Do you remember the camera or lens? Or care?

[Roger Hicks]

I guess in this day and age if you are using digital, EXIF data will tell you exactly what combo you used for the shot in 30 - 40 years time. If the data can be read then! 😀

As for myself, over the years I have only had a handful of different bodies and even more limited lenses, so working out what I used is easy. Having said that, Roger is right in that as the years pass, it seems more and more irrelevant - at least for my own work. Other photographers work I do try to learn from, so knowing what lens they used, etc, can be useful.

That's an interesting point too. I've just re-read 'My Leica And I' (1937) and there is what purports to be a list of the camera/ lens/ film/ stop/ shutter speed used for every single shot. There's one pic allegedly taken with a Thambar wide open, and quite honestly, I don't believe the data (I have a Thambar).

Quite often, in my books or on my web-site, I'll say something like "shot it in the early 70s, probably with an old Pentax SV..." because I don't really remember, but I know that a lot of photographers wouldn't add that 'probably': they'd state it as a flat fact, because the publisher insisted. There've been times when, as an editor, I've pointed out that (for example) a particular shot must have been Hasselblad instead of Rollei, from the shape of the border, only to be told, "Oh, yeah, you're right. Change it: it doesn't matter."

The worst I ever knew was a guy who used Pentax 67 and Mamiya 67, and always attributed his best shots to Mamiya, because they gave him free gear and Pentax didn't.

That's apart from wind-ups. Someone once remarked on the amazing quality of a Terence Donovan advertising shot. He'd shot it on 11x14 inch, but he just smiled and said, "Yeah, amazing lens, that Micro-Nikkor." Do not trust information in books, magazines and web-sites about which cameras/lenses were used.

As for EXIF data, well, not on an M8/9 unless the lenses were bar-coded, or you remembered to enter the right lens (assuming it was on the menu -- plenty of Leica lenses aren't, and no-one else's are).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mackinaw]

To answer your question, I don't really know what camera I used back in the old days, nor do I care. I'm all about the image.

When I do look at pictures taken 20, 30 and 40 years back, I'm struck by what a lousy photographer I was back then. On the plus side, I think I've gotten better.

Jim B.

 

[Sparrow]

I remember OK, don't think I ever cared, as long looks good

 

[Roger Hicks]

To answer your question, I don't really know what camera I used back in the old days, nor do I care. I'm all about the image.

When I do look at pictures taken 20, 30 and 40 years back, I'm struck by what a lousy photographer I was back then. On the plus side, I think I've gotten better.

Jim B.

Dear Jim,

That strikes me as the important bit too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[surfer dude]

I generally remember. I am glad to have a bank of information that might have gone along with the making of particular images, just as other bits of memory may help me reconstruct my general world view at a particular time.

During my first travels overseas, as an example, a lot of decision making went into the process - to leave my job and girlfriend, to fly one way to London and stay there and branch out, what clothes to take... I was stuck with the photo gear I had, which was a Canon AE1 and an F1, and a bunch of lenses, because I couldn't afford to finess the gear and by then I had pretty much what I wanted anyway.

The point is, all of those decisions went into the experience, and all affected what I got out of it. That was 41 years ago and I look back at the photos and can often remember exactly where I was and what I was thinking/doing in that context. The same goes for pretty much any other major thing I've done over the years.

So the little bits of information, be they the camera and lens I used for treasured shots, or what jeans I was wearing or the girlfriend of the time or what music I was listening to - if I can still remember, I'm really glad of it, because it meant something at the time and was a part in a series of decisions and experiences that got me here.

Does that info matter? Well, I think it does, and I don't think my photos are any worse because I might happen to remember the gear I used. These things aren't mutually exclusive. As someone else said, sometimes those things just stick there. Possibly that is because, as someone who is passionate about photography, the decision making process going into the making of pictures occupies a significant part of one's conscious thought.

I can't see that, for me, getting older has any significant affect on it, although I have noticed that when I come to caption and catalogue scans my recall of gear used last month is probably not really much better than that when I am looking at a photo taken 20 or 30 years ago. That sucks.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I struggle to remember what I used six months ago but then I have a shocking memory, something I should try to remedy as we get older and not younger; especially as I watch my grandmother deteriorate into early dementia.

I think the camera is easy; either one of my M bodies or one of my D3 bodies but as to which lens...hhmm, a different matter I'm afraid. Whilst I care more about the final image I can understand the benefits of knowing what was used. That way you have the choice to ignore the information or use it. Thank goodness for Exif data!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I generally remember. I am glad to have a bank of information that might have gone along with the making of particular images, just as other bits of memory may help me reconstruct my general world view at a particular time.

During my first travels overseas, as an example, a lot of decision making went into the process - to leave my job and girlfriend, to fly one way to London and stay there and branch out, what clothes to take... I was stuck with the photo gear I had, which was a Canon AE1 and an F1, and a bunch of lenses, because I couldn't afford to finess the gear and by then I had pretty much what I wanted anyway.

The point is, all of those decisions went into the experience, and all affected what I got out of it. That was 41 years ago and I look back at the photos and can often remember exactly where I was and what I was thinking/doing in that context. The same goes for pretty much any other major thing I've done over the years.

So the little bits of information, be they the camera and lens I used for treasured shots, or what jeans I was wearing or the girlfriend of the time or what music I was listening to - if I can still remember, I'm really glad of it, because it meant something at the time and was a part in a series of decisions and experiences that got me here.

Does that info matter? Well, I think it does, and I don't think my photos are any worse because I might happen to remember the gear I used. These things aren't mutually exclusive. As someone else said, sometimes those things just stick there. Possibly that is because, as someone who is passionate about photography, the decision making process going into the making of pictures occupies a significant part of one's conscious thought.

I can't see that, for me, getting older has any significant affect on it, although I have noticed that when I come to caption and catalogue scans my recall of gear used last month is probably not really much better than that when I am looking at a photo taken 20 or 30 years ago. That sucks.

Dear Phil,

Sorry, I never meant to imply that you shouldn't remember, and, as you say, there is often considerable pleasure in doing so. All I meant was that if you don't remember, it doesn't actually matter one iota, which does rather suggest that the camera/lens you used was rarely all that important then and ain't always that important now.

Cheers,

R.

 

[surfer dude]

Hi Roger,

I am in turn sorry if what I said carried the implication that you should feel the need to apologise. I didn't mean to do that. A stimulating discussion which has got me thinking and perhaps I was a little untidy in my argument.

 

[btgc]

I care, but don't always remember.

 

[Soeren]

That depends exactly when/ what period you are talking. For many years I had only one camera and one lens (helps a little) and even when I got to have three lenses its not that difficult to remember if it was the 28, 50 or 135mm. Ask me in another year or two about the time around now and I probably wont remember if it was the F100, F3 or any other of my nikons with the 50mm 1,4 or the 1,8 version.
Best regards

 

[Arjay]

I pretty much always remember the camera I used for my pictures, less the lenses - but I remember best the shots I missed.

Over time, they keep getting better and better. 😉

 

[John Lawrence]

I can remember which camera I used and (mostly) which lens I used for pictures taken 20 years ago.

However, I've never trusted information in books, magazines etc. detailing which camera / lens was used since Photography Year Book started listing this in 1969. Most pictures had the following information:

Camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture, film & developer used

Given the broad spectrum of pictures, circumstances under which they were taken and locations it seemed rather a stretch.

John

 

[oftheherd]

Interesting to think about. About 1974 when I became really interested in photography, I had only my Yashica TL Super with its f/1.7 Yashinon. Before too long, I got the 28mm and 135mm kit Yashikors. Took a couple of prize winners with those not so good lenses. I have also been happy with some of the shots I got with an 18mm Spiratone I got next. I didn't worry so much about others saying Nikon, Canon, Minolta were supposed to be better. I couldn't afford them and liked the photos I was getting.

I got more proud of my Fujica and Fujinons, and later the Contax and its T* 50mm f/1.4. If I looked at any of those photos today, it would be difficult to tell which were which by the quality, with the exception of the Yashikors with flare.

I never did record gear, much less exposures, but could usually rember gear, until I got too many lenses. I actually learned to use flare in my photos to the best advantage possible since I couldn't get rid of it with the Yashikors into light.

Now I do appreciate the photo more than the gear. I guess that has been true for a longer time than I realized.

 

[paulfish4570]

30 some years ago, all i had was an M3 and elmar 50/2.8, so all of the photos extant from that time were shot with that kit, no remembering needed. i somehow lost the negatives. but the prints i made from them are still in very good shape, and hanging in my daughter's and my ex-wife's homes.
i suppose i care now about my gear because of the almost-two-year-long process of determining exactly what works for me as i returned to film photography, and that includes film and developer.

 

[nikon_sam]

What I use/used is not as important as getting the most out of what I'm using...
I know that 30+ years ago it was one camera...That's too easy, also I don't have too many of those negs or prints left...
Around 25 years ago it would have been one of two Pentax MX's...
The last 15 years or so there were/are too many different bodies & lenses to be certain...
But that doesn't apply to the many Velvia 50 slides I shot with my first Nikon FE...

 

[Rob-F]

I can pretty well tell you which camera I took a photo with, and often with which lens. It does depend on how long ago the picture was taken. Some pictures I took in my 20's, I can tell you were taken with an M2 and either a 35mm Summaron or my 90mm Elmarit. It's easy: they were all I had! Then I added a 50mm Collapsible Summicron, and a Nikkormat Ftn with 55mm Micro-Nikkor. Still no problem knowing which was which.

Over the years I've added a lot of stuff. Yet, I can usually tell which camera I took a shot with. To an extent, that's because I know what I was primarily using during a given time period. But it's also because my hands remember which camera I was holding as I took the shot. That's right: my hands remember if it was a Nikon, a Leica R, or Leica M. As a psychotherapist, I believe in body memories and muscle memories. Although the brain may not always know, the body remembers!

Do I care? I must. There is an intention factor in what we choose to remember.

 

[zumbido]

I remember what I used, because I only had one camera. My sister broke her back in a freak playground accident. My mom told the story on a late-night radio show (her "hobby" as an insomniac was listening to overnight radio broadcasts from far away), and people started sending small gifts to my sister. One of them was a Kodak 110 camera, and the person included a second one for me so I wouldn't feel left out. So, we carried them all around (for a while I carried her around, too, until she could walk again). Have a bunch of pictures of friends from school and the neighborhood (a few of them no longer around) that everyone loves to see on Facebook now.

 

[raid]

Images mean more to me than my cameras. There is no question about it.
Still, I remember the camera used or lens used for many of the older images.

 

[Peter Klein]

Roger, I usually remember the camera and often lens, particularly with favorite or striking images. But it's easier than it might at first appear. I've been pretty much a "serial monogamist" with cameras, so only a particular camera was used during a particular period. I mostly shoot with a 35, 50 or 90, with the 50 my most-used lens for film and the 35 for digital. It's often easy to tell between them. And my "available dark" shots are usually with a particular lens or two, so again, it's easy to infer.

I am not of the "equipment doesn't matter" school of thought. But I also don't think it matters as much as many people think. Many (most?) shots could have been taken with any camera that is "good enough." Many shots would be just as good whether they were taken with any good-quality RF or SLR and matching lens.

BUT... and this is a big "but"... There are many RF shots that would not have been successful with an SLR or vice versa, because they depended on the RF's low-light focusing ability or lack of mirror slap, or the SLR's ability to use longer lenses or focus closer or view with no parallex.

And there are some shots that achieve their "look" because of a lens' unique signature. Since you are very partial to your Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar, I'm sure you understand. 🙂

--Peter

 

[dyao]

I don't remember what lenses I used for rolls I shot last week.