Collector vs Photographer

[CGW]

Sums up the dilemma nicely:

http://fractionmag.blogspot.com/2011/05/michael-sebastian-collector-vs.html

 

[Shawn Rahman]

Great article/blog entry. Although some of my cameras take better pictures than others.

 

[bwrules]

You could be doing far worse things than collecting, but I feel they might be doing the photographers disservice as the prices increase due to all the collecting going on.

 

[R gould]

I am a camera collector, I collect usable classic cameras, every camera I own, from a 1938 bessa 66 to a 1961 rolleicord Va2, from folders to rigaed body cameras, from rangefinder's to fixed lens folders both 35mm and 120 must be a working camera and able to earn it's keep, and my collection keeps growing,
Richard

 

[bobwysiwyg]

.. but I feel they might be doing the photographers disservice as the prices increase due to all the collecting going on.

Collectors may have similar thoughts about those of us who insist on still using film cameras, thus driving up the costs of collecting.

 

[elekm]

I try not to buy cameras just to possess them. I really want cameras that I can load with film and use.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm not a collector, I don't keep any equipment I don't use regularly.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I have a few cameras but I don't think I'd be considered a collector, but:

Better a camera to be collected than thrown in the garbage. A collector will keep his/her cameras safe and dry, perhaps maintained as well.
A collectors interest in the cameras will keep the prices of used equipment high enough that they continue to have value and
keep them from being thrown out.

 

[R gould]

I try not to buy cameras just to possess them. I really want cameras that I can load with film and use.

I have only once or twice bought a camera just to own a camera, and I soon sold them again, every classic camera I have in my collection is a camera that I have wanted to buy to put film in, for me a camera, whether it be 1 year old or 70 years old, they were made to be used, and should be bought to be used,and since I made the 2 mistakes early on in my collection I have stuck to that, I will not buy a camera just to look nice on a shelf, it has to earn it's keep, and must be a camera that I will enjoy using.
Rochard

 

[MattKing]

I have an old 1A Kodak Autographic Jr. that is only for display. Otherwise, I at least intend to regularly use the rest.

 

[benjiboy]

Anybody can become a camera, or vintage guitar etc. collector all you need is the money, but the money won't make you a photographer, any more than it will make you a musician.

 

[pgomena]

I don't collect cameras either. I have a couple of old 35mm rangefinders taking up space in my closet for sake of nostalgia, but I otherwise use all the cameras I own. I collect the images I make with them.

Peter Gomena

 

[vpwphoto]

You could be doing far worse things than collecting, but I feel they might be doing the photographers disservice as the prices increase due to all the collecting going on.

Now you sound (sort of the opposite) like those airplane folks that think all P-51's should be grounded and in a museum.

 

[Mike Wilde]

I don't aim to be a collector, but people find out you use film still, and give them to you. Or I find them at liquidation auctions for like $15-20 for a fine slr with a great clean prime lens, and am unable to say no.

I always check them out, shoot a few rolls, and then work on selling them as functional cameras at swap meets.

If they are flaky on the electronics side, or missing obvoius parts but otherwise the remaining bits look presentable, they get cataloged ( a use that I have for a digital p&s) and then tossed gently into a box in the garage attic. These become my working spare parts supplies. If they have not been called on for a few years, then these parts cameras get discarded.

Plastic point and shoot cameras with some adjustments might get kept, if the batteries are not missing or too expensive. Fixed focus el cheapo P&S cameras almost always get tossed. The found film in them is always a lot of fun to process and invariably I seem to get picture of other peoples cats and grandchildren.

 

[flatulent1]

Collector? Not intentionally, though it looks that way sometimes. Over the last six years I've purchased far more cameras than I need or can use, many of them in need of servicing. Often I decided I wanted a particular camera because folks here and elsewhere raved about it and I wanted to know what the shouting was about. I'm now in the process of weeding out that which gets little to no use.

 

[dr5chrome]

....collected or not, if you cant shoot with the camera, what's the point?

 

[Steve Smith]

Anybody can become a camera, or vintage guitar etc. collector all you need is the money, but the money won't make you a photographer, any more than it will make you a musician.

As far as being a photographer and a musician goes then, I have the advantage of having no money!


Steve.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

A lot of my cameras were 'hand me downs'.

Jeff

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Being a photographer IS being a collector: a collector of reality. Hey, here's a nugget I'd like to take home.

I utterly disagree with the author's "necessary disdain" for tools : "Photographer, on the other hand, regards the camera as but a means of art-making. For her, a certain disdain for one's tools, but a steadfast monogamous fidelity to the chosen few, is essential if she is to make serious art."

Stupid. Ever seen William Eggleston's camera safe? Know how many lenses and cameras hung around St. Ansel's place? Wonder if Leonardo did not have a favourite brush?

You can't have disdain for your tools if you're an artist. You may just not necessarily have the same rabid devotion as a professional collector, but your tools are your art, and some may even be totally flippant about them being smashed, but there's a reason why some people do watercolour instead of oil paint: because they love the materials.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm not an "Artist", just a photographer, and I have no desire to fawn over a house full of photographic equipment that I never use.

 

[halldaniel21]

I am not a collector, but I own a 1955 Fed camera, the quality of the photographs comes vintage and some shots are amazing. It’s one thing collecting, other using them to shoot pictures.

 

[Steve Smith]

I am both a collector and a photographer. I love the ingenuity and precision put into the manufacture of old cameras. I much prefer clever mechanisms over clever software.

However, I like all of my cameras to be useable and I intend to use them. None are for decorative purposes only.


Steve.

 

[BrianL]

Me, I just buy cameras to use until something happens to them and then put them on the shelf. My justification is one day, I'll get them repaired and put back into service. Admittedly, some decades ago I had some 300 hundred cameras of which may 5 I used but then woke up and decided a couple of good systems was better for me than 300 cameras. Today, I have 4 users and about the same number waiting to go in for repair.

 

[naeroscatu]

I'm definitelly a photographer with many cameras. I like to use my cameras and keep them in good working order. Like others mentioned I ended up in time with a collection but I'm not a collector.
Indeed I love to be surprised by the quality of some old vintage camera + lens combination.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I love plus 60 years old optics and I worship the designers for how much effort and intelligence and experiments they put in their design, ergonomics, glass research, optical technology, mechanism and tooling expertise. And I love the design trends of 30s like streamlined race cars, motorcycles, fashion, jewelry,furniture ,architecture, literature, art . I love the exact qualities of these cameras.
So I use, used these cameras whatever reason a museum sees it to be needed to be collected.