farlymac
PF McFarland
I must say that there are a few parallels in this article I saw today between the writer and myself. Though I've been in and out of photography for about the same time he is talking about, and used a lot of the same cameras, I've never done the kind of retrospective he has undertaken. However, I've done plenty of critiquing of my own work over the years, and do know that you can take good photos with a crappy camera, and vice-versa. But it was good to see it in a written form that confirmed some of my own observations.
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/21...photo-gear-over-the-past-40-years/#more-81904
PF
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/21...photo-gear-over-the-past-40-years/#more-81904
PF
GaryLH
Veteran
Thanks for the link. I have been shooting since start of high school (68) when I got my first camera (used Minolta sr1) I saved for from working odd jobs.
I can very well relate since I pretty much went down a similar path about 4 years ago.. Did a very similar analysis..
Gary
I can very well relate since I pretty much went down a similar path about 4 years ago.. Did a very similar analysis..
Gary
Messsucherkamera
Established
This is a great article.
There are common threads running through if that run through my own experiences in photography as well as many commonalities that I have read in the writings of noteworthy photographers who have told their own stories.
Equipment is a factor, there's no denying that. But equipment can take you only so far. Beyond that point other factors come into play: Photographic skill, technical knowledge, training, photographic vision, experience, commitment, drive, passion, persistence, aesthetics and insight are the qualities that determine how successful your efforts are.
The most important thing is this: No matter what, keep shooting. There is no failure. There is only feedback. Keep working and shooting until you get the results you want.
There are common threads running through if that run through my own experiences in photography as well as many commonalities that I have read in the writings of noteworthy photographers who have told their own stories.
Equipment is a factor, there's no denying that. But equipment can take you only so far. Beyond that point other factors come into play: Photographic skill, technical knowledge, training, photographic vision, experience, commitment, drive, passion, persistence, aesthetics and insight are the qualities that determine how successful your efforts are.
The most important thing is this: No matter what, keep shooting. There is no failure. There is only feedback. Keep working and shooting until you get the results you want.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I find my equipment gets simpler as time goes on.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree with every word, but why did he have to buy all those cameras? He must have known the difference between 120 and 35mm before he went on Ebay. Don't get me wrong I use 35mm for convenience just like everyone but I would always prefer to use 120.
GaryLH
Veteran
I went back and bought certain cameras purely on nostalgia. It sounded like he did the same thing initially.
Gary
matt_mcg2
Established
I agree with Mr Fizzlesticks regarding Mr Norgay's other output, but the article is OK. Although the insights aren't shocking. Larger negatives tend to win out; technique matters, etc.
I went back and scanned some of my old negatives as part of a similar process [only 10-15 years old, so not that far back] and it was interesting to compare with stuff I do now. I don't think I've really learned anything much in terms of composition and reading the light. Certainly more consistently competent now, but my best pictures aren't really any better than they were when I started and there's more experimentation in the earlier stuff. My basic shooting technique is more consistent, but the old stuff isn't terrible. So a decade or more of regular shooting has made the worst of what I do better, and my shooting/processing more consistent, but the best isn't much better.
In terms of kit, the stuff I started with (mostly FSU stuff -- in 120 and 35mm) stands up pretty well in terms of quality of output, even if it was a bit clunky in use. There was a huge jump in image quality when I switched from cheapish point and shoots to FSU rangefinders (and medium format), but much smaller incremental improvements as I then upgraded over time to better and more expensive German and Japanese made equipment.
I went back and scanned some of my old negatives as part of a similar process [only 10-15 years old, so not that far back] and it was interesting to compare with stuff I do now. I don't think I've really learned anything much in terms of composition and reading the light. Certainly more consistently competent now, but my best pictures aren't really any better than they were when I started and there's more experimentation in the earlier stuff. My basic shooting technique is more consistent, but the old stuff isn't terrible. So a decade or more of regular shooting has made the worst of what I do better, and my shooting/processing more consistent, but the best isn't much better.
In terms of kit, the stuff I started with (mostly FSU stuff -- in 120 and 35mm) stands up pretty well in terms of quality of output, even if it was a bit clunky in use. There was a huge jump in image quality when I switched from cheapish point and shoots to FSU rangefinders (and medium format), but much smaller incremental improvements as I then upgraded over time to better and more expensive German and Japanese made equipment.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Looking at it, it seems the site just stole his post, pasted a few images in (none by the author) and called it an article.
Beyond that, the internet is basically just Familiarity Breeds Contempt the Video Game. :angel:
citizen99
Well-known
Same here
.Roger Hicks
Veteran
Lss
Well-known
My gear mostly gets dents and scuffs.
icebear
Veteran
Same here
I didn't care to read the article.
For me most important:
Whatever you use, know your equipment so well that it doesn't get in the your way of photography.
Everything else is up to you, not your camera
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Just two words to add:
Know and like...
Yes, you can get great results from kit you have to struggle with. But why bother?
Cheers,
R.
boomguy57
Well-known
I think although the article didn't make any new argument, he adds to the existing narrative we have about gear. More gear, new gear, pricier gear...they don't make you better at making images. Gear can help overcome some of the technical issues (faster lenses, film grain, diff focal lengths, sensors, etc) but they can't fix technique and skill.
There are some truly amazing cameras out there, but that doesn't mean that they work for me. Ansel Adams was a genius, but with his set-up I'd look like a chump, get frustrated, and give up. Large format isn't me. Likewise with landscapes. So we choose gear that lets us take the images we want, how we want. One has to gel with one's equipment, and it has to get out of the way. My "old" D700 is that way; I've had it for almost 4 years now and it never lets me down. Never. It always nails the shot under any conditions I put it in. However, I don't really enjoy shooting with it. The RF is much more relaxing and enjoyable to shoot with, but I miss more shots. There are times when I wish my MP was a tic faster, but that's all to do with me (mostly).
Gear is a tool. For making images, and for the final output. One should enjoy using it and it should get out of the way so that you can make the images. If the camera interferes with making images--even a little--it's time to move on.
There are some truly amazing cameras out there, but that doesn't mean that they work for me. Ansel Adams was a genius, but with his set-up I'd look like a chump, get frustrated, and give up. Large format isn't me. Likewise with landscapes. So we choose gear that lets us take the images we want, how we want. One has to gel with one's equipment, and it has to get out of the way. My "old" D700 is that way; I've had it for almost 4 years now and it never lets me down. Never. It always nails the shot under any conditions I put it in. However, I don't really enjoy shooting with it. The RF is much more relaxing and enjoyable to shoot with, but I miss more shots. There are times when I wish my MP was a tic faster, but that's all to do with me (mostly).
Gear is a tool. For making images, and for the final output. One should enjoy using it and it should get out of the way so that you can make the images. If the camera interferes with making images--even a little--it's time to move on.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
Most of the guys I know buy new equipment for the simple reason, they subconsicously feel they will not improve esthetically or technically so they lay a "smoke screen" by testing new equipment, hoping that will lead to better images.
icebear
Veteran
argh ... yeah these darn assumptions, I never use anything that I don't like, so for me that was a given
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I've been shooting film since I hit my teens in 1974. I also had a spell shooting weddings and portraits for a bit of extra money but hated the pressure of shooting to other people's briefs and expectations.
I was lucky enough to be able to afford an OM1n and OM2n and a Mamiya C3 but I lusted after some other kit but never quite managed to acquire it. As a middle-aged man and with the price of the kit I lusted after reducing, I've made a point of acquiring a lot of the things I always wanted but could never afford.
I'm not sure if it's better equipment, modern emulsions, greater technique, better temperament or a combination thereof but I perceive that my output now is way better than it ever was 20-30 years ago. I still have an OM2n and the negatives I'm getting these days by using Ilford XP2 Super are way better than anything I shot back in the day.
Mind you, I don't wet print anymore - I scan negs on a V750 and have them printed professionally (when I want a print, that is).
My guess is that most improvements I see are down to better quality / more consistent emulsions. However, I still pine for the loss of Kodachrome......
I was lucky enough to be able to afford an OM1n and OM2n and a Mamiya C3 but I lusted after some other kit but never quite managed to acquire it. As a middle-aged man and with the price of the kit I lusted after reducing, I've made a point of acquiring a lot of the things I always wanted but could never afford.
I'm not sure if it's better equipment, modern emulsions, greater technique, better temperament or a combination thereof but I perceive that my output now is way better than it ever was 20-30 years ago. I still have an OM2n and the negatives I'm getting these days by using Ilford XP2 Super are way better than anything I shot back in the day.
Mind you, I don't wet print anymore - I scan negs on a V750 and have them printed professionally (when I want a print, that is).
My guess is that most improvements I see are down to better quality / more consistent emulsions. However, I still pine for the loss of Kodachrome......
redisburning
Well-known
the reason people buy the best is because they want to be the best.
it doesn't make you the best by itself, but sometimes we go too far and make statements like "the camera doesn't matter" which I will never agree with.
Consider that Senna won the driver's championship the year he joined a new team with a better car. If you have the talent, a better camera [for you], no matter how small the difference, will result in better output. Better might be more consistent, it might be a shot you wouldn't otherwise have gotten, it might just be more confidence.
btw I've shrunk my gear as well and I have less than most of the rest of you lol.
it doesn't make you the best by itself, but sometimes we go too far and make statements like "the camera doesn't matter" which I will never agree with.
Consider that Senna won the driver's championship the year he joined a new team with a better car. If you have the talent, a better camera [for you], no matter how small the difference, will result in better output. Better might be more consistent, it might be a shot you wouldn't otherwise have gotten, it might just be more confidence.
btw I've shrunk my gear as well and I have less than most of the rest of you lol.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
In the film era, the equipment made advances, but how important were these advances? We've all seen that truly excellent photographs can be made with older lenses and bodies. That argues that the advances were not so significant.
Now, the film on the other hand... Films really improved in many dimensions over the years.
Now, with digital, the new generations of equipment are enabling significant leaps in images. I am pleased with the color portraits I shoot today in dinner-party lighting. I could not and cannot do that with my old gear.
Now, the film on the other hand... Films really improved in many dimensions over the years.
Now, with digital, the new generations of equipment are enabling significant leaps in images. I am pleased with the color portraits I shoot today in dinner-party lighting. I could not and cannot do that with my old gear.
DNG
Film Friendly
Not a new revelation, but it is interesting that he bought all those cameras of the past..
I bought a Nikon FE, a camera I owned in the early 90's. and I am still wanting to buy 2 more I used to own....
Voigtlander Prominent (v1) with the 5cm f/1.5 Nokton (My 1st camera for $50.00 (1968) used in "E" condition).
Robot Royal 36 Model II, with a 45mm f/2.8... Bought used for $125. (1974)
I bought a Nikon FE, a camera I owned in the early 90's. and I am still wanting to buy 2 more I used to own....
Voigtlander Prominent (v1) with the 5cm f/1.5 Nokton (My 1st camera for $50.00 (1968) used in "E" condition).
Robot Royal 36 Model II, with a 45mm f/2.8... Bought used for $125. (1974)