Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

[darkosaric]

Hi,

So first of all - I don't want to discuss technical component, this is more about artistic results.

I have no clear evidence, it is just my gut feeling...when I take photos with expensive cameras and expensive films, in comparison to some cheap camera and cheap film - I think (not sure, I think) I get better artistic results. For example on one side Nikon F or Leica M with expensive TriX, vs some plastic zoom point and shoot with expired 1€ Polypan F film. As rare exception are sometimes results from Diana F.

Is this makes sense to you guys ?

 

[removed account4]

hi darko:
it makes sense, but ... if you use the less expensive "stuff" more and more and more and the expensive stuff less and less and less
so you are in the zone more, understand more and more comfortable with the cheeps, would you say the same thing ? sometimes
( for me at least ) i get impatient with the results for cheep stuff instead of being luke skywalker and using the force and all that stuff.
the expensive gear and film is more dependable and its easier to get dependable results, for sure ...

john

 

[peter k.]

Oh boy, yes and no!!! What we see, what we shoot is dependent on our judgement of the scene. How it turns out after developing and printing is another creative process. Have some, what we consider very artistic photos done with poor lenses and not the best of our equipment.

 

[darkosaric]

if you use the less expensive "stuff" more and more and more and the expensive stuff less and less and less
so you are in the zone more, understand more and more comfortable with the cheeps, would you say the same thing ?

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 ?

 

[darkosaric]

What I want to say that maybe there is some physiological factor to it when using different priced cameras? For example difference when using Nikon F with Non Ai 50mm vs 5€ nikon F65 with the AF 50mm lens, technical factor here is the same.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Interesting topic. I find that I do tend to shoot differently depending on the gear I am using. Not sure if one tends to end up with more "artistic" results is hard to say. I do have a difficult time, for example, expending a lot of creative energy shooting with an old roll of film that I'm not sure will even produce usable images. I'm actually moving away from even bothering with stuff that I'm not sure is going to even work.

 

[Dali]

The question would be: Why do you shoot with cheap gear when you own expensive one? Do you expect different results and is it truly the case? Said differently, are expensive and cheap cameras up to your expectations which could be different depending on their price tab and alleged qualities?

The artistic point of view is somewhat subjective, so I would not even touch it...

 

[Kino]

Your psychological outlook can certainly be affected by your perception of the camera you shoot with.

If for some reason a camera makes you feel connected, comfortable and eager to shoot, then I'll bet you make better photos from that inspiration.

Conversely, if you have nagging doubts or the camera's operation is ungainly, problematic or you are simply unsure of the proper function of the device, I could see how that would negatively impact your performance and enjoyment of the hobby.

I think that's why some can make amazing photos with cameras little more than a junk pile, while others aren't engaged with the camera and can't be inspired to shoot within the limitations of the gear.

 

[Pieter12]

A more expensive camera will have better optics, more accurate exposure controls, etc. Plus what you see through the viewfinder will usually correspond better to the final image. A costlier camera can be more reliable to give consistent results, too. After a certain point, the added cost of the camera gives smaller incremental improvements in the final photo. As far as "artistic" results go, a pinhole camera will do if that's what you're after.

 

[Ariston]

I was shooting the (far-too-fast) sunrise the other day and snapped an extra shot, with a slightly different viewpoint, using my iPhone. It is probably the best composition, which annoys me.

I had passed on it because the sun rises so fast, and I had to choose between it and another location a few feet away.

I guess a lot depends on effort and making the right call. Probably skill, too, because I don't have a lot of experience with that metering situation, which slowed me down.

I'm not sure if the iPhone qualifies as a cheap camera, but I tend to use it like a point-and-shoot.

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm with Pieter12. Someone with artistic vision should use equipment that enables him to control the results. Shooting with unpredictable gear and selecting the most "artistic" images from the results is hardly creative. Sometimes low performance cameras have been adequate for the occasion. Box camera images have won Pulitzer prizes, but a better camera would have made a far better photograph.

 

[faberryman]

Box camera images have won Pulitzer prizes, but a better camera would have made a far better photograph.

You just need something reliable that you are familiar with. Way too much emphasis on the equipment.

 

[Vaughn]

Hi,....Is this makes sense to you guys ?

It makes sense, I do not think I work the same way, so it is not true for me.

The level of quality, design, and the resulting cost of equipment informs ones art, it does not determine the quality of the art made. "a far better photograph" can easily be less effective art.

Place of Refuge (my boys at the North Jetty, Humboldt County)
Film: Tech Pan (a fine grain, high contrast, scientific film of the highest order)
Carbon Print (one of the highest quality photographic processes)
Camera: Original Diana (Quality...you must be kidding!)
Results: Up to you, but it's my art.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hi,

So first of all - I don't want to discuss technical component, this is more about artistic results.

I have no clear evidence, it is just my gut feeling...when I take photos with expensive cameras and expensive films, in comparison to some cheap camera and cheap film - I think (not sure, I think) I get better artistic results. For example on one side Nikon F or Leica M with expensive TriX, vs some plastic zoom point and shoot with expired 1€ Polypan F film. As rare exception are sometimes results from Diana F.

Is this makes sense to you guys ?

So, artistic is just special effects for you. Because this is what Diana and cinefilm (it is cheap if you are mature enough to process it at your own and get it in short ends )
I've been here. But then I realize it is still cheap so called artistic effects. Now I use my M4-2 and Summarit 35 taken negatives for lith and I'd rather learn gum printing. Because it is something I have to use and achieve.
Not just point Diana to some nothing special subject and let plastic lens turn it into the "art". Bokeh is next to it, BTW.

You know why it is cheap "art"? Because it is just same as LR presets. Your Diana F, plastic lens and cheap film gives you always the same, just like LR presets. It is not art. IMO.



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.

 

[Pieter12]

So, artistic is just special effects for you. Because this is what Diana and cinefilm (it is cheap if you are mature enough to process it at your own and get it in short ends )
I've been here. But then I realize it is still cheap so called artistic effects. Now I use my M4-2 and Summarit 35 taken negatives for lith and I'd rather learn gum printing. Because it is something I have to use and achieve.
Not just point Diana to some nothing special subject and let plastic lens turn it into the "art". Bokeh is next to it, BTW.

You know why it is cheap "art"? Because it is just same as LR presets. Your Diana F, plastic lens and cheap film gives you always the same, just like LR presets. It is not art. IMO.

I knew a photographer who would grind his own lenses to achieve certain effects.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I knew a photographer who would grind his own lenses to achieve certain effects.

Same thing. It is nothing, but presets. Same results always. Just like monocle lens, pinhole lens, baby lens and so on.

 

[Kino]

Me thinks this thread was a troll in disguise...

 

[Pieter12]

Same thing. It is nothing, but presets. Same results always. Just like monocle lens, pinhole lens, baby lens and so on.

except in this case, the photographer might know more about the process of achieving those results, rather than some algorithm in the background.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

except in this case, the photographer might know more about the process of achieving those results, rather than some algorithm in the background.

It is not about what this lens grander knows, it is about results been the same, because just like with preset, once lens is modified (politely saying) it gives same effect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have chosen the Nikon AF SLRs for the selections of lenses and availability of service, but Canon would have done as well. I chose Hasselblad for the quality of optics, availability of lenses, parts and service, and the system. Basically I get the best choice of optics, service and reliability which I can afford. Those things taken care of I can concentrate on the composition and know that if the exposure or composition is bad, all that I have to do is look in the mirror to find the problem. If the focus is too sharp, I have filters to soften the focus. On the other hand, if I had equipment that does not focus sharply, there is not way to compensate.

 

[dpurdy]

I get the cheapest cameras I can that do what I want. Unfortunately they are all expensive. I wish they were cheap. Cheap or expensive is however relative. If you operate on a shoestring as I do then you send hours and hours researching the most economical way to do what you want.

 

[jtk]

It's true that some "photographers" are more into cameras than they are into photographs.

 

[MattKing]

It is the interaction between the photographer, the camera and the film that results in the photograph. In certain situations, that interaction will be enhanced if the camera is better/more expensive, while in other cases not so much.
In recent times, my favourite results have been obtained:
1) from an RB67 with an excellent 65mm lens, loaded with fresh, problem free 120 T-Max 400; and
2) from a Brownie Hawkeye loaded with older 120 T-Max 400 (from one of the batches prone to wrapper offset) with a 120 spool on the feed side and a 620 spool on the takeup side.
I would submit that if I achieved any "artistry" than that will be a direct result of my awareness of the strengths and limitations of what I was using, along with my experience working within those limitations.
In addition, I would also submit that working with something like a box camera encourages a more playful approach, and that in turn tends to enhance creativity.

 

[eddie]

It's true that some "photographers" are more into cameras than they are into photographs.

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.

 

[faberryman]

Some people are more attracted to the gear than what the gear can actually do.

I would rephrase that. Some people are more attracted to the gear than what they can actually do.