cameras are tools...really?

To my mind, Al, a good photographer is one who takes decent pictures and does his (or her) own printing. When I got into the game, camera work and enlarger work were both parts of the same whole. I believe that is true of you as well.
 
Payasam,

After about 6 months in photography (that would be the end of 1962) I bought a Durst R-305 enlarger and my Dad bought me a 50mm f/2.8 El Nikor after using a friend's darkroom for awhile. Three years later I upgraded to an Omega B-22 XL enlarger. I still have and use the El Nikkor and Omega along with the safelight, Nikor tank and reels, and 8 X 10 trays I bought back then. I've added to it over the years, mostly with used stuff.

Sometimes I honestly get the feeling that I don't have to know how to print anymore. It's like I'm being guided through the process by friendly spirits residing my darkroom. It's become as automatic as that big Fuji machine at the Walgreens one hour lab. It has a sensor that chooses color balance and exposure. I have one that chooses contrast and exposure. My hands shape themselves to throw some pretty complex shadow patterns for burning and dodging but they know how to get in the correct position to make the proper shadow patterns, and for how long. The timer stays put at 10 seconds. If I need less exposure I "dodge" the entire image for a few seconds. If it needs more I use the on-off switch for a few seconds. I've been meaning to add a foot switch for forty years. That extra might be through a higher or lower contrast filter, and I often burn in through different filters for high lights and shadows. But ask me what I'm doing? I'm mostly unaware of doing it.

Yes, Mukul, in the darkroom the equipment, myself, and the spirits are all part of a unified whole. There's a harmony at work.
 
I really don't think that seeing your cameras as more than just tools equates to being a gear-obsessed status junkie. I don't think any of my cameras could be seen as "status" gear - most of you guys wouldn't use my kit for a door-stop if you hads the choice - but they are all instruments to me, for one reason or another they all make me feel a certain way and I am _sure_ they influence the photos I take with their personality. Its not a matter of wether or not they are higher quality - I could care less, I am well aware of the limitations and strong suites of all my gear - its a case of getting a vibe, a feel, from each speicific camera or lens. Also, because they are mostly really old, and all of them second hand, I think they are fellow travellers with stories to tell and I enjoy their company, each in their own way.
And no, I don't think Eric Clapton would ever refer to any of his guitars as a "tool", and most musicians I know (and I know a few) would be offended at the suggestion. To most, its not a case of better guitar=better music mentality, but they have a great deal of intangibles that makes them very, very partial to certain instruments over others. I don't pretend to know Clapton, but I would suggest that he would be much the same. Actually, he describes the time when he was at his lowest, selling guitars to feed his habits, as one of the darkest times of his life - and from the interviews I have read, it certainly didn't seem like he was selling hammers.
I think this kind of discussion is really fuelled by the unique nature of photography. You can take a camera to a store and photograph a toilet plunger for the purposes of showing it to your better half for approval. Meanwhile, what the greats do with a camera is the furthest thing from this kind of mundane application. No one brings a guitar to hardware store, comes home and when asked about which plunger he bought answers with "I can't quite describe it, but if it was a song, it would look like....ths: *strummmmmm*"
Personally, I would venture that in my case, in a combo comprised of myself and a camera/lnes, the tool is most often behind the viewfinder🙂 And I stand by my initial assessment.
 
I once asked "Toy or tool" meaning not the camera in itself but the choice some of you would make when you need a camera to have the job done and which you would take when you just wanted to enjoy a certain way of taking photographs.
Tools: Nikon FM, Bessa R, Retina IIc, 35 RC, Kiev 5
Toys: Most of my FSU's, Kodak Brownie, Pentax auto 110

Strange: Musicians can talk for hours about the wondrous properties (their) Stardivaris or Amatis but photogs talking about their equipment are weird gearheads.
Will ever anybody ask a musician or tennis pro why he has several rackets or guitars whereas it's what do you dowith all those things (Ancient egyptians will understand me I've just chosen a lovely spot for my cursed grave and chosen the Cameras that will follow me to the afterlife....)

Yes bmattock I understand the group of people who are firmly tugging your's and each collectors nerve: Those who have a firm concept how things should be and who only can answer the question why it has to be like that by answering " that's the way things have to be"
Of course there are limits collecting like Collecting so many classic cars that your company goes broke and workers from your company seize your collection in order to pay the company's debts (happened in France) or trophies of serial killers.
But otherwise....live and let live...and don't ask collectors rethoric questions that are meant to boost your appeal. How would it be if intsead of a rethoric question modest noncollectors would state "Look at me I don't collect anything, this amkes me sane, normal and likeable" Well I would like to see the reaction of anyone listening.....
 
There seems to be an underlying attitude that collectors do not take photos or use the cameras and if they do, for some reason, the skill is low. It's funny, but the more I think about it this issue my collecting nature has always been intertewined w/ my hobbyist or artistic leanings. As a kid, I collected comic books and books in general ( still collect books also). Early in school and throught college I wrote for school magazines, creative courses and campus newspapers. I wrote well and even won a few little awards. As teen and well into my 30's I collected LP's, 45's and 78's. At that time I learned how to play a little guitar and joined garage bands. I played relatively well and others seemed to enjoy listening. I have a few "collectable" cameras. An M2 (a very nice user), a Yashica Lynx 14 (definitely collectable), a new MP purchased 1 1/2 years ago ( I don't if that's considered collectable), and couple of TLR's (very collectable) which I don't really enjoy using and more than likely sell for something I do enjoy using. I have set up a traditional wet darkroom which I am currently refining. I don't really shoot enough to save money in comparison to using a pro lab. I do it because I enjoy it. I also enjoy going on photo workshops in places other than where I live. I do consider myself a collector of prints and of photo books. I think it really doesn't matter if a person does "collect". The truth is I am a middle aged man w/ more discretionary income than I really need. So I indulge in my "hobby". That includes a little collecting here and there. That includes a little camera fondling. And that also includes a nice shot once in a while too.
 
The way some people on this forum elegise about their cameras, they are most definitely NOT tools, more like ethereal metaphysical fluffy things made from manna from heaven that would get blown away with a gentle summer breeze—especially when they are using them to capture the essence of fleeting moments of their (decisive) vision…..
 
BigSteveG said:
There seems to be an underlying attitude that collectors do not take photos or use the cameras and if they do, for some reason, the skill is low.
Click to expand...

It's worse than this:

  • you (not you, Steve ...) belong to a minority that over a few years was able to afford over, say US 10k of equipment, including various brands of cameras and lenses, several Leicas, ZIs, various digital and film equipment, possibly an M8.
  • then you mature to becoming a serious photographer; from now on, cameras are just "tools" for you, whatever that means ... Of course, you shoot "street", because that's what one does with RFs.
  • after this graduation, your current "tools" of choice are simply the best, and all other equipment options are "for collectors/display only". This is also the right time to start some
    Leica bashing, BTW.
  • all this on a Forum owned and sponsored by camera retailers, which by definition joins equipment fans and photographers, often combined.

Quite sad really, if you consider that many RFF members don't even have the budget for some basic CV equipment.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
It's worse than this:

  • you (not you, Steve ...) belong to a minority that over a few years was able to afford over, say US 10k of equipment, including various brands of cameras and lenses, several Leicas, ZIs, various digital and film equipment, possibly an M8.
    Roland.
Click to expand...

  • Dear Roland,

    Hey! Where are you getting that lot for $10,000, or 5000 quid, or 7000 euros?

    Seriously, point taken. I just think you need to double the number.

    Cheers,

    R.
 
ferider said:
Quite sad really, if you consider that many RFF members don't even have the budget for some basic CV equipment.
Click to expand...
This is why it is poor form in polite company to talk about how much money one makes, what things cost, and how much "stuff" one has accumulated. It still is, isn't it? Or am I just an anachronism? 😉
 
foto_fool said:
This is why it is poor form in polite company to talk about how much money one makes, what things cost, and how much "stuff" one has accumulated. It still is, isn't it? Or am I just an anachronism? 😉
Click to expand...
I fear you are. "Money and fair words", spoken with a shake of the head, is not a phrase much understood today.

Then again, very few people understand what a prat it makes someone look when they boast about their possessions. Nor do they understand that pity, rather than admiration or envy, is the most usual reaction from those who would rather have a life than possessions.

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes Roger, my gear came for "money and fair words!" - something I have not heard since my grandfather passed away (bless his half-Irish soul). And I fear that even more than the "money" part, the "fair words" bit is too frequently by the wayside.
 
Roland, where has any "collector bashing" taken place here? Are we sure it's not just people being over-sensitive?

I, for one, don't have anything against collecting, per se, even though I don't do it myself. My only objection is that Leica seems to be catering to collectors to the detriment of innovation, which seems a bass-ackwards way to run a company. And, IMO, some of the Leica purpose-made collectibles were LOL funny, and go a long war towards explaining why Leica as a maker of photographic tools has lost so much respect over the years.

I don't collect, but I do keep old stuff around for no useful reason. For example: I have a Schneider-Kreuznach 6-66 f1.8 zoom lens for a Beaulieu Super-8 movie camera that's just sitting here with no camera body to call home. I keep it, I think, because if I sold it, that would mean I'd "given up" on Super-8 as a medium, and I can't quite bear to do that yet, no matter the realities.
 
Last edited:
Most likely they collect paintings by a paricular artist or genre or period or style. They might collect only pen and ink drawings or just intaglio prints.
 
"Most likely they collect paintings by a paricular artist or genre or period or style. They might collect only pen and ink drawings or just intaglio prints"

or for most people here, just substitute a few words 🙂

Most likely they collect cameras by a paricular maker or genre or period or style (Rangefinder) They might collect only olympus or just fixed lens camera's.
 
"We don't take pictures with our cameras. We take them with our hearts and we take them with our minds, and the camera is nothing more than a tool."
-Arnold Newman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom