Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

[Vaughn]

Everything is a preset for gripes sake -- can we forget about presets now?

Otherwise, what Matt wrote...

 

[NB23]

No idea.

But I like to think that my hands are valuable enough to not be spending time touching inferior products... so this is why I use only the best.

In the past week it was Nikon F3 and F301. I feel like superman when shooting the F3 with the 45P. It’s simply majestic. The F3 is exactly what the Leica R were supposed to be. The weight distribution of the camera and the winding action, ratcheted like a Leica M!!!! Ohhh maaaan.
I asked my wife to unload my complete Leica collection all over my body, in my coffin when I’m dead. And to not forget to top it off with my Two Nikon F3.
Yes, the F301 is also amazing (really! Closest SLR to a rangefinder) but it is relegated to shooting in dangerous places.

So basically all my best shots are done with my best cameras. I do it with Love. Once my hands feel the camera they love, my body sends all its energy into those little things. The good pics follow.

Remember: Nikon F3. What a heavenly camera.

 

[awty]

Very true. I found the same to be the case when I was into stereo equipment. Some people are more attracted to the gear than what the gear can actually do.

Same same, although I made all my own hifi components so I could have a unique looking system that also sounds great. Working towards the same with making pictures all takes time and effort.
When I get bored and unproductive in one process I move on and try something else, then when reinvigorated can come back and try again.
Its not the tools and materials that are important, but how you use them.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Diana, Lomography for art; Puh-leez. They have some cache for creativity for some reason. Gimmicks. All they produce are artifacts you cannot control so art becomes a coin-toss.

 

[eddie]

Diana, Lomography for art; Puh-leez. They have some cache for creativity for some reason. Gimmicks. All they produce are artifacts you cannot control so art becomes a coin-toss.

Incredibly wrong. Have you ever used one?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Diana, Lomography for art; Puh-leez. They have some cache for creativity for some reason. Gimmicks. All they produce are artifacts you cannot control so art becomes a coin-toss.

I've taken some nice creative photos with my old Holga....Yes, it doesn't have the same control like my large format camera. It does it's own thing and does it differently. It's almost always with me when I'm out with the 8x10 or digital.

 

[Vaughn]

Diana, Lomography for art; Puh-leez. They have some cache for creativity for some reason. Gimmicks. All they produce are artifacts you cannot control so art becomes a coin-toss.

To be able to predict the outcome equals control of that outcome. I know how my Diana camera and its plastic lens 'sees' as well as my 11x14 with the Fuji W 360mm/6.8 lens and FP4+. Both occasionally surprises me...thankfully! However, I do not see myself being more or less creative using one tool over the other, but I had as much pleasure printing that little image of two 1.75" sq frames as I did printing a 5.5"x14" negative from Zion NP yesterday (pt/pd)...I also printed a three 6x10cm negative panorama of Kyoto from my son's apartment. I used a Brooks Veriwide 100 -- it has an aftermarket viewfinder for its 47mm lens...a wonderful challenge to use...forced me to think creatively. A friend lent it to me right before I left for Kyoto.

 

[awty]

M4-2 and Elmar-M 50 2.8. Just like Peter mentioned, I'd rather use some quality gear to have consistent results. And later on I could decide how I use negative from it for.

Cool picture, I like the little tractor coming towards the tree.
The process of fogging the paper, over exposing and bleaching and toning gives interesting effects.
You get a bit more play with medium or large format, but its all about the printing process.
An rz67 a few 35mm and a Holga all pictures were taken in view of the process, nothing random. You are just working with tools and materials, pick the right one for the job, or make the one you are using work, doesnt matter, the only thing that does is the final out come.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Incredibly wrong. Have you ever used one?

Of course. Would we ever allow a roulette wheel to decide SS, f, ISO lens integrity or consistency of medium so that we can be "creative?"

 

[Arklatexian]

Of course. Would we ever allow a roulette wheel to decide SS, f, ISO lens integrity or consistency of medium so that we can be "creative?"

Maybe now is the time to repeat the Photrio-Analog Motto (as I understand it). "The Camera Does Not Make The Picture, The photographer Does".........Regards!

 

[Bill Burk]

I think @Pieter12 gave the clearest answer... what you see through the viewfinder will usually correspond better to the final image.

I find that the "famous" cameras just plain old "do a good job" in that respect, above anything else.

While I can get an image out of practically anything that has a dark interior that holds film and has a controllable opening... If I use a camera that reliably shows what you will get, I will get a 'better' picture.

 

[jim10219]

A bad carpenter blames his tools, as the saying goes.

As an artist, I try to choose the right tool for the job. It's not always my best camera, but it's the one I think will work best for the shot I have in mind.

 

[darkosaric]

I use cheaper cameras for couple of reasons: main is that I simply like to use different cameras, it is a fun and enjoyment for me. For the viewer only what counts is the final image, but for me as a maker also the whole process is important, fun when using camera, developing prints and so on. For me it is not only about the final print (which is the most important part, of course). Second reason is that plastic cameras are light, if I compare Espio zoom with F2 and 180mm f2.8...I can understand why I take Espio with me. Even if I have "happy accident", and missed focus form time to time - I like using them. Would this be better photo if I took exact the same photo with Nikon/Leica (not in technical sense, but artistic)? Probably not. But would I be on some or other position, made the same photo, or would I take different photo with Leica/Nikon, and would it be better or worse? This I don't know.

Here is one example: on one of my trip to Haiti I had M3 with LTM Elmar 5cm f3.5, Nikon F3 with 105mm/2.5 and Espio zoom point and shoot, and below are 3 pictures from the trip with 3 different cameras.

 

[removed account4]

I like very much to shoot with different cameras, I buy and sell often many plastic fantastic. Right now I have Espio superzoom, and some "focus free" are there as well. I use cheaper cameras let's say in 20-30% of the time. Maybe as a test once I should use cheap stuff 80%, and Leica 20% of the time ?

fun stuff IDK what i would do is maybe take the same photograph with the same film, and a handful of your cameras so you can see the differences between them all. it takes a while sometimes to get inside the mind of a camera and understand the world as it might see it. they might be subtle differences having to do with focus plane, distortion but there might not be much of a difference between your plastic fantastic and your nice leica when images are jewel prints but only when enlarged past 8x10 ... who knows

LOL i just saw your last post, you already are doing that beautiful work ! i think the magic is in ALL of them!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With film cameras, it's more the lens than the camera. As long as the film is laying flat, it's the lens that provides the best picture. With digital cameras, there's a lot of processing going on by the camera's computer. Of course, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear regarding composition, subject matter, lighting, etc. If you "aim" is off, the best Nikon isn't going to help.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I agree it's the glass, not the camera. The hard part is learning how a particular lens "sees" the world and how it translates it from 3D to 2D. I'm enjoying shooting with a rangefinder because it challenges me to think more, as I can't see the DOF like you can with an SLR. I need to pre-visualize what I expect the results to be, but as someone else said, sometimes I am surprised, which is part of the fun of shooting with film. You can't see what you actually have until later. This was shot with an old 45mm f2.8 rokkor on a Leica IIf. I have "better" glass that would have rendered the background into buttery smoothness (Nikon 50mm f2), but I think the funky Bokeh this lens produces works in the shot.

 

[Vaughn]

A bad carpenter blames his tools, as the saying goes. True -- a bad carpenter can't afford to buy good tools.

 

[jtk]

I use cheaper cameras for couple of reasons: main is that I simply like to use different cameras, it is a fun and enjoyment for me. For the viewer only what counts is the final image, but for me as a maker also the whole process is important, fun when using camera, developing prints and so on. For me it is not only about the final print (which is the most important part, of course). Second reason is that plastic cameras are light, if I compare Espio zoom with F2 and 180mm f2.8...I can understand why I take Espio with me. Even if I have "happy accident", and missed focus form time to time - I like using them. Would this be better photo if I took exact the same photo with Nikon/Leica (not in technical sense, but artistic)? Probably not. But would I be on some or other position, made the same photo, or would I take different photo with Leica/Nikon, and would it be better or worse? This I don't know.

Here is one example: on one of my trip to Haiti I had M3 with LTM Elmar 5cm f3.5, Nikon F3 with 105mm/2.5 and Espio zoom point and shoot, and below are 3 pictures from the trip with 3 different cameras.

 

[jtk]

Darko...Fine photos! I do think you would have done as well with any reliable p&s...and certainly any APSC, especially if (like any APSC Pentax) it was genuinely storm resistant.

 

[Ariston]

A bad carpenter blames his tools, as the saying goes.

As an artist, I try to choose the right tool for the job. It's not always my best camera, but it's the one I think will work best for the shot I have in mind.

That's a great axiom I had not heard. I, too, choose the camera based on what I am going to be photographing. As much as I love my RB, I will not be using it to chase kids around.

 

[awty]

I use cheaper cameras for couple of reasons: main is that I simply like to use different cameras, it is a fun and enjoyment for me. For the viewer only what counts is the final image, but for me as a maker also the whole process is important, fun when using camera, developing prints and so on. For me it is not only about the final print (which is the most important part, of course). Second reason is that plastic cameras are light, if I compare Espio zoom with F2 and 180mm f2.8...I can understand why I take Espio with me. Even if I have "happy accident", and missed focus form time to time - I like using them. Would this be better photo if I took exact the same photo with Nikon/Leica (not in technical sense, but artistic)? Probably not. But would I be on some or other position, made the same photo, or would I take different photo with Leica/Nikon, and would it be better or worse? This I don't know.

Here is one example: on one of my trip to Haiti I had M3 with LTM Elmar 5cm f3.5, Nikon F3 with 105mm/2.5 and Espio zoom point and shoot, and below are 3 pictures from the trip with 3 different cameras.

My sentiment exactly, they are fine pictures do what works for you, my street photography favorite is a Olympus trip 35, its light, fast and pretty sharp as you say its all about the content and final print, expensive cameras dont help me with that.....and for what its worth carpenters buy the cheapest tool that will do the job and when it wears out they hold them together with duct tape and blame the plumber. Would make a great photo series, carpenters and their drop saws.

 

[cdowell]

I was looking last night at a couple circa 1980 Sears lenses that I inherited. I've never used them but decided I'd try out the 135mm f/2.8 just to see how the results look. I'm do enjoy developing a roll of film not knowing what I'll get. It's not quite experimentation, more like exploration.

Often, I need as much control as I can muster, and luckily photography is a machine-based, photo-mechanical process. But I think free play is a part of creativity.

My hope is that the Sears lens produces negatives that look different in some interesting way. If so, I'll think about it and follow the results and try to isolate what it is that catches my attention, and then use it creatively. Curiosity is key and luck never hurts.

If somebody wants to flip a lens on a Brownie, it's OK with me. Not sure why the resulting imperfection would exclude it from the artistic process. But it is true that I kinda hate lensbaby shots just on principle, so I might be contradicting myself from the outset. I never know.

 

[darkosaric]

To make slight digression - we all know that the worst thing is not to bring any camera with you. Couple of days ago I went to work, I had my heavy Nikon F2 with 105mm lens. Went to have lunch with a colleague, it was raining a lot (rainy season in Manila is hard), so I did not took Nikon with me. And then this happens:



Probably the photos would not be great, but anyhow - I said to my self - never ever again without a camera, XA2 is on his way from ebay.

 

[awty]

You can use your phone camera, more do than dont.

 

[jtk]

I don't care what others do unless I'm curious about how they produced an image that appeals in some way.