Better photographer vs. better images

David Hughes said:
Not one mention of Bert Hardy, what is the forum coming to?
Click to expand...

*Having written an article for amateur photographers suggesting that you didn't need an expensive camera to take good pictures, Hardy staged a carefully posed photograph of two young women sitting on railings above a breezy Blackpool promenade using a Box Brownie in 1951, a photograph which has since become an iconic image of post-war Britain.[8][9]*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Hardy#Recognition

:)
 
You know there's that saying "It's the Indian not the arrow." ......
Too much of photo forum activity revolves around gear....gear excitement...gear acquisition...gear discussion
 
olifaunt said:
Yes, though this was before Leica became a camera only the rich could afford, and Garry Winogrand used relatively cheap Canon 28 mm lenses that are nothing special optically for much of his work. But yet his images are treasures.
Click to expand...


Kind of wondering what exactly is your definition of "Rich"?

Yes I own and shooting with Leica but certainly I don't consider myself rich, in fact far from it and I sure the most of the other Leica shooters here would say the same.
 
Does gear matter Yes in that it can often affect how we photograph a subject, example I took some shots of some rides at night a the local fair this past summer and due to the limits of the M9 I decide to go with setting of ISO800 F2.0/F2.8 at 1/45th and use the blur to tried to emphasize movement. Now if I had been shooting with say an M246 or a camera with fast AF I may have taken a different approach. As to wither the results would of been better, well "better" is some what subjective so maybe yes but also maybe no.
 
This thread started off with this "...someone pointed out that a newer camera would not make one a better photographer..." and I reckon that saying "newer" doesn't mean "better" when talking about cameras as cameras that can turn out far better images than the photographer expects or wants have been around for decades.

But first of all, we have to face up to the plain fact that few photographers (most of who don't even know about RFF) even bother to print bigger than 5" by 7" and so don't really need much in the way of lens quality. Even if they printed everything to 8" by 10" I can point to several cameras dating from the 60's that were not top of the range and expensive but which could do that with ease. A couple of good examples being the 1960's Konica C35 (a small, neat programmed mode RF with a good lens) and the Olympus Trip 35 from the 70's (and still a bargain just for the lens). Even auto focus and a decent lens etc was available in the 70's on the Konica C35Af and many others.

Spend more for a good SLR with excellent controls, TTL, super lenses etc, etc and there's the Olympus OM-1 available from the early 70's.

The problem is that to many people a good lens means something like the APO Leica ones but to many of us that is overkill. That was why I mentioned Bert Hardy who went out with a box camera to prove the point and made an icon that few could better so easily and cheaply.

Nowadays I'd say that the equivalent of his box camera would be something like the Lomo Cosmic Symbol in the right hands...

So do the cameras I've mentioned fit the specification of better (than needed) but not newer?

Regards, David
 
Last edited:
David Hughes said:
...
So do the cameras I've mentioned fit the specification of better (than needed) but not newer?...
Click to expand...

No I think thats another common misunderstanding that a big print should have more
informations in it than a small one.

A good picture stays a good picture even when you print it XXL+.
More resolution, sharpness, details etc. can be beneficial but they not necessary make a better picture.

My 5ct
 
David Hughes said:
Not one mention of Bert Hardy, what is the forum coming to? . . .
Click to expand...
Dear David,

That's because it was a substantially pointless stunt. Work within the limits of any camera and you can produce good images. The problem arises when you need fancy stuff like a focusing lens, or telephotos, or variable shutter speeds. It is perhaps telling that Hardy did not subsequently switch to box cameras because they were all he needed.

Cheers,

R.
 
David Hughes said:
This thread started off with this "...someone pointed out that a newer camera would not make one a better photographer..." and I reckon that saying "newer" doesn't mean "better" when talking about cameras as cameras that can turn out far better images than the photographer expects or wants have been around for decades.

But first of all, we have to face up to the plain fact that few photographers (most of who don't even know about RFF) even bother to print bigger than 5" by 7" and so don't really need much in the way of lens quality. Even if they printed everything to 8" by 10" I can point to several cameras dating from the 60's that were not top of the range and expensive but which could do that with ease. A couple of good examples being the 1960's Konica C35 (a small, neat programmed mode RF with a good lens) and the Olympus Trip 35 from the 70's (and still a bargain just for the lens). Even auto focus and a decent lens etc was available in the 70's on the Konica C35Af and many others.

Spend more for a good SLR with excellent controls, TTL, super lenses etc, etc and there's the Olympus OM-1 available from the early 70's.

The problem is that to many people a good lens means something like the APO Leica ones but to many of us that is overkill. That was why I mentioned Bert Hardy who went out with a box camera to prove the point and made an icon that few could better so easily and cheaply.

Nowadays I'd say that the equivalent of his box camera would be something like the Lomo Cosmic Symbol in the right hands...

So do the cameras I've mentioned fit the specification of better (than needed) but not newer?

Regards, David
Click to expand...
Dear David,

I repeat the extract from The Quality Plateau:

Some people actually like Holgas and other cheap plastic cameras. That's fine. If that's how they get better pictures, defined as pictures they like more, then the Holga is a better camera for them. But if you want to shoot wildlife, you'll most likely want telephoto lenses, and if you want to shoot underwater, your camera had better be not just splash-proof but submersible.

Cheers,

R.
 
TedHarris said:
Thanks everyone for all the thoughtful and insightful responses and the kind words. I’ve been reading threads for eight years or so and am pleasantly surprised by the responses to my first post.

The issue seems to be a bit of a conflict for most photographers, and the industry seems dependent upon unveiling the next greatest thing. More mega pixels! Higher ISO’s! Buy! Buy! Buy!
I’m fortunate to have several Contax II’s that have been overhauled by Henry Scherer and I mainly shoot with them. Sometimes I feel limited by the lenses but as several have mentioned working within certain limitations can be a good thing. I doubt thoug that if Robert Capa was resurrected today he would be using them.

I shot professionally for about ten years and got really burnt out on all of the digital whizbang hype and yesterday’s most amazing thing ever being valued as obsolete today.
I may miss shots with my Contax or M3 that I would’ve nailed with a 5Dx but I enjoy the experience this way a lot more.
Click to expand...
Another Contax user! Welcome!
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear David,

I repeat the extract from The Quality Plateau:

Some people actually like Holgas and other cheap plastic cameras. That's fine. If that's how they get better pictures, defined as pictures they like more, then the Holga is a better camera for them. But if you want to shoot wildlife, you'll most likely want telephoto lenses, and if you want to shoot underwater, your camera had better be not just splash-proof but submersible.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, but we are not all widlife photographers; that's a specialised use, surely?.

My money's on most photographers taking - to quote Ilford's old advert - faces and places. And for that a normal ordinary camera would do and the Trip 35 and C35 I suggested would be more than enough.

And would a wildlife photographer cope with a 35mm and nothing else to quote a lot of people when discussing the one lens concept?

That's assuming the point is that better/newer equipment beats a good eye for a photo or vice versa. My point being that a lot of equipment is overkill in terms of what's actually done by the owner, especially when 4" x 6" ordering prints from the lab...

Regards, David
 
Last edited:
David Hughes said:
Hmmm, but we are not all widlife photographers; that's a specialised use, surely?.

My money's on most photographers taking - to quote Ilford's old advert - faces and places. And for that a normal ordinary camera would do and the Trip 35 and C35 I suggested would be more than enough.

And would a wildlife photographer cope with a 35mm and nothing else to quote a lot of people when discussing the one lens concept?

That's assuming the point is that better/newer equipment beats a good eye for a photo or vice versa. My point being that a lot of equipment is overkill in terms of what's actually done by the owner, especially when 4" x 6" ordering prints from the lab...

Regards, David
Click to expand...
Dear David,

Highlight: But then, so is underwater photography (as noted in the original quote); and macro; and sports; and music photography; and low-light reportage; and interiors; and indeed pretty much anything except basic happy-snaps. What you're saying, in effect, is that happy-snap cameras are pretty good for the sort of thing that happy-snap cameras are pretty good for.

I don't deny that many cameras are, for many photographers, overkill: again, as I say in one of the quotes above, Pretty much any good camera made in the last 60 years or so can take better pictures than many of the photographers who have ever used it or who will ever use it. On the other hand, hobbyists habitually indulge in overkill: think of golf, or bicycling, or even cooking. The great advantage of overkill is that it leaves you room to explore and improve without being limited by your equipment.

And there's a pleasure in using good kit. A Leica feels nicer in my hands than a Cosmic Symbol; my Sabatier knives are nicer (and easier) to use than cheap, overly flexible stainless steel.

Cheers,

R.
 
Deardorff38 said:
You know there's that saying "It's the Indian not the arrow." ......
Too much of photo forum activity revolves around gear....gear excitement...gear acquisition...gear discussion
Click to expand...

Oh yes. A friend of mine coined: "If one cannot swim, it's the swimsuit's fault..."

IMHO, most cameras today offer too much. It's confusing, time consuming, annoying.

I've rarely missed a shot due to a lack of ability to focus manually really super-fast, but dozens because the darned autofocus didn't do what I wanted.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear David,

That's because it was a substantially pointless stunt. Work within the limits of any camera and you can produce good images. The problem arises when you need fancy stuff like a focusing lens, or telephotos, or variable shutter speeds. It is perhaps telling that Hardy did not subsequently switch to box cameras because they were all he needed.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, well, um, I see it as proof that the well known thread about image vs. equipment has been around a lot longer than the internet and he being a poor working photographer made his point and kept his name in front of the public, which most pro's still try to do...

Regards, David
 
Sumarongi said:
Oh yes. A friend of mine coined: "If one cannot swim, it's the swimsuit's fault..."

IMHO, most cameras today offer too much. It's confusing, time consuming, annoying.

I've rarely missed a shot due to a lack of ability to focus manually really super-fast, but dozens because the darned autofocus didn't do what I wanted.
Click to expand...
YES!

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom