I have discovered something about interesting images and gear

I think photography and cameras are two separate hobbies with a lot of overlap.

I still really like cameras, but now prefer to get ones I like rather than ones which are 'good'. I don't really care about lens quality any more, so long as it's decent, and works, then I'm happy enough.

One thing I have noticed is often, the best photos I see here and on other sites, seem to come from people who use 'workhorse' cameras like Pentax 67 or Mamiya 7, i.e. they were not made to be a sexy cameras like my Rolleiflex GX was, or a Leica MP was, they were made to get the job done.

People like me who tend to by la-dee-da nice looking cameras seem to produce the worst work. The ones using 'plain' cameras like DSLRs, Nikon F100s, basic medium format gear seem to do a lot better, or maybe it just seems that way.
 
ssmc said:
I 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...
Click to expand...


The qualities you describe, "sharpness, contrast, and freedom from aberrations" pretty much describe, as another poster mentioned, every lens produced by any manufacturer since 1980. "Best," however, is a fleeting concept. Each iteration of each lens by each manufacturer is "better" than the last, yet all are certainly adequate for making images. The 1933 Leitz Summar was the pinnacle of innovation until it was replaced by the next pinnacle of innovation... the Summitar.

Frankly, for personal work, I find that most "modern" glass is pretty clinical in its rendering. Sometimes a little soft, flat and with aberrations is a welcome change.
 
IMAGE

"What one likes" is obviously subjective. You make like the "surreal" effects of window reflections and shadows, but personally, I find them distracting.

By the same token, while you nor I may believe that measurable technical qualities in a lens have nothing to do with what's interesting, others may believe that those technical qualities have a lot to do what what they like. And you know what, they be just as right as you or I.

Some of my images may be technically sound; however, not all of them would be in my "LIKE" pile. At the same time, I have other images that may not be technically sound but are also in that same LIKE pile.

GEAR

Whatever gear we use, we will produce some images that we like, and others that we don't. Sometimes, however, the experience of shooting specific gear adds to the joy of the experience. I recently posted a query about replacing a DSLR with an M240. That post had little to do with the image from either platform, but rather the experience of shooting a DRF versus a DSLR.
 
kxl said:
IMAGE

"What one likes" is obviously subjective. You make like the "surreal" effects of window reflections and shadows, but personally, I find them distracting.
Click to expand...

And that is the wonder of photography. It can be whatever you want it to be, and there's room for everyone. It's a very democratic medium.
 
peterm1 said:
Like just about every other member of this site I crave the best and highest performing lenses. But you know, the photos that I like the best consistently are ones that are in some ways the most flawed. In my case I love images shot thru windows - all those sumptuous reflections and distortions. Of course I am an arty type so my images don't pretend to be anything other than something I like and enjoy. I am not after veracity. What I am after, I suppose, is beauty. And that is something that is more difficult to define than anything found in an MTF curve.

These are some shots from the last couple of weekends just shooting people in cafes. I may have posted some here already. All of the images are vastly compromised in a technical sense but I like them.

So, not asking others about my images but how do others feel about this issue. Is it the case that we should really be content with much more basic lenses if the most interesting images (in my view anyway) are the ones that are technically somewhat ordinary -vignetting, ghosting, blur etc?
Click to expand...

JMHO, but an image that is technically perfect can easily be perfectly boring. Clinically flawlessness is not the be all and end all to photography; again JMHO.

A long time ago (pre-digital hysteria era), I went to a photography workshop. What was easily the best photograph brought to share with the group (in terms of visual impact and artistic significance) was made by a twentysomething who was a college student. His image was made with a Pentax K1000 and a Pentax 50mm f/2 lens. That was a revealing experience for several workshop attendees, present company included.

There's much more to photography than making "perfect" images.
Or relentlessly evenly illuminated HDR images.
Or 6x8 foot razor sharp wall sized prints.

Just sayin'.

@peterm1 -
Your images in your original post are really great images. They are artistic; they are beautiful; they are thick with (for lack of a better term) atmosphere.
 
noisycheese said:
JMHO, but an image that is technically perfect can easily be perfectly boring. Clinically flawlessness is not the be all and end all to photography; again JMHO.
Click to expand...
noisycheese said:
A long time ago (pre-digital hysteria era), I went to a photography workshop. What was easily the best photograph brought to share with the group (in terms of visual impact and artistic significance) was made by a twentysomething who was a college student. His image was made with a Pentax K1000 and a Pentax 50mm f/2 lens. That was a revealing experience for several workshop attendees, present company included.

There's much more to photography than making "perfect" images.
Or relentlessly evenly illuminated HDR images.
Or 6x8 foot razor sharp wall sized prints.

Just sayin'.

@peterm1 -
Your images in your original post are really great images. They are artistic; they are beautiful; they are thick with (for lack of a better term) atmosphere.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for your compliments. "Atmospheric" - That is exactly what I am aiming for. And you a re 1000% correct - people too often confuse technically perfect with "good image" or "interesting image" Which is part of the point I was making - very often the images that are the best in terms of being the most artistic or the most interesting are the ones that are technically less than perfect. Speaking for myself I love images that have shadows and reflections and distortions. Ones where there is a touch of uncertainty that make you think and analyse whats going on.

I sometimes go onto another forum - one which specialises in discussing manual focus lenses. Lovely people and absolutely dedicated to their passion for equipment but to be honest I think I am yet to see what I would regard as an interesting image on that forum. Everyone is sooooooooooo dedicated to getting images that demonstrate the capacity of their lenses - that are pin sharp or have exquist bokeh or whatever but still they dont make nice images. (Well I suppose there must be a few, but you know what I mean).
 
peterm1 said:
Like just about every other member of this site I crave the best and highest performing lenses. But you know, the photos that I like the best consistently are ones that are in some ways the most flawed. In my case I love images shot thru windows - all those sumptuous reflections and distortions. Of course I am an arty type so my images don't pretend to be anything other than something I like and enjoy. I am not after veracity. What I am after, I suppose, is beauty. And that is something that is more difficult to define than anything found in an MTF curve.

These are some shots from the last couple of weekends just shooting people in cafes. I may have posted some here already. All of the images are vastly compromised in a technical sense but I like them.

So, not asking others about my images but how do others feel about this issue. Is it the case that we should really be content with much more basic lenses if the most interesting images (in my view anyway) are the ones that are technically somewhat ordinary -vignetting, ghosting, blur etc?
Click to expand...

I think you already answered your own question, you should be content with the lens or the technique which allows you to take the picture you are after. If the picture is taken to please your sense of beauty and the pictures you got do this (they satisfy also my sense of beauty by the way ;) ) why worrying? I never heard anyone making a comment about a nice picture saying that it would have been better if ti was taken with a different lens, I heard complain a bout a certain image not being suitable for a certain enlargement in advertising but that's a different story, if you are not in that
kind of photography why not just keep on with the good work.

PS Which lens did you use by the way... :D

GLF
 
Great photos Peter, as always. Specially in the last times with so much clinical perfection in the digital photography an image with some blurred area creates interest. But there must be a valid subject, an idea in the photo. You photos have that.
robert
 
I suppose one could misquote Albert Einstein and say "Make an image sharp enough and no sharper".

That said, I'm currently on a sharpness jag and am fascinated by how much apparent sharpness I can get out of inexpensive lenses, with simple tweaking.
 
I really wish photography classes would BAN mention of equipment used when discussing images - the WHY should be the focus, not the HOW, with the exception of things like, "I used a 10 second exposure to exaggerate motion blur" or "I used a macro lens with a 16mm extension tube". The moment a brand name slips out of a students' mouth, they should be penalized a full letter grade.

The only tool that counts is the one you as the photographer know how to use well. Yes, all very fine and good for someone like me to say, who has over the years accumulated some superlative tools (Rolleiflex, Canon, Contax G, Hasselblad, Canham), but my reasons for owning said tools has been because they are superlative TOOLS that get out of the way of my making images, and by their virtues make it easier to make images I want to make. I've been financially graced that I can afford "the best" tools, but I'll never begrudge anyone the use of any camera that produces the results they want. You can have the very best screwdriver in the world, but if you need to pound nails, a $1 yard-sale hammer is infinitely better.
 
rhl-oregon said:
Just a note of wholehearted assent and support. When the project impels supreme attention on the part of the artist and when, like your series, its results compel comparable attention from a casual viewer., the project is more important than the gear. Though who but other photographers go to a show and ask, 'What did s/he shoot this with?'

If I were a mathematician or physicist, I might hazard a formula about the proportionate relevance of the project to the gear. Instead I'll just quote a favorite bit of Klee: "You must adapt yourself to the contents of your paintbox." You have plenty of skill and technique for the tools you use. What else matters?
Click to expand...

Nice quote!

I don't know how it would happen but someday I'd like to own a Klee. I've read there's a lot of his work in America but it rarely comes up at auction because nobody want to part with theirs.

I agree completely with the quote but it's ironic, considering he compounded a lot of his own paints to get exactly what he wanted.

Thanks,

s-a
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom