Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

[darkosaric]

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

Excellent comparison. You know objectively it will not, but if you are in better mood for driving nice when the car is clean - and you drive better / faster / whatever - it can make a difference .

 

[radiant]

I believe that photography gets better only to certain point in terms of cost of equipment. And that limit is pretty low. We all know that you don't need fancy gear to make great photography.

So the rest is for our ego. Your ego wants expensive equipment for many reasons. For example to "profile" ourselves; "I'm worth this", "I'm so good that I need expensive equipment" etc. or we want to be seen as serious photographers and use "approved" cameras for your work.

If you are controlled by your ego (and you probably are) then ego is the reason why you think you make better photographs with expensive equipment. And your ego is probably denying this theory too. It protects itself. And you probably can't do photography without the expensive equipment either because ego is controlling your motivation and feelings too.

Remember that ego is not real you.

 

[MARTIE]

If this were true, I'd definitely be one of the greatest photographers of all time!
However, in reality, I'm just a mediocre photographer with expensive equipment and a lower bank balance. Meanwhile, there are much better photographers out there, with a lot cheaper kit. In my experience, creativity doesn't come with a label and a price tag.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, better or higher quality equipment can improve the photographs, but the best part of having the best equipment one can afford is that if the photographs are crappy, then one only has to step into the bathroom and look in the mirror to see the source of the problems.

 

[removed account4]

I believe that photography gets better only to certain point in terms of cost of equipment. And that limit is pretty low. We all know that you don't need fancy gear to make great photography.

So the rest is for our ego. Your ego wants expensive equipment for many reasons. For example to "profile" ourselves; "I'm worth this", "I'm so good that I need expensive equipment" etc. or we want to be seen as serious photographers and use "approved" cameras for your work.

If you are controlled by your ego (and you probably are) then ego is the reason why you think you make better photographs with expensive equipment. And your ego is probably denying this theory too. It protects itself. And you probably can't do photography without the expensive equipment either because ego is controlling your motivation and feelings too.

Remember that ego is not real you.

what a great post, thanks for typing it !
John

 

[Maris]

Years ago I worked in a shop that sold the first Leica M5 cameras when they came out. Customers who bought this camera tended to improve their photography. Why?
Anyone who drops five large on a camera and lens is not going to be careless about exposure, sloppy about focussing, or clumsy with film. Serious money prompts serious effort.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Years ago I worked in a shop that sold the first Leica M5 cameras when they came out. Customers who bought this camera tended to improve their photography. Why?
Anyone who drops five large on a camera and lens is not going to be careless about exposure, sloppy about focussing, or clumsy with film. Serious money prompts serious effort.

Great points

 

[faberryman]

I am not at all sure I know what the title of the thread even means. Better artistic photos? Better? Better aesthetically? Better technically? Both? Neither? Something else? Artistic photo? Here we go again.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Photos can improve with even little things. For instance, removing the lens cap before taking the photograph.

 

[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 ?

No none

 

[removed account4]

Miroslav tichy took some nice photos and his gear was not too fancy…

 

[radiant]

what a great post, thanks for typing it !
John

Thank you!

Years ago I worked in a shop that sold the first Leica M5 cameras when they came out. Customers who bought this camera tended to improve their photography. Why?
Anyone who drops five large on a camera and lens is not going to be careless about exposure, sloppy about focussing, or clumsy with film. Serious money prompts serious effort.

Might be partially more common, but I still doubt this.

Also being accurate on exposure, sharp on focusing or handy with film doesn't guarantee good photos. You can still shoot tons of crap like people usually do.

 

[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 ?

You can't force creativity not even with expensive gear. However, the fact that you care is a good start.

 

[faberryman]

I was just wondering whether I could get better artistic photos if I got a Sub-Zero to store my film?

 

[guangong]

Rather than “expensive”, perhaps “quality of construction” would be a better choice of words. A good photographer can take stunning pictures with inexpensive equipment. For example, Arnold Genthe’s dramatic photographs of the San Francisco earthquake taken with a Kodak box camera. Nonetheless, as already mentioned several times above, why would any photographer deliberately use inferior equipment? On the other hand, I knew many successful photographers who only used a single camera for all their work...usually a Leica M or Nikon F series; and others who used a variety of dependable cameras.
As for myself, I use a variety of tools for drawing and painting, as well as enjoy using a variety of quality cameras (all possible because of abandonment of film by many , thus making the unaffordable now affordable). There is a certain tactile pleasure in shooting with a Rollei TLR, Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon, etc., which is lacking most inferior cameras, much like target shooting with a variety of guns. The aim of both camera and gun is to hit the target. However, for both camera and gun, having a quality instrument will not make up for skill and talent.
At present, shooting with Nikon S2. Has its quirks, and despite much better construction than Leica M (for example ball bearings), and more dependable than Leica, design is not as ergonomic or fast in use. I still fumble with Contax camera mount. Sometimes using a different camera can be refreshing...even a plastic camera.

 

[faberryman]

Anyone who drops five large on a camera and lens is not going to be careless about exposure, sloppy about focussing, or clumsy with film. Serious money prompts serious effort.

You can't be serious. If you have a camera store nearby, head on down and park yourself near the sales counter and watch a camera salesman go to work on the unsuspecting. Did I tell you about this dentist I know? Oops, better not go there. And then there is the phenomenon that what is serious money to you is not serious money to someone else.

 

[guangong]

You can't be serious. If you have a camera store nearby, head on down and park yourself near the sales counter and watch a camera salesman go to work on the unsuspecting. Did I tell you about this dentist I know? Oops, better not go there. And then there is the phenomena that what is serious money to you is not serious money to someone else.

In a camera store waiting to go to lunch with a salesman friend, I watched this: MD is new father and wants to take pictures of new baby. Friend suggested the latest version of Nikon F. Then suggested that baby will be moving, so motor drive is needed. Lighting not optimum, get the best (most expensive) flash equipment. And to hold camera steady an expensive tripod. Bill came to over $5,000. This is in early 1970 pre-Jimmy Carter dollars. What is serious money to some, is loose change for others. I often wonder if the MD ever used his new equipment.

 

[removed account4]

the thing dropping a ton of coin on a camera and lens &c does is show people that you dropped a ton of coin an a camera and lens &c..
things might be ergonomically less challenging to use the camera, and it might be fun to use and show off, but IDK I don't think that anything
less fantastic can come out of something less expensive and a little more difficult to use.

of course fancy $$$ gear can be fun, but I don't know if that is what this thread is about.

wants to take pictures of new baby

I hope he had enough $ after wasting those jimmy Carter dollars to pay a good lawyer, bright flash is not good for new babies eyes, can cause some serious damage.

 

[Auer]

Larry Fink has been shooting with a Sony RX100 for a few years now.

Gear means very little.

 

[faberryman]

I often wonder if the MD ever used his new equipment.

No need to wonder. Read a few testimonials from our members here who scored a mint [insert favorite camera of all time here] for peanuts a few years ago. If only those camera salesmen had worked in the darkroom section.

 

[faberryman]

Nonetheless, as already mentioned several times above, why would any photographer deliberately use inferior equipment?

Probably because they deliberately want an "inferior" image.

 

[removed account4]

Nonetheless, as already mentioned several times above, why would any photographer deliberately use inferior equipment?

maybe its not the camera equipment that is inferior but the photographer using said equipment doesn't really know how to use that specific equipment? BTW. about IDK 20-25 years ago I used to buy crappy brass lenses because they were very inexpensive, cause shuttered lenses are/were so expensive. these were lenses that people were giving away by the boxful ... then someone in Nevada started his blog. he was writing about and selling these crappy lenses ( inferior lenses ! ) and now things I paid like $20-30 (or less! ) ... well, I'll just say I couldn't afford to buy one now.

No need to wonder. Read a few testimonials from our members here who scored a mint [insert favorite camera of all time here] for peanuts a few years ago. If only those camera salesmen had worked in the darkroom section.

I think what happens "now" is that ex pro / ex expensive gear from yesteryear is being sold for not so much $$ ( or was at one point ) so people bought it up
thinking "its expensive pro gear and finally I can have my dream camera &c". not sure if people actually believe expensive stuff will improve their skill as a photographer
but if it makes them happy and have something to brag about ( even if their photographic skills haven't improved drastically .. ) at least they are hopefully buying film and paper and doing more than bragging about their gear .. that's what I see as the problem, not using it ...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I don't see a connection between equipment and aesthetic results. There will be certain technical limitations imposed by gear that will force, or make impossible, some type of photographs. However, appeal of those photographs is never controlled by the gear itself. It is up to the user to know the equipment and use it to its best advantage for final results.

I will say though that some cameras (not necessarily more expansive ones) will feel better in the hand and will play a part in making commitment to photograph more or be more diligent. That could help improving results.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Where "expensive" gear helps, if at all, is IF (and that's a big if) that increase in cost brings a commensurate increase in quality of construction and reliability. THAT factor leads to making more pictures, successfully, because the camera is in use longer between trips to the repair shop, and it reduces the psychological stress of using the camera - you're not worrying from frame to frame if it is going to fail or not. But in reality that's all it buys you - peace of mind. 99% of other benefits are entirely psychological. As Ansel Adams once said, "There is little I dislike more than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept" (I'm paraphrasing).

 

[faberryman]

I would like to steer our attention away from the camera/lens combo for a moment. If the end product is a print, don't forget about the quality of the enlarging lens (and film flatness, an aligned enlarger...). If the end product is an image on the internet, don't forget about the quality of the scanner (and the resolution of the image you upload, the display resolution of the host displaying the image...). Think about your workflow and focus on the proverbial weakest link in the chain. That will determine the quality of the end product. Buying a Summicron APO isn't going to improve your images if you are using a Craperon enlarging lens or a Junque 4000 scanner. And a Craperon enlarging lens and a Junque 4000 scanner won't do your Holga images any favors either.