Experience and results when using gear

[Exdsc]

One major quality that people want in a camera is 'fun to use' factor. The argument is that if a camera is fun to use it results in the photographer capturing better photos, because a happy person takes better photos.

In my case, digital P&S are the most easy and fun to use, but the results leave me dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction is not with the image quality, its just a sort of cognitive dissonance, and I simply don't feel impressed with the images. I don't get a sense of creative satisfaction from P&S shooting.

Is this experience shared by others as well? Do you take better photos with the camera you enjoy using or there is no 'have your cake and eat it' element in photography/life?

 

[thegman]

Yes, certainly. There is a satisfaction that comes from creating something you're proud of. The more automation you put in, and the less you're involved, the less satisfaction you get.

That's how it is for me anyway. But then, I am more interested in the craft than art, if you see what I mean.

 

[Exdsc]

Yes, certainly. There is a satisfaction that comes from creating something you're proud of. The more automation you put in, and the less you're involved, the less satisfaction you get.

That's how it is for me anyway. But then, I am more interested in the craft than art, if you see what I mean.

Some people might argue that you cannot have art without craft, but one thing is certain, you cannot have anything of value without craft, even if it means something that is for personal pride.

Holga, lomo and other toy cameras also offer fun experience and their images have a certain look but its impossible to take pride in their results, and secondly the inability to control them makes one feel less involved with the process.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

This is an interesting question and one I've been pondering for a few weeks now.
I love taking pictures with my D7000. It was/is the perfect replacement for my D80 which I totally fell in love with the first time a friend let me hold his while we were at a car show. It fits my hand like a glove.
My photo taking experience really exploded when my wife asked if I'd thought about getting a digital camera way back in 2000 (?). Maybe before then. It took some convincing on my part to get her to allow me to spend $800 on our first digital. She wasn't convinced I'd use it as the Nikon FE had sat in the closet unused because we never seemed to have money for film/developing etc. We only have three shoe boxes of pictures stored away from 30+ years and two kids growing up. I promptly added triple the number of pictures the first year I had my 995. It took some getting used to as it was small with even smaller buttons compared to the P&S cams we had and the FE.
The D80 was like a coming home of sorts. My car buddies don't recognize me without a camera now.
I inherited my M3 and IIIa from my grandparents. I'd had them in a closet for over 15 yrs before I 'found the time' to get them out to investigate exactly what I had. When I found out what exactly they were and how coveted they were in the photographic world I felt truly blessed. I went and had the M3 CLA'd so it wouldn't mess up any photos, it'd be all my fault.
Is it as much fun to use as my D7k?
Only in that it has given me a new appreciation for just how good my D7k is at producing flawless images with little to no work on my part. It is work to take pictures with the M3. I admit, I'm lazy and don't know a whole lot about correct exposure. I rely on the camera. With the M3, I have to rely on me. It has given me impetus to learn how to make my D7k emulate it though as once again I'm finding film is expensive. I'll probably keep the M3 around just to fondle every once in a while and maybe shoot a roll or two a year thru it, just to keep it exercised. Learning how to take the same pictures with my D7k is now my task. I've been taking snapshots, not photographs. I think there is a difference, and yes, a camera that is fun to use does make a difference.

 

[John Bragg]

I have no digital cameras, but I do remember the sense of sheer excitement when I finally saved up and got my Leica M6. The first rime using it was not exactly what I expected, and being brought up on slr film cameras, it took a little adjustment. Now it feels like an extension of me and I use it intuitively, but that took time. It is now my all time favorite camera and I wouldn't swap it for the world !

 

[hepcat]

"Fun to use?" I expect "fun" is perhaps not the word I'd use. "Intuitive" would be closer. I expect a certain "feel" and I expect that the controls will be intuitive to use. I absolutely hate fighting for control of a camera to make it do what I want it to do instead of what it's programmed to do.

 

[Spanik]

In my case, digital P&S are the most easy and fun to use, but the results leave me dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction is not with the image quality, its just a sort of cognitive dissonance, and I simply don't feel impressed with the images. I don't get a sense of creative satisfaction from P&S shooting.

Is this experience shared by others as well? Do you take better photos with the camera you enjoy using or there is no 'have your cake and eat it' element in photography/life?

Well, yes it is more satisfying to use a camera that you enjoy using. But on the other hand there is a lot of satisfaction of taking a photo with a p&s that shot that you would never have been able to take with a "fun" camera. Be it because it is too slow, you don't take it everywhere or something else.

So if I go out to take photo's and I take a camera that I enjoy using I don't care if I take only one shot and missed it. It made my day enjoyable even without anything to show. But getting that one shot can make a miserable day good.

 

[John Bragg]

Well, yes it is more satisfying to use a camera that you enjoy using. But on the other hand there is a lot of satisfaction of taking a photo with a p&s that shot that you would never have been able to take with a "fun" camera. Be it because it is too slow, you don't take it everywhere or something else.

So if I go out to take photo's and I take a camera that I enjoy using I don't care if I take only one shot and missed it. It made my day enjoyable even without anything to show. But getting that one shot can make a miserable day good.

That is so true. Sometimes the best camera is the one you just happen to have on you,
and haven't left at home for one reason or another.

 

[GaryLH]

To me there are two aspects of this..

It is one thing to be having fun and snapping away w/ that camera because u are out and about. u want to just snap a memory of something.

On the other hand, if u c something that strikes u as a gotta have shot, then these other aspects kick in

- do u have the discipline to change modes?
-- get serious and go back to the technique and craft
-- be able to catch and frame enough of the shot if it is a fleeting moment?
- are u carrying something that meets other technical aspects u req to be happy w/ that image (in others words did u take a knife to a gun fight)?

So u need to ask yourself what was bad about these images?

Gary

 

[thegman]

As to "craft", the craft is primarily in how you frame, expose, place focus, process.... etc. The camera itself provides NO CRAFT WHATSOEVER. The craft is in ordering the visual elements in front of you such that they provide you with an image that is satisfactory to you. That's the photographer's job.

I'd have to disagree with this, I think the craft is whatever the person wants it to be. I feel that using a large format camera is more of a craft than using a smartphone camera.

 

[Roger Hicks]

One major quality that people want in a camera is 'fun to use' factor. The argument is that if a camera is fun to use it results in the photographer capturing better photos, because a happy person takes better photos.

In my case, digital P&S are the most easy and fun to use, but the results leave me dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction is not with the image quality, its just a sort of cognitive dissonance, and I simply don't feel impressed with the images. I don't get a sense of creative satisfaction from P&S shooting.

Is this experience shared by others as well? Do you take better photos with the camera you enjoy using or there is no 'have your cake and eat it' element in photography/life?

Highlights 1 & 3: Absolutely no argument. I HATE fighting with refractory cameras.

Highlight 2: By contrast, a P&S is no fun at all from my point of view.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kxl]

As to "craft", the craft is primarily in how you frame, expose, place focus, process.... etc. The camera itself provides NO CRAFT WHATSOEVER.

Not really... whatever "it" is called; craft or feel or whatever, it starts with 1) the subject; then 2) your personal vision of the subject; 3) your execution of that vision (framing, focus, exposure, etc...); and 4) final capture, i.e., pressing the shutter button.

While 3 and 4 are arguably part of the same step, it is #3 where an RF really makes the entire experience enjoyable for me. An auto-everything 8 frames per second DSLR may be more efficient, but it offers me less of a personal connection to #2 compared to an RF. There is something intimate about shooting an RF, even when compared to a manual focus SLR.

 

[Exdsc]

This topic is about whether a fun to use camera is more productive as well or not.

Lets keep the usual fluff of photographers and their cameras and other stuff that only add confusion out of it.

This is a simple topic.

Pro-grade cameras (which come their own encumbrances and limitations) simply make it easier to work. Most of the time.

As to Holgas and point-and-shoot cameras not being up to the task, I only have to direct you to the work of David Alan Harvey, Daido Moriyama, David Burnett et al, for proof that it really ain't the camera that holds anyone back, baby.

As to "craft", the craft is primarily in how you frame, expose, place focus, process.... etc. The camera itself provides NO CRAFT WHATSOEVER. The craft is in ordering the visual elements in front of you such that they provide you with an image that is satisfactory to you. That's the photographer's job. If you wish to practice art, then you have to "see" greater relationships and order those elements so that they go deeper than their obvious nature. Again, the camera can't help you with that.

Go look at the Turnley twins' "McClellan Street", completed when they were teenagers. They used a Minolta.

SLRs offer excellent control when it comes to solving the framing and focus/DOF problems. P&S cameras with a live-view screen on the back trace their lineage directly to sheet-film view/field cameras with the bonus of being right-way-up and right-way-round. The small sensor/small lens geometry provides massive DOF which can be very useful. Rangefinders provide other tools for solving the essential problems that the photographer confronts with every image (framing, focus, DOF, exposure) while raising other obstacles.

It doesn't matter which tool you choose; to make good photographs you will still have to solve the problems that are external to the camera and central to the image. Different camera types impose different constraints and the only solution is to either overcome the constraints, integrate them into the process, or choose a camera that makes sense for you to use.

The only way to tell if you need a different camera is to constantly try and solve the external problems while learning how to manipulate your camera without conscious thought. This applies to an M3, a D3, a point-and-shoot and a Holga equally.

The only way to do that is to shoot, select, critique. Shoot, select, repeat.

For many here, the only way to do that is with a small camera that may be integrated into their daily lives.

Keep banging away with the small camera, study visual communications (fine art, journalism, design etc) for those are the vocabularies from which successful photographs are made. They are not made from MTF charts, notions of sharpness, S/N ratios and the like.

 

[Exdsc]

In the last five years or so I have shot with a digi P&S more than any other camera and yet I don't have a single image from all those that I'd consider a 'keeper'.

This sort of statistics are one reason one must keep up to date with the backlog of photos hat one generates.

 

[Exdsc]

The reason I use a P&S, the most probable reason, could be that I lack the courage to take responsibility and the risk that comes with pointing a camera, looking through it, engaging the subject and taking a photo.

Another reason could be that by using a P&S I can stay detached and not give a damn about the subject.

Another possible reason could be that I want to be "cool" and play Moriyama.

Another reason could be that I like to use the chance element of a P&S so I can use it as "personal vision".

Finally, it is possible that I like to prove a point of how good I'm that I could do with a P&S what others cannot with triple digit price cameras and lenses -- cheap vanity.



In conclusion my P&S fetish is not only a waste of time and energy its also the main cause of my slumps and burn-outs... So, thanks to this thread I have discovered so much in so little time.

Of course it is, apparently. Here's my answer for you:

It depends.

And this is the corollary:

For me, the "fun" comes in seeing something and then making a photograph of it. Then, in diminishing order, holding the print in my hands, seeing it on a gallery wall, trading a license-for-use or a print for money. How I got there is not camera-dependent. Getting the photograph is the big fun. The moment when I think I've solved the visual problems and released the shutter.

Productive to me means 1) studies that inform finished work and, 2) finished work that produces change and insight in me and, 3) work that I occasionally am able to sell.

Except...

I too hate fighting with a camera. But for me that usually just means better learning how to use that camera. If I can't figure out a way to overcome or accommodate the camera's limitations, it's gone.

Case in point, the nice equipment guy loaned me a couple of NEX bodies. Worked wonderfully with Leitz lenses using adapters. Shutter tripped when I pushed the button. 100% accuracy in framing. Focus peaking worked a charm. But I couldn't stand the colour. Couldn't stand the post required to get what I wanted. Never did, actually. So I gave them back. Sony's idea of colour works for some folks, not for me.

So no fun there.

I use everything from view cameras to DSLRs to point-and-shoots. They all require different things from the operator in order that I have the "fun", (defined above).

Which begs the question: If you haven't produced a single keeper with your point and shoot, why do you still use it?
Or is this a recent discovery?
Or is the fun you were craving not the fun you thought you weren't having?

 

[Exdsc]

Here as an example of my P&S shots, Canon Powershot G10 from 2009:


IMG_0559 by ExxDsc, on Flickr

 

[John Bragg]

The venerable Bert Hardy shot this with a box brownie to prove a point. It most definitely is the photographer that matters !

 

[FrankS]

One major quality that people want in a camera is 'fun to use' factor. The argument is that if a camera is fun to use it results in the photographer capturing better photos, because a happy person takes better photos.

In my case, digital P&S are the most easy and fun to use, but the results leave me dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction is not with the image quality, its just a sort of cognitive dissonance, and I simply don't feel impressed with the images. I don't get a sense of creative satisfaction from P&S shooting.

Is this experience shared by others as well? Do you take better photos with the camera you enjoy using or there is no 'have your cake and eat it' element in photography/life?

I believe that I take BETTER pictures using cameras that I like better, but there is no GUARANTEE that anyone will take GREAT pictures simply because they are using a particular camera. The RIGHT camera for a person may help MAXIMIZE his/her potential, but that may still fall short of being great, or even good.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

In my case, digital P&S are the most easy and fun to use, but the results leave me dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction is not with the image quality, its just a sort of cognitive dissonance, and I simply don't feel impressed with the images. I don't get a sense of creative satisfaction from P&S shooting.

Is this experience shared by others as well? Do you take better photos with the camera you enjoy using or there is no 'have your cake and eat it' element in photography/life?

OK, playing shrink... Is it "fun" with the P&S? Or more like comfort? Absence of discomfort? Or convenience? What is "fun" anyway?

I don't think you are talking about fun. Especially as clarified in your other postings, sounds more like comfort.

And, BTW, The G10 photo looks excellent to me.

I just took one of my best images ever with a Lumix LX-5. D600 would have worked fine, but I didn't have it at that moment. Yes, the image quality would have been better, but that's moot since I didn't have it with me.

 

[Godfrey]

...
Holga, lomo and other toy cameras also offer fun experience and their images have a certain look but its impossible to take pride in their results, and secondly the inability to control them makes one feel less involved with the process.

I disagree completely.

Learning how to see and make fine photographs with a toy camera that has no controls is just as much 'craft' as learning how to use and obtain photos with a Hasselblad. The craft is in the doing and in the end results, not in the technology.

G