Experience and results when using gear

[David Hughes]

Dear David,

Highlight 1: Absolutely. The term I use is 'transparent': I can see 'through' the camera to the picture.

Highlight 2: I used to. Then I decided that I'd rather concentrate on the pictures, rather than have a really great picture (we all get lucky sometimes) be let down by poor technical quality -- or, indeed, failing to get it altogether because the camera wasn't up to shooting it.

I get a bit annoyed with the "Great photographers can get great pictures with any camera" argument, usually illustrated with the Bert Hardy picture. It's a stunt. If it were anything else, Bert Hardy would have used a Box Brownie all the time. The fact that he didn't is rather a convincing argument that he (like most of the rest of us) preferred a faster, sharper, focusing lens with a choice of shutter speeds, to say nothing of a better viewfinder.

Cheers,

R.

Hi,

I was thinking in terms of business and pleasure. Old or bloody minded cameras (or their designers, perhaps) can be fun and at my age I've enough photographs to not mind missing one or two.

Regards, David

 

[sepiareverb]

ILearning 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

+1 here. It is first about the looking and seeing. Once one has that going then the choice of gear should be one that enables the seeing to proceed without fuss and will produce a final print that matches what one is seeing. That can be a Holga, an Instamatic, a Hasselblad or an iPhone.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . .
I don't. I don't think it's a stunt either. It's a simple truth. It's like saying "we eat food". What one can do and what one prefers to do are obviously different. It is also obvious that most cameras are "good enough" most of the time. It is really quite easy to get excellent results out of a simple box camera. Most of the time. The exception is all the other times when it is totally useless and inappropriate - ie. if your subjects are moving fast, or you need close focus - or it's become a little darker than average outside. Then you either need a better camera, or alter your judgement about what a good photo looks like.

The fact that it's true doesn't alter the fact that it's a stunt. The latter is also a simple truth -- otherwise, as I say, no-one would ever use anything other than box cameras.

Cheers,

R.

 

[henri klein]

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.

😕You mean YOU cannot control them and therefore YOU took no pride. 🙄 Others did. 😛 Here are just two -out of many many more.
Alleman: http://www.sunshineandnoir.com/
Burnett: http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=Holga Eye&sortNumber=1&skipno=0

 

[redisburning]

if you hate a camera you wont use it.

yesterday I had the brilliant idea to use my dslr for a bit; I stopped as the desire to throw it into the lake became more and more real.

 

[John Bragg]

Hmmm, if I've got a certain shot to take then I prefer what I call neutral cameras, meaning cameras that don't get in the way of the shot. Usually that means a clear view-finder and controls where my fingertips are when I hold it. I've several good cameras that have oddly placed controls; power switches beside the shutter button, shutter buttons that you have to look for and so on.

OTOH, I get a certain amount of pleasure from coaxing every last ounce of performance from simple or cheap flea market bargains; usually P&S's. And they have the advantage that other people don't take them seriously, or don't feel menaced by me with them.

Regards, David

Me too David. Bargain compact cameras rock ! Thy are so benign looking as to be almost invisible. I love them just for that reason....

 

[Spicy]

I tend to enjoy shooting with quirky cameras. Not ones that fight with me, but ones that are a bit eccentric and require a bit of investment to really get to know them and how to use them.. No idea if that leads to better output, but for me, the pleasure I get from using a camera is probably equal to the pleasure I get from seeing the results.

I don't have a favorite camera, but I certainly enjoy some of the more eccentric ones. The Leica IIIc is certainly not a speedy "reaction" camera (or I don't have enough practice with my eyes closed to bend it to my will. The Rollei 35S is hilariously small but a bit backwards. The Nikon F my father saved up half a year's wages and bought brand new in 1974 when he was a college student is heavy but tank-like, but will get the job done in almost any environment. My TLRs and their waist-level finders were a pain to adjust to for doing street shooting, but I've learned a lot which has likely made me better in a variety of situations. They're also great conversation starters, and often elicit a smile from even the most camera-shy of people. And they give me giant negatives 😛.

Likewise, though, the M4-P and Nikon FM2n that I have are great in that they just get out of the way.

The Hasselblad is a new addition that I'm looking forward to getting aquatinted with.

All of which are much better cameras and accomodate much better lenses than I am a photographer.

 

[nemo2]

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.

I have to disagree - the fact you can´t control one part of the proces forces you to focus more on the parts of the process you can control.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"if you hate a camera you wont use it."

Not always true. I used a camera I hated for years. It was the only one made that would produce the results wanted. The end product is paramount for me. For some, it's more about gear.

When I found a digital camera to replace the hated film camera, I bought one and dumped the hated film box.

The ONLY one? What was it? And what could it do that nothing else could? I'm not calling you a liar: I'm just surprised, because normally there are several routes to the same end.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have to disagree - the fact you can´t control one part of the proces forces you to focus more on the parts of the process you can control.

True. But if you had a car with extremely vague steering, that took you all over the road, and very feeble brakes, wouldn't it make more sense to get a car with reliable steering and brakes rather than trying to avoid accidents with the death-trap?

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

True. But if you had a car with extremely vague steering, that took you all over the road, and very feeble brakes, wouldn't it make more sense to get a car with reliable steering and brakes rather than trying to avoid accidents with the death-trap?

Cheers,

R.

There are people who drive from London to Brighton every year in worse for fun - and pay a lot to do it too.

Also a bad photo has never killed anybody, although it may have cut some people's heads off.

 

[Gareth Rees]

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.

I agree with Roger. Yes, the camera I like using the most tends to result in significantly more "better" pictures than one I have to struggle with.
Regards
Gareth

 

[Gareth Rees]

There are people who drive from London to Brighton every year in worse for fun - and pay a lot to do it too.

I drive a classic MG and I am sorry to tell you there is nothing wrong with my car's brakes or anything else. My classic car will stop when asked to do so, it's also reasonably fuel efficient and it's fun to drive!

So, yes you want a camera that has accurate controls, it doesn't matter what it is if it gives reliable results that you like. Of course, some cameras are prone to have problems, but if it works (whatever it may be) then that is surely enough (assuming you like the camera in the first place)

Regards
Gareth

 

[Roger Hicks]

There are people who drive from London to Brighton every year in worse for fun - and pay a lot to do it too.

Also a bad photo has never killed anybody, although it may have cut some people's heads off.

Fair points, all. On the other hand, would you want to live with a modern car with these disadvantages? Also, we were talking about ends here, not means. If the end is to get better pictures, I'd rather have a camera above the quality threshold, and if the aim is to get from A to B, I'd rather have a decent post-WW2 car. In fact the quality threshold was probably reached in the 1920s even in the mass market, except for such eccentricities as French cycle-cars. I can see the appeal of an ancient vehicle, because it is ancient and technically interesting. I find it rather harder to see the appeal of a piece of technically uninteresting faux-retro modern junk.

I suppose that if you really enjoy using technically uninteresting faux-retro modern junk, and don't really want to retain much control over the quality of your pictures, then yes, you might be happier with a Holga, and therefore get better pictures. But not, I think, because it "forces you to focus more on the parts of the process you can control". Rather, it's because you enjoy the process. It's a bit like bondage, I suppose, which is something else that has never turned me on.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gareth Rees]

I use old cameras because I like them. My Contax rangefinder with whatever lens I choose to use it with always gives me the results I like. My Contarex will as well.
I find my Canon SLR gives me good results, but I don't like the experience of taking pictures with it. Therefore, I suspect, I don't like the results as much.
Roger says this is about the end and not the means, and surely if the end result is pictures you actually like, over pictures one finds technically acceptible, but you prefer the ones with a different (perhaps older camera) then perhaps the difference between the end justifying the means isn't as clear cut as one would suppose.
Your thoughts,
Regards
Gareth

 

[Contarama]

If you have been shooting a P&S for years and still haven't captured a keeper then maybe you should move on to another rig and potential happiness or?

 

[oftheherd]

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 !

Not to mix apples and oranges, but that is how I have always felt about my Fujica ST901. I have begun to feel that way about my Contax 167mt as well.

 

[tunalegs]

I suppose that if you really enjoy using technically uninteresting faux-retro modern junk, and don't really want to retain much control over the quality of your pictures, then yes, you might be happier with a Holga, and therefore get better pictures.

Just to be pedantic, the Holga is not faux retro junk. It is authentic retro junk, having been designed and in production since 1981. :angel:

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just a point, the print/slide isn't always the point of the exercise.

I often run a roll of film through a camera just to keep it working and to remind myself what it was like when we had to think about everything before touching the shutter button. Otherwise it's easy to forget; using an old camera is a good way of staying in touch with the art and science and not handing it over to some committee of computer geeks.

I've some modern ones that could be used by my dog and produce good pictures: this is not my dog's opinion btw.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Just to be pedantic, the Holga is not faux retro junk. It is authentic retro junk, having been designed and in production since 1981. :angel:

I stand partially corrected; only partially, because I'm not sure that 1981 counts as true retro. Besides, isn't a Holga pretty much a fake (original) Diana? (Not the even worse Diana +.)

Cheers,

R.