cameras are tools...really?

Cameras can be more than tools. In the right person's hands.
Click to expand...


If it takes "the right person's hands" to make a camera more than a tool, it stands to reason that the person is more important than the camera.
 
Sitemistic: "But if you are going to call yourself a photographer, the definition requires that your primary goal in owning a camera is in actually taking photos."
Bah! Humbug! I call your bluff--!!!
Attend a wedding where there are 2 disposables on every table.
Watch the folks snapping away and then leaving the cameras for the bride/groom to develop the pix==and see some great photography afterwards! Several people at each wedding will have "the eye"--photographers? Yep! Own a camera? Maybe...maybe not--but the photos make the "photographer"..camera owner or not.
 
Making a decent living as a photographer doesn't require the skill to always get great pictures. It does require the skill to always come up with decent useable pictures.
 
In the Pop Photo forums, I always put a short line of dashes, then end with "It's not the camera, stupid, it's the EYE".

We couldn't take pictures without cameras, but there is always the fact that what we see and take pictures of is (most of the time, I hope) something that we are either attracted to or want to preserve some form of memory of.

I too treasure my cameras, try to take good care of them, and I've never in many decades parted with one I owned. Which means that some of them I don't use much any more. But I still believe that we are sort of frustrated artists, too. So maybe this discussion is a bit like the chicken and the egg - which side do you want to put your faith in.

A Stradivarius is a priceless violin. But it can't make music sitting in a case on a table. It takes the talent of someone trained to play it. Ditto a Steinway piano. They are a means to an end, but the end can't be reached without the intervention of someone willing learn to use it. Same with a camera.
 
Ade-oh said:
I don't really buy that. Michelangelo's hammer and chisel and Monet's paintbrush remained tools despite what they produced.
Click to expand...

We would have to ask them if they regard their tools as just that, or if they are not revered for the qualities that they possess.
 
Guys, my point was simply that at certain times, certain objects are regarded with a higher esteem than the their most simplistic definition. The question was not "do you buy your cameras to collect or to shoot with". If you regard your camera as a tool, then does that not make a disposable point and shoot it's equivalent ?
 
Not in the least! Different cameras are tools for different things. A 4X5 monorail view camera can do things an SLR can't do, and vice versa. Don't give me the modern cop out "I can fix it in P-shop!" Some lenses give fantastic bokeh, others don't. Some render colors better than others, or are better for infra red photography. You pick the tool for the job. Yes, you can hammer nails with a jack plane or tighten screws with wood chisel. Hell, they even make different hammers for different things: tack hammer, carpenter's hammer, framimg hammer, one handed sledge, two handed sledge, and if an old timer catches you using a hammer on a chisel? Watch out! That's why they make mallets.
 
If you regard your camera as a tool, then does that not make a disposable point and shoot it's equivalent ?
Click to expand...

Sure. If it gets the job done.

Mitch Alland gets better results with a Ricoh GR-D than most people, myself included, get out of their M camera.
 
Last edited:
kevin m said:
Sure. If it gets the job done.

Mitch Alland gets better results with a Ricoh GR-D than most people, myself included, get out of their M camera.
Click to expand...

Then why own a Leica ?
 
A pro or serious amateur doesn't obsess. He knows which tool is required for the task at hand, picks it up, and uses it. You don't need to own every tool ever made.
 
I don't look at my cameras as tools. Being a hobbyist I tend to look at my cameras as companions. I don't talk to them, at least not yet.:D Companions, because I tend to carry one with me every time I leave the house. I guess you could say there big boys toys! Some of you guys that call your cameras tools really treat them like children. You wipe them like a child and some of you even go so far as to dress them like a child. As in $160.00 or more expensive leather.:eek: Not saying that's a bad thing.;) But tools?:rolleyes:
 
sitemistic said:
I've never had anyone, looking at one of my photos in a newspaper, magazine or gallery, comment that the photo would have been so much better if I had used an FL 55 1.2 on a Canon Ftbn, rather than the EF 50 1.4 I used on the EOS 1. Both lenses have very different "looks," but nobody, in the real world, really seems to care.
Click to expand...
Exactly. First, they care about the picture, not the bokeh, look, etc., and second, there's not a lot of point in agonizing over comparison shots.

Use what you're happy with. If you're not happy, ask yourself why. Maybe it's nothing to do with your equipment: maybe you're just not a very good photographer. (I use 'you' in a general sense, of course -- not you personally. Then again, you are happy with your pics...).

Cheers,

R.
 
gb hill said:
I don't look at my cameras as tools. Being a hobbyist I tend to look at my cameras as companions. I don't talk to them, at least not yet.:D
Click to expand...

You don`t talk to them ?? :eek::eek::eek::eek: ;):angel:
 
It is the cool thing to say. I don't see too many musicians calling their instruments tools - even if their day job is to record a McDonalds jingle. But among photographers, it just somehow developed into the "I could care less" statement of true photographic cool.

Someone said that a camera (or was it a Leica of some sort.. isn`t it always) is just a tool, not something to be dressed up. Well, I was made to eat, ****, reproduce and die. But I sure am glad there is more to life...
 
Cameras and guitars are good comparisons. True, most musicians do not call their guitars tools but they are. Eric Clapton can pick up any guitar and make it sing. The magic is in him, not the guitar.
If you or I play a $5 ebay beater or a $5000 Martin, our talent does not change. The tone and playability will be different but the talent remains the same.
Buying a $5 ebay beat camera or a $5000 camera do not change my talent / eye / approach to photography. One may be easier to use or look better but what I bring... That's what counts.
They are all tools when it comes down to it. Some photographers or musicians would like to think that they will be better if they buy a certain camera or guitar. The tool does now improve the talent just by showing up. A good tool can help you improve your skills - with work. But a bad tool can also help you improve skills - with work. And just because you are not a professional doesn't mean it is not a tool.

Steve
 
I don't know that it matters that much - how we perceive our cameras is part of what makes us individuals, so if someone does or doesn't consider it a tool doesn't have to be absolutely right or wrong.

For me, the camera is a tool I use to make negatives, just like the developing tanks, enlarger and/or scanner is a tool to get to the print. One thing is true - without SOME sort of tool, whether it is a camera obscurra or a rangefinder, there is no photo.
 
Yes, there's some truth to that. I used to hear people say that the lousier your negatives are the better the printer you'll become
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom