tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Online, it seems, that one's choice of camera can net them or their work a little "extra" attention. Using, for example, a Leica, Hasselblad, or a Holga (and making sure to mention it, putting it in your photos tags, etc.) seems to be a useful way to get more people to click on your images. So long as the camera has a cult following, there will be people looking for images made with that camera, and I can see a few photographers around who really trade heavily on their choice of popular-online camera.
Or does it? At first glance, it would seem like it does, and obviously there are people who think it does and constantly mention their Leica (or whatever) on their website, blog, etc. But then again, look through flickr and just about every camera imaginable has a group dedicated to it, and while obviously popular cameras have more groups, not all of those groups are particularly active.
So what do you think? How much attention can using a popular camera net you online?
Or does it? At first glance, it would seem like it does, and obviously there are people who think it does and constantly mention their Leica (or whatever) on their website, blog, etc. But then again, look through flickr and just about every camera imaginable has a group dedicated to it, and while obviously popular cameras have more groups, not all of those groups are particularly active.
So what do you think? How much attention can using a popular camera net you online?
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
In my experience this draws lots of attention from gentlemen of a certain age:
My 1963 Leica M2 + DR Summicron and glasses by Ronald Hogenboom, on Flickr
But boy, do the chicks dig this
'Pink, it's like red buit not quite' by Ronald Hogenboom, on Flickr
My 1963 Leica M2 + DR Summicron and glasses by Ronald Hogenboom, on Flickr
But boy, do the chicks dig this
'Pink, it's like red buit not quite' by Ronald Hogenboom, on Flickr
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
For a professional "blog photographer", exploiting a audience with a fetish certainly is advisable. "Use of a particular camera" is a pretty marginal fetish, though. Photographing genitalia, muscle cars, cats or old railroads seems to be far more promising, even more so if you combine that with goth, mod, punk or some other past musical subculture. If any, camera poserdom will advertise your determination (as in "nobody who is not serious about it would blow $22,000 on lenses to photograph a 'nude goth chick in muscle car'"), and give the audience a (lame) excuse to stare at milk glands ("aah, the bokeh").
Would you rather have people interested because of your camera or because of your photography? Ideally, I'd love the latter... but there are certainly people who look to see which camera someone is using before deciding if they like the photos. Photography is a weird thing. Some people seemingly only like to photograph to test and write about equipment. Some people exclusively love gear and lens attribute photos. Some people only love the art. Some people only use it to show what they own or how cool they are. Some people only care about family photos. It can be many things to many people.
Axel
singleshooter
Hope it does not. When I am on public places or events my cameras are strictly taped.
First because no company spents only one cent to me if I walk around with presenting
their brand. Second to express that the camera really doesn´t matter.
And I think that a too heavily presented EXIF data is able to spoil the clear look at
pictures in a gallery.
People should show what they have and pose with cars, cameras, girls, money -
whatever they want. But I like to make a clear cut at that point when it comes
to what they do with all this stuff.
First because no company spents only one cent to me if I walk around with presenting
their brand. Second to express that the camera really doesn´t matter.
And I think that a too heavily presented EXIF data is able to spoil the clear look at
pictures in a gallery.
People should show what they have and pose with cars, cameras, girls, money -
whatever they want. But I like to make a clear cut at that point when it comes
to what they do with all this stuff.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sure it does, on Flickr 100%, where are plenty of gearheads on Flickr. But where are some very talented photogs who knows how to take it with something not as fancy as Leica or FujiNoFilm.
Saying this, I specifically prefer rangefinder taken images. Majority of photography books I have are with images taken with Leica. And only on-line blog I care to look at is Leica Blog. It is not because it is Leica. It is because rangefinder allows to catch life differently. I could see it. And I could catch it too, sometimes, if with rangefinder.
Saying this, I specifically prefer rangefinder taken images. Majority of photography books I have are with images taken with Leica. And only on-line blog I care to look at is Leica Blog. It is not because it is Leica. It is because rangefinder allows to catch life differently. I could see it. And I could catch it too, sometimes, if with rangefinder.
seany65
Well-known
I have sometimes googled "photos taken with X camera" as a way of trying to find out what quality of images a camera can produce, taking into account the style of the photographer. This way it's possible to see if a camera produces vignetted images or ones that aren't quite in focus etc. This is mostly useful with cheapish old cameras such as the gevaert gevabox.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Why should the film camera matter?
Why should the film camera matter?
Having grown up in the film era, and still using film, my attitude has been that the camera is a box to keep the film and lens in the proper alignment. Unless the camera is malfunctioning (e.g. tapering shutter, light leak, diaphragm stuck on an SLR, rangefinder is off), then the camera should exert NO influence on the final image. It's all about the lens and the film (sensor). I understand that the sensor and algorithms of different digital cameras will impact upon the final image, but in film land, the camera is still a box.
Unless I recognize the signature of a specific lens, or I made notes for each frame of a camera I'm testing, I won't know which camera took which picture.
Getting back to the original question, if you need some object to make you popular, you probably aren't popular at all. It's a sad crutch I see now, as middle age men fit their fat bodies into their Corvettes, or Porche 911s. Same as some sad, lonely soul trying to be cool with Leica M3.
Why should the film camera matter?
Having grown up in the film era, and still using film, my attitude has been that the camera is a box to keep the film and lens in the proper alignment. Unless the camera is malfunctioning (e.g. tapering shutter, light leak, diaphragm stuck on an SLR, rangefinder is off), then the camera should exert NO influence on the final image. It's all about the lens and the film (sensor). I understand that the sensor and algorithms of different digital cameras will impact upon the final image, but in film land, the camera is still a box.
Unless I recognize the signature of a specific lens, or I made notes for each frame of a camera I'm testing, I won't know which camera took which picture.
Getting back to the original question, if you need some object to make you popular, you probably aren't popular at all. It's a sad crutch I see now, as middle age men fit their fat bodies into their Corvettes, or Porche 911s. Same as some sad, lonely soul trying to be cool with Leica M3.
css9450
Veteran
I'd rather have a camera that makes me unpopular.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I do the same thing...if interested in a camera or lens...
Other than that I don't care what you used if I like the image...
And I've been having a blast with a Canon ELPH100 HS...not your BIG name pro camera but small, fun to use and decent results...
back alley
IMAGES
i'm unpopular enough as it is...if a camera helps me be popular than i'd go for it...
eric rose
ummmmm, filmmmm
This is the ONLY stud camera ever made. Period.
Huss
Veteran
x-ray
Veteran
I very rarely put data with my photos because it doesn't matter what I shot with. If for some reason I do put data I might give incorrect data. Again because it makes no difference what was used. IMO the only important thing is the image.
I'd be curious as to how many clicks your best few images have in the RFF gallery. Did you give camera and lens data? For those that did do you think your audience cares what it was shot with or is it excellent content that attracted them?
Edit:
I looked back at my gallery images and have quite a good number of images with views from 1200 up to nearly 27,000. The ones with the highest number of views have no technical data. Hopefully people view them because of content. I'd be very disappointed if it were due to camera data.
How about your photos? Data or content?
I'd be curious as to how many clicks your best few images have in the RFF gallery. Did you give camera and lens data? For those that did do you think your audience cares what it was shot with or is it excellent content that attracted them?
Edit:
I looked back at my gallery images and have quite a good number of images with views from 1200 up to nearly 27,000. The ones with the highest number of views have no technical data. Hopefully people view them because of content. I'd be very disappointed if it were due to camera data.
How about your photos? Data or content?
johnf04
Well-known
This is the ONLY stud camera ever made. Period.
I'd be interested to see its offspring, then. How often do you mate it?
phrons
Established
It depends on what circle you run with.
I used to be completely lusting over a leica. I found a good deal for a Nikon S2, and that didn't cure it.
120 cured that lust though. I'd much rather spend the equivalent money on a medium format system.
There are also a ton of great 120 rangefinders, my preferred style of shooting. Folders are affordable, and then there are the Fuji's, those things are huge, obnoxious, and don't scream refinement but sure can take a great photo.
I used to be completely lusting over a leica. I found a good deal for a Nikon S2, and that didn't cure it.
120 cured that lust though. I'd much rather spend the equivalent money on a medium format system.
There are also a ton of great 120 rangefinders, my preferred style of shooting. Folders are affordable, and then there are the Fuji's, those things are huge, obnoxious, and don't scream refinement but sure can take a great photo.
Huss
Veteran
anindyo
Member
Sounds good, doesn't work. As lonely soul trying to be cool with Leica M2, I can confirm. But at least shooting with M2 give better feeling.
Btw, I think showing certain brand of camera can help building identity and make someone belong to certain group and get some audience. Plus adding keywords and hashtags to gain more likes.