Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

Signs & fragments

A
Signs & fragments

  • 4
  • 0
  • 41
Summer corn, summer storm

D
Summer corn, summer storm

  • 1
  • 2
  • 45
Horizon, summer rain

D
Horizon, summer rain

  • 0
  • 0
  • 47
$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 7
  • 5
  • 197

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,819
Messages
2,781,292
Members
99,714
Latest member
MCleveland
Recent bookmarks
0

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,041
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
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.

Talking down another artist's choice in tools? Puh-leez.

Some of the world's great art is "coin-toss" art.
 

blockend

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,049
Location
northern eng
Format
35mm
I prefer cameras with a predictable output. This need not be high image quality, but I need to know how it will respond. So a plastic fixed focus, speed and aperture camera I can work with, a zoom with strange program modes and a laggy AF response, not so much. My film and developer choices are stable enough not to offer surprises.
 

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
The famous wonderful photos of the San Francisco earthquake by Arnold Genthe were taken with a Kodak box camera. The man behind the camera is the key component. Generally speaking, those who spend a lot of time taking pictures gravitate to more reliable, I.e. expensive by definition, cameras. However, using an expensive camera is no substitute for ability.
JTK made excellent point early on in this thread: that some are more interested in camera equipment than in photography. Truer words were never uttered.
I had personal friends, photojournalists, who owned only one or two cameras, and a few lenses. Unfortunately, I am by nature an accumulator, and have gathered way to many cameras No doubt about it, the refined workmanship of fine photographic equipment can be attractive in itself.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,308
Format
4x5 Format
I know a photographer who gets great results with a Holga, but he owns Photoworks SF.

I drift to the less expensive cameras that work, so Spotmatic-F and a few good lenses is ideal.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
While expensive, fancy, reliable gear improves the odds of your capturing a technically competent photograph, if you know what the heck you're doing, you can make not only technically competent but also emotionally resonant and visually expressive photographs with just a box camera, holga, or pinhole camera if you know what you're doing.
 

wiltw

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,450
Location
SF Bay area
Format
Multi Format
I have found that sometimes 'too literal' of a photo can be, for me, an obstacle to 'making art'...a cheap closeup lens can distort the image and render parts of it blurred. And some of my best 'art' has been the result of a mistake technically! Similarly, an internally hazed lens can be used to capture a 'more interpretive' rendition of a subject than a nice clear perfect optic. There can be value in 'imperfect'.

We only need to keep in mind the many filters offered for creative purposes commercially to understand that optical perfection is not always 'the best'. The techniques applied similarly in the darkroom, are another tool to deliberate destruction of 'perfection';

Sometimes 'art' is literal, but often it is 'interpretive'...a different way of seeing what we see every day can result in 'art'.
 
Last edited:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,927
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Michael Kenna did pretty well.
And Michelle Bates continues to do so.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
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 :smile:?
I'm not sure; never used any cheap equipment.Where can one get that?I all seems expensive to me.
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,677
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
I don't remember anyone defining "artistic." Let's face it, there's a range here, like from Ingres to de Kooning. One of my most "artistic" pictures was made when I was 12 with a Yashica Mat. I think many of my Holga pictures are wonderful. And a photo I made last year with a 500mm Hasselblad lens is high on my list. Last month I shot 60 frames with my Hasselblad and 60mm lens in a national park, and many of those meet my standard as "artistic." But when it comes down to it, the "art" is the idea, and has little to do with the quality of the equipment.
 

KenS

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Lethbridge, S. Alberta ,
Format
Multi Format
The answer is in the honest response to the question "Do you make photographs for 'yourself'.. or to show others how good/artistic you 'believe' you are?.

Ken
 

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,258
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
This shows a complete lack of knowledge of what a Holga (or Diana) is capable of. Take a look at Jon Shiu's Lower Falls to see how a plastic camera, in the right hands, can render light and shadow. https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/lower-falls.17720/
Agreed- and not only that, but Rembrandt was not exactly a high-definition painter. Compare his self-portrait:
2983.jpg


To say, a Bronzino portrait:

main-image


I think Rembrandt would have been hot and bothered for a Diana or a Holga. Maybe some kind of meniscus lens with lots of aberrations and imperfections.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
I threw my holga in the garbage and I felt a satisfaction. Like, who cares if Kirk Hammett could play a Metallica song on a CARDBOARD Banjo, in a recognizable manner. Would that make him a true musician? Rembrandt... ?

I drive an old rust bucket. The only cool thing about driving a rust bucket with a wheel on the verge of flying off is that, after spending some time on the internet, I almost end up believing that this is what it takes to make me into a virtuoso F1 racer.

I still recognize and appreciate a good photograph, so if you come up with great Holga photography, well that’s great.
 

macfred

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
3,839
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
This shows a complete lack of knowledge of what a Holga (or Diana) is capable of. Take a look at Jon Shiu's Lower Falls to see how a plastic camera, in the right hands, can render light and shadow. https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/lower-falls.17720/

Great photograph with the plastic fantastic !

Agreed- and not only that, but Rembrandt was not exactly a high-definition painter. Compare his self-portrait:
2983.jpg


To say, a Bronzino portrait:

main-image


I think Rembrandt would have been hot and bothered for a Diana or a Holga. Maybe some kind of meniscus lens with lots of aberrations and imperfections.

A really appropriate comment that looks at the problem from the right side !
 

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,258
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
Exactly, Scott. Photography is an incredibly versatile medium, only limited by the artist's imagination.
 

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
"everyone sounds good on a Steinway"

No! The not so good can sound even worse on a Steinway. I have been told by horn players that high end horns are very sensitive and reveal any shortcomings of player. I have a very good concert grade harp but sound lousy.
On the other hand, Fritz Kreisler once lost his Strad and borrowed a fiddle from orchestra player and nobody could notice the difference.
 

tballphoto

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
264
Location
usa
Format
35mm
No! The not so good can sound even worse on a Steinway. I have been told by horn players that high end horns are very sensitive and reveal any shortcomings of player. I have a very good concert grade harp but sound lousy.
On the other hand, Fritz Kreisler once lost his Strad and borrowed a fiddle from orchestra player and nobody could notice the difference.


Compare stereo systems... youll notice a difference when you use the right lossless music file in a quality system, compared to a regular cd track in it.

But overall the question is not really, is it the quality lens that does the final image quality, or the film quality. Good lens with bad film will not be a great image maker. But a bad lens with good film isnt either.

However, correct usage of each setup can create an image that the shooter wont throw on the floor after development. Especially if they are good with espousing "artisitic creative terms"/
 

alanrockwood

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,185
Format
Multi Format
This kind of reminds me of the following. Whenever I wash my car it always seems to run better afterward.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom