Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

[warden]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jvo]

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

you can ONLY make good art when you have a spotmatic!

be still my beating heart - such fond memories!

 

[juan]

Photography is like golf - the more money you spend, the better you can claim to be.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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]

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'.

 

[MattKing]

Michael Kenna did pretty well.
And Michelle Bates continues to do so.

 

[David Polanski]

"everyone sounds good on a Steinway"

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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 ?

I'm not sure; never used any cheap equipment.Where can one get that?I all seems expensive to me.

 

[Arthurwg]

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]

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]

Rembrandt is remembered and loved for his technical mastery and thoughtful ness in use of light and shadow.

Yet try doing something like that with a holga.

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/

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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:

To say, a Bronzino portrait:

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]

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]

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:

To say, a Bronzino portrait:

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]

Great photograph with the plastic fantastic !

It is one of my all-time Gallery favorites. Further proof it's the artist, not the tools.

 

[macfred]

It is one of my all-time Gallery favorites. Further proof it's the artist, not the tools.

I agree!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It is one of my all-time Gallery favorites. Further proof it's the artist, not the tools.

Yes- not every photograph needs to look like an Ansel Adams. Nor does every photo need to look like an F. Holland Day. Or an Eggleston.

 

[eddie]

Exactly, Scott. Photography is an incredibly versatile medium, only limited by the artist's imagination.

 

[guangong]

"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]

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]

This kind of reminds me of the following. Whenever I wash my car it always seems to run better afterward.

 

[alanrockwood]

Great photograph with the plastic fantastic !



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

Or this Albrecht Durer self portrait