I can do.

From my experience, I was very surprise about the result from a very old, scratches with lens coating abrasion Sirona-N and old Apolanthar compare with a new Digitar lens on the Sinar P2 with digitalback. A result pictures from Kinoptik lens that modify for a new DSLR cameras. I also got some files from my friend whose test the Angenieux 50mm f0.95 compare with Canon 50mm f0.95 on Leica M that have different characteristic and yes I've seen some result from Noc too. These are some examples that make me think and still use a-more-than-50-years-old equipments.

For me I would be happy to answer those kind of questions and I'll tell them that a very old and (sometime) very cheap lens can give a good photo. It's a photographer, his brain and his eyes that make a great photo not a camera itself. The camera is only record what ever a photographer want. I'm sure if HCB, Capa or other great photographers have a mobile phone with built-in 2mp camera they can have a great photo too. Sometime I ask my friends "what camera / lens or film you use to take this picture" because there is something in the picture make me curious. For example a picture from Holca or Lomo that blur on the edge and viggnette. I feel excited when I saw the picture that taken in low light situation with Noc.

Someone gave me an opportunity to try his Rolleiflex, Leica, Voigtlander, he know I love BW photo. But I prefer my Retina IIIC and Ricoh 500GX because "size matter" and I love the lens quality including "leaf shutter".

My Retina IIIC is very small & handy. The picture quality go far beyond my Canon and I can reduce my big TV size camera bag to a small volley ball size one. I can carry my camera including 4 lens every day and other camera ready to shoot around my neck. I still use the big one (why not) when I travel far away and need many cameras & accessories.

I really don't know Sir Edmund and that the first thread inform me (thanks). The first thread give me some idea that my camera (I guess) can work on those extreme condition too. I think I can travel anywhere with my little camera bag that can carry all of my gears to take any style of photo. and I'm planing.


my camera bags : because size matter


my everyday camera bag


my gears that I carry everyday


🙂