I have discovered something about interesting images and gear

I'll throw in a couple photos in support of the "equipment is secondary" sentiment. The first is with a Kodak Retina I (010), which has an uncoated lens and is at least 64 years old:

7Jun2013-1-26_Crop_Border_zpsf17c8e66.jpg


The second is from a Ciro-flex Model D which is probably only a few years younger than the Retina:

4Jun2013-1-02_Modified_Border_zpsfed64138.jpg


Neither camera was in any way a hindrance, and in my view their age and relative simplicity contributed positively to the qualities of the images.
 
Hi,

Well, um, FWIW, I don't think there have been any bad lenses made since some point in the late 70'd or mid 80's, meaning once they'd sorted out computer aided design etc.

I'm excluding one or two cameras that must have cost under a pound to make, the fixed focus ones but some of the disposable ones were competent: remember the Kodak panorama one?

Perhaps a lot of people (not us obviously) think bad means slow, as in f/2.8 ?

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Perhaps a lot of people (not us obviously) think bad means slow, as in f/2.8 ?

Regards, David
Click to expand...

It's interesting because for a long time photographers knew that fast lenses were meant to be fast foremost, and sharpness was secondary. For SLR users the f2 Biotar was what you needed for action or low light situations, but everybody knew that the f3.5 Tessar was what you wanted if sharpness counted.

I think people began to make the slow = bad connection because cheap cameras came with cheap lenses. And these cheap lenses were usually slow.

As regards the original topic, eventually this discussion basically boils down to whether a good camera is necessary or not to take good photos. Obviously the photographer's vision is more important than the camera, but a good camera helps!:)

I have used some of the nastiest cameras imaginable, and I can say you have to get to a very, very low level of quality before the camera's faults inhibit the photographer's ability to create interesting images.

2388977618_a5af7981f1_o.jpg


The above is from what I think I can say is the worst camera I have ever attempted to use. A "Can-Tex" 127 camera. It actually broke half way through the roll.
The viewfinder only vaguely covered the same area as the lens. The frames overlapped. The film was not flat. The light leaked through it like a sieve, and finally the advance knob broke.

Well You can't do much worse than that.

A few notches up - I used an Agfa-Ansco box camera, which was reliable enough to be predictable, and trust is the single most important thing you can have in a camera.

2386564564_be0449b293_o.jpg


Frequently though, the photographer requires more control to get the results he or she wants. Some shutter speeds, more than two or three f-stops to choose from etc.

Some of my favorite photos I've taken with a rather cruddy Ciro 35 (scan does not do the printing of this image a shred of justice, but you get the idea I hope).

6265725733_ac4b7134ea_b.jpg


And I had a long, long fling with a Praktiflex and its f3.5 Tessar.
2530778924_d39a7590f7_o.jpg


Above this level, the differences in quality are not that large. You begin to pay a lot more for just a little better equipment and it becomes a game of diminishing returns as I'm sure most of us know. After spending more and more on better and better equipment, I ended up going back down a few notches. I didn't need the fancy stuff for my vision. Maybe in the future I will, but maybe I won't. I'll know when I get there. :)

As long as you get the results you want, it doesn't matter what you use.
 
Peter, great photos. Technical deficiency rarely takes too much away from my own images, and often adds to their unique character. Here are two examples, the first taken through a window with camera shake and vignetting:


Untitled by ffurbss, on Flickr

And the second with obvious shadow blocking the subject:


Treachery afoot. by ffurbss, on Flickr

I initially passed over both of these, but others liked them so they turned into keepers. Thanks for reminding me to look deeper than the technical merits of my images!
 
I too always strove for the sharpest photos I could make. Then I discovered the Holga. What a joy! Not for everything, but certainly a change, and a lot of fun.
 
  • Some photos need to be sharp.
  • Some do not.
  • There's a difference between unsharp and not focused.
  • There's a difference between capturing a fine photo, whether sharp or not, and just making a blurry picture.

Peter, your photos are lovely.

G
 
Peter, by and large I agree with you, however, in the specific case of your own work, I think a "technically good" can be a strong asset.

I see your images a teetering on the edge of the surreal, creating tension between the world in front of us and the one of dreams, between what is and what could be.

A technically proficient lens would help emphasize the physical attributes of the scene, while the reflections, and light play help take the viewer away from from the purely literal plane.
 
tunalegs said:
Above this level, the differences in quality are not that large. You begin to pay a lot more for just a little better equipment and it becomes a game of diminishing returns as I'm sure most of us know. After spending more and more on better and better equipment, I ended up going back down a few notches. I didn't need the fancy stuff for my vision. Maybe in the future I will, but maybe I won't. I'll know when I get there. :)

As long as you get the results you want, it doesn't matter what you use.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it.
 
froyd said:
Peter, by and large I agree with you, however, in the specific case of your own work, I think a "technically good" can be a strong asset.

I see your images a teetering on the edge of the surreal, creating tension between the world in front of us and the one of dreams, between what is and what could be.

A technically proficient lens would help emphasize the physical attributes of the scene, while the reflections, and light play help take the viewer away from from the purely literal plane.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. You have nailed it. I do so love images that are "teetering on the edge" of being surreal. I guess my point is that interesting images do not necessarily demand absolute top quality in lenses and in many cases technically good equipment quite good enough - it is all you need. Also in my case I actually remove information from my images - so its really not about constantly chasing the next greatest lens that will "Make My Images Better". Its more about pursuing an idea.

Here are a couple me in the same vein just for fun.


Lunch by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


cafe study 7 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Cafe study 12 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Cafe study 11 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
 
Love your work Peter.
Your images in this series may be fuzzy and full of mystery but your eye is sharp and your concept is clear.
Look forward to see many more coming.
 
I always test new lenses when I first buy them and have a tendency to get "bent out of shape" if I have to return/exchange one because of some manufacturing defect (as opposed to something that's the result of the optical design). I delight in sharpness, contrast, and freedom from aberrations.

However... many of my most absolute favourite photos were taken with some of the least expensive, bought-used gear I own (a particular lens that cost me the princely sum of $34 + shipping comes to mind). There's a message in there somewhere for me but it just never seems to really sink in...
 
Peter, those are great images, but it seems like you tweak the colours in a special (and beautiful) way. Photoshop layers, plug-in filters, something else? Would you care to reveal how you do it, or is it a secret?

If it is a secret, I am willing to part with one of my kidneys, as I already have two :D
 
Slices of life on a doomed planet, people enjoying their lives is small ways. To me this is real photography. They harken back to the "masters" of street photography in the 20s through 60s. Nothing hoity-toity or artifical about them. Five stars *****.
 
Peter, a very interesting subject indeed.

I have always been skeptical to the very possibility of measuring a photo's value not only by its sharpness or detail richness, but also by its adherence to conventional compositional rules or the story content requirements, where the reference scale is systematically HCB. I think there is much more with photography than whether or not a shot captured a decisive moment or a fortunate interaction of geometries.


Take Jacob Sobol or Daido Moriyama, for instance and just to mention two of my very favourite photographers. If we measure the strenght of their images by HCB's units (not to mention by their sharpness), most of them would be crap, individually taken. And I am sure that most of Daido's shots, if not recognized as his, would barely get some positive attention on critique forums or groups. Yet they have an enormous strenght especially when taken in a series (this is probably why he himself claims that books are his way to go). That's what I feel about my own photography too.


There is indeed something more subtle, intangible and unmeasurable with photography and I pray to never mature photographically into that direction where all viewers agree my photos are "perfect".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom