Does the device change your vision?

lushd said:
Bertram - my pics are all my vision regardless of which camera I am using. It's just that different cameras seem to bring out different versions.
Click to expand...


At this point we differ. My cameras exactly brings out what I want them to bring out. Or I have failed.

My understanding of "vision" is getting a photo ready in my head. And then the cameras makes it look so. If not it's me who failed, as I said. I have no versions for visions depending on cameras.

Maybe on focal length, but this is taken into account in my head yet.

bertram
 
Not sure we're that far apart - I would feel disappointed if the picture wasn't close to the one in my mind. But using different cameras, the pictures I want to take and the ones I do take are different. And not just technically. Something about the choice of camera influences the pictures in my mind and I am very curious about what's going on. Equally curious about whether it's the same for others and very taken by the way it is for some but not everyone.
 
It does change my vision for me, I've just got back from the UK. Spent a few day's there with my family, and the camera's I took with me where the Fed 1f and the Lubitel 2. I was in London yesterday and I came across old battersea power station, when using the lubitel I realised I could take pictures holding the camera high above my head still watching the composition on the groundglass. I tried diferent things with this camera, and I hope the X-rays on the airport haven't done too much damage to the film.
 
Bertram2 said:
[...]
First the vision second the tool. The other way round would mean that cameras inspire the photographer. And that is the above mentioned backdoor.
One should not believe in such effects, it leads you away from developing your personal approach and style and creativity. My experience in 30+ years of trial and error.
bertram
Click to expand...

A lot of it, as always, has to do with what one wants to believe because that belief is an aid to one's goals :D

I, for one, don't think that the process you describe is linear per-se, à la "see, shoot, [device transcribes "intent" to film], print, voilà!". Then again, I want to believe it's not, since that fact gives me a lot of leeway for playing with the medium *itself*. To me, that is vital. Inbetween the steps just laid out, there are a myriad feedback loops happening- even if you master all of them, you still operate within their constraints, and hence do not transgress into outside territory. like trying to describe language within language. a glimpse of transparency appears at the breaking point.
So, let's not indulge in unduly generalizations- "it does!" - "it doesn't!" -- each to his own. ;)


cheers,

max
 
The beauty with all the different types of cameras is that you can express your hobby in so many different ways. I bought two old Kiev 4´s last week and this morning I took them on a first test, carefully looking for good shots in a nearby park. Later I spent an hour with my Nikon D80 and the 70-300 AFS VR lens trying to capture my daughters soccer match -- very different ways of taking photos and looking at poissible views etc.... but that´s what makes it so fun!
Jon
 
There is a saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I'd say that the camera type can influence your vision. It certainly affects the way you use it. Digital shooters generally take way more shots of the same scene than film users, simply because they can at no additional expense.
 
Bill I think you are spot on there - thank you (and all the others for contributing ideas, all of which have been very interesting and illuminating).

If you have a spare DB6 it is one of my dream cars....
 
Hi,
For me it is the other way around. I choose the camera suitable for the job. So yes, different camera is different shooting. When I go on the street it is the Hexar rf or Leica M6. When I go for landscapes it is the Super graphic or Hasselblad.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
I noticed something only recently, regardless of the camera type, if there's no people in my shot, it's more likely for me to find it boring. :D
 
Thought-provoking points being made here. I think it's natural that the tool affects the product created with it. Different aspects of creativity are encouraged.

As an example, with small film formats like half-frame-35 and 110 I tend more to emphasize simple broad shapes with little reliance on fine detail and texture. With 645 or 6x7 I know I can capture the detail and subtle colors etc.

With an SLR I'm much more likely to use precise relationships among foreground, subject, and background. Making sure the distant light pole projects exactly from the crown of the subject's head... :D And I'm also more likely to use geometrical intersections of the subject with the frame edges.

My choice of gear to take on a walk is often just whim, or maybe intuition, nearly always one body one lens, and then that and the film will relate to some extent to my photographic vision for the occasion. It's certaint, for instance, I'll be making different pictures when using an AF motorized zoom-laden 645 SLR then when carrying a sleek 645 RF!
 
yes, absolutely. Possibly not exactly my "vision" changes, but certainly my results. If I use a TLR with a waist level finder, my shots are all carefully composed, if somewhat static, with a very high percentage of "keepers". A good SLR with a plain groundglass shows the same effect to a lesser degree; an SLR with a split image rangefinder or a RF camera will lead to quicker, less carefully composed shots. The extreme case at the other end is a digital, where the autofocus, "autowind" and "free film" tend to encourage genuinely sloppy shooting.

Certainly it is possible to compose as carefully in a DSLR as in a TLR, and on occasion I do it; but for every one of those there's probably a hundred less thoughtful shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom