Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

This is a good point and one that doesn't get repeated sufficiently, and may be one reason people report poor results with materials or equipment known to work very well - there is a weak point or bottleneck somewhere. The process and "doing" of photography is a system after all.

 

[faberryman]

The process and "doing" of photography is a system after all.

If you are not doing your own processing and scanning, I'd ask your film processor which scanner they are using and what resolution they are scanning at. Maybe shop on quality instead of price. If your film processor offers good, better and best scanning options, which are you selecting? Instead of spending $1000 on a new lens, maybe going for the highest quality scans for the next 100 rolls of film is a better expenditure. Or maybe just get the good scans initially, and after you have whittled the images down to the keepers, assuming you actually have any on a given roll, send those back for the highest quality scan. There are a lot of things you can do to improve your images that don't involve your camera/lens combo, and don't constitute a capital investment.

Of course, none of these suggestions is of any help on the "artistic" side of "better artistic photos". That is entirely in your hands.

 

[guangong]

A lot of talk about buying PRO equipment. In 1960s, having seen how AP photographers treated the cameras that they used, equipment used by most pros is something I stay away from.
While selling cost is not always a reflection of quality, these is still a cost to producing high quality mechanical equipment. Averaging cost over the years (without taking inflation into account) my M4 with 50mm Summicron lens, bought new from Willoughbysmin 1960s, has cost me less than $10.00/year.
Oh yes, the discount cost $440.00 back then...which was a LOT of money.

 

[faberryman]

Averaging cost over the years (without taking inflation into account) my M4 with 50mm Summicron lens, bought new from Willoughbysmin 1960s, has cost me less than $10.00/year.
Oh yes, the discount cost $440.00 back then...which was a LOT of money.

$440 in 1960 is $4100 today, and even if we had $4100 to spend on a camera, some of us don't have 60 years left to amortize the cost. I wish you good health so that you can continue to reduce the annualized cost of your Leica.

 

[removed account4]

gear has absolutely nothing to do with artistic photos and artistic "vision" (whatever that is)
people often substitute gear for artistic practice. that said I have no problem with people using absolutely anything
and everything to make photographs, but people forget that to takes practice to use a camera and get liked results ( the way you want them to look ). I know that first hand when I attempt to pick up a camera after not using one for a year or 2 and forgetting how to use it..
YMMV of course..

 

[KenS]

I recently had a walk-about the nearby University campus (with my Linhof monorail seeking further 'subject matter, and was 'setting up to make an exposure of an 'somewhat' interesting 'portal' (3 dimensional curves of the 'smoked glass' on one of the 'newer buildings. as I was under the dark-cloth i was approached by one of the 'first year' (students who asked if he might have a look at my 'subject matter'..So....after I had made my exposure i invited him to have a 'peek' on the GG as I made some 'movements' to g

 

[MattKing]

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

Happy wife (spouse/husband/partner) means happy life.
Happy life might mean more artistic photos.
Unless of course, you are looking for the tortured artist groove.

 

[faberryman]

Happy wife (spouse/husband/partner) means happy life.
Happy life might mean more artistic photos.
Unless of course, you are looking for the tortured artist groove.

I am not sure my wife would be all that happy if I bought an $8000 freezer and loaded it up with film. On the other hand, it does maintain temperature to one degree, so the film wouldn't freeze and thaw, freeze and thaw, leaving it in top shape for better artistic photos. On the other hand, maybe if I got a cheap freezer, it would go through its freeze and thaw routine a lot, and I would end up with a bunch of film that could pass as premium Lomography film for artists.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I am not sure my wife would be all that happy if I bought an $8000 freezer and loaded it up with film. On the other hand, it does maintain temperature to one degree, so the film wouldn't freeze and thaw, freeze and thaw, leaving it in top shape for better artistic photos. On the other hand, maybe if I got a cheap freezer, it would go through its freeze and thaw routine a lot, and I would end up with a bunch of film that could pass as premium Lomography film for artists.

A freezer that freezes and thaws all the time is a broken freezer not a cheap one.

 

[faberryman]

A freezer that freezes and thaws all the time is a broken freezer not a cheap one.

Thank you Mr. Literal for that astute observation.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Thank you Mr. Literal for that astute observation.

I feel like a freezer czar now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not sure my wife would be all that happy if I bought an $8000 freezer and loaded it up with film. On the other hand, it does maintain temperature to one degree, so the film wouldn't freeze and thaw, freeze and thaw, leaving it in top shape for better artistic photos. On the other hand, maybe if I got a cheap freezer, it would go through its freeze and thaw routine a lot, and I would end up with a bunch of film that could pass as premium Lomography film for artists.

My girl friend encourages it.

 

[faberryman]

My girl friend encourages it.

The thing is you can't very well hide a Sub-Zero in your camera bag. There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle.

 

[MattKing]

The thing is you can't very well hide a Sub-Zero in your camera bag. There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle.

Well, the thread title doesn't actually refer to "expensive" photographic equipment.
It refers to "expansive" photographic equipment.
I've been resisting the temptation to correct that ever since I became a moderator.
If I had been a moderator back in 2019 when the thread first started, I probably would have succumbed back then!

 

[faberryman]

Well, the thread title doesn't actually refer to "expensive" photographic equipment.
It refers to "expansive" photographic equipment.

It is pretty clear from the OP that the word "expansive" in the title of the thread is a typo. The OP is pondering better artistic photos with "expensive cameras and expensive films, in comparison to some cheap camera and cheap film".

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is pretty clear from the OP that the word "expansive" in the title of the thread is a typo. The OP is pondering better artistic photos with "expensive cameras and expensive films, in comparison to some cheap camera and cheap film".

No, actually expansive is the right word. When I traded in my Mamiya C330f with three lenses and every accessory in the known world, I EXPANDED my options and capabilities. I was going to get the Rollei 6000 slr camera or the Hasselblad. My options for EXPANSE was better with Hasselblad in lens choices and service. One having a more EXPANSIVE system, pushed me to work harder for better compositions and finished products.

Now if the photograph is poor I merely look in the mirror to see the source if the trouble.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I had not gone for a more EXPANSIVE system, I would have never used the SWC, Fisheye, and 500mm lenses.

 

[MattKing]

It is pretty clear from the OP that the word "expansive" in the title of the thread is a typo. The OP is pondering better artistic photos with "expensive cameras and expensive films, in comparison to some cheap camera and cheap film".

I sure wish I could find that tongue-in-cheek emoticon....
Although this one is close

 

[guangong]

Since one’s life is limited, and since available expenditures of money is also limited, life is made up of choices and trade offs. Unless considering purchasing a new film camera (the choices are limited to the outrageously expensive faux Leicas and cheap Lomo) the availability of used quality photo gear is not that expensive.
Luckily my wife and I never had any conflicts about how we spent money. However, nobody should spend money they don’t have. Still, reallocation of funds is possible. I wonder how many who criticize those who use quality photo equipment spend their money on lottery tickets, earring out frequently, cruises, etc. and have no allowance left for a good camera.
Of course, choosing the right girl to marry helps a lot.

 

[Vaughn]

I sure wish I could find that tongue-in-cheek emoticon....
Although this one is close

I would say 'usually' to the question as stated in the title, and 'up to the artist' to the question as thought of.

Any equipment that can expand the user's experience is a good choice for artistic expression.

 

[Saganich]

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.

Yea, your ego or whatever isn't paying attention to what you're doing and like magic you finally are free to make art. It just takes a lot more effort to get there with fancy gear.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yea, your ego or whatever isn't paying attention to what you're doing and like magic you finally are free to make art. It just takes a lot more effort to get there with fancy gear.

And sometimes the fancier gear makes it much easier to create a great photograph. Mine does, does yours?

 

[guangong]

In every artistic endeavor I am engaged in the quality of the equipment makes a significant difference. Quality of brushes, paints, and inks; quality of musical instrument; quality of chisels and hammers;... why should photography be any different? Unless, of course, one accepts minimal standards. M

 

[guangong]

My pervious examples of Arnold Genthe and Fritz Kreisler show that great artists can use whatever is at hand, but are those that denigrate fine equipment all great artists?

 

[wiltw]

My belief is that more expensive cameras allow one to make 'equally artistic' photos as an inexpensive camera, but the expensive cameras permit a successful photograph to be taken in a much wider variety of (more challenging) circumstances.