Does owning a camera,such as a Hassleblad or Leica, make one a better photographer ?

[Diapositivo]

I hate to do this, but I'm going to reveal a deep dark secret of great photographers.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment. Rather, it has everything to do with the quality of your assistants.

If you don't have a careful assistant responsible for cleaning your lenses, you could have smudges or dust. ON THE LENS! Hire a great lens cleaning assistant!

If you don't have a great lighting assistant, you could have weird light spilling all over the place. OVER EXPOSURE! WEIRD SHADOWS! Hire a great lighting assistant!

If you don't have a great equipment manager, you could show up at a shoot, stick out your hand, and be given a sandwich instead of a camera! YOU MISS THE DECISIVE MOMENT! Hire a great equipment manager!

If you don't have a great driver, you could end up late or in the wrong location for your brilliant shot. MISSED THE LIGHT! Hire a great driver!

If you don't have a great chef, you'll have the shakes from hunger when you try to take that shot. BLUR! Hire a great chef!

If you don't have a great location assistant, how can you find the great scenery? BORING LANDSCAPES! Hire a great location assistant!

If you don't have a good technical assistant, how can you assure proper exposures? UNDEREXPOSED SHADOWS! BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS! Hire a great technical assistant.

If you don't have a good portage team, how can you get your stuff to the location? MISSING GEAR! Hire great porters!

There you go. It has so little to do with the equipment, and everything to do with your own inherent talent. You alone make great photographs! Make sure you sign your name to your prints after your personal finishing assistant completes the development, printing and mounting!

-chuck

HIRE GREAT MODELS especially!

 

[Nathan King]

No. Good equipment just makes the process a bit smoother, but it won't improve your images.

 

[DWThomas]

I've been reflecting on this thread -- maybe someone would loan me some high end Leica gear for a year or two so I could obtain some more data points? I mean, I wouldn't want to e-speak from ignorance.

 

[PerfesserKev]

All these prior statements are very valid, and the same applies to film and developer combinations, enlargers -- any aspect of technique. In the communication method of photography it is the public and its perception of the image that matters most. The public is influenced first and foremost by content. Josef Koudelka's most important images -- of the Prague Spring -- were made with a camera few of us would buy on the _bay. I also completely agree with Jim Richardson's statement that, "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff."

However, I shoot Leica. For a long time I snarked on all those expensive necklaces hanging from posers. But at Hurricane Andrew in 1992 a buddy with an M2 and I were sitting around waiting for Jessie Jackson to show up at a refugee shelter. I grabbed his camera, put it to my eye and had a career-changing epiphany:

I saw completely differently through a rangefinder. Seeing all planes in focus changed the way I constructed an image in significant ways. I bought an M6 and 35 Summicron a week later, and yes, it did improve my work -- not because of lens quality or other technical fussiness. I saw differently through all cameras after using one for a short while.

Any rangefinder can do this, and I have played with or used many. But as a photojournalist I need extreme durability and lightning quickness of use. No others have done the same for me. If you don't need that responsiveness or durability then you don't need a Leica. Any rangefinder can change the way an SLR shooter sees and vice versa.

The Hassy is beautiful, flexible and durable, but too slow for most of my work. I find a Rolleiflex as durable, sharp and delightful, and much faster to use.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Kevin, this is one of the more interesting things I've read on such a topic. Should you be inclined, would love to hear more about how the RF helps one see. I've gone the other direction - especially in small format - feeling like I didn't have space to waste on a negative. That led me to slrs. In MF, I give myself room to crop, but in 35, I'm always unsure as to what the final result will be. 'Love my retina & Oly XA, but I'm always drawn to WYSIWYG thinking. It sounds like there's ways to exploit the RF viewfinder I'm overlooking.

 

[benjiboy]

If only owning a Hasselblad or Leica made one a better photographer, although I admit have never owned either in my 63 years of photography, it's a comforting thought that since I can now afford either or both I can now finally achieve the greatness I deserve by throwing my children's inheritance at the problem

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The downside of using a Leice or a Hassleblad is that if one takes bad photographs then they have nothing to blame but themselves. Now the people who use a Diana or Lomo can always say that taking a bad photo was their intent.

 

[HiHoSilver]

I chuckl, Gerald, 'cause I had all sorts of trouble w/ 2 500cms w/ undiagnosed problems - prolonged 'cause I wan't going to suspect the gear until all else was exhausted.

I do think your point is *very* very good.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The downside of using a Leice or a Hassleblad is that if one takes bad photographs then they have nothing to blame but themselves. Now the people who use a Diana or Lomo can always say that taking a bad photo was their intent.

That's akin to the way I think. I want the best gear I can afford so I can eliminate all variables except myself. That puts the odds in my favor if I don't mess up and zero excuses if I do.

 

[removed account4]

I saw completely differently through a rangefinder. Seeing all planes in focus changed the way I constructed an image in significant ways.

i don't understand what this means.
you can see the different planes of focus?
i have an m3 as well as a k1000 and looking though the RF looks exactly the same as it does looking though a cheap slr.

im glad RF works for you.

the only time i was able to see different planes of focus was using a graflex slr.
the image on the ground glass has a 3-D look to it.

 

[blockend]

All these prior statements are very valid, and the same applies to film and developer combinations, enlargers -- any aspect of technique. In the communication method of photography it is the public and its perception of the image that matters most. The public is influenced first and foremost by content. Josef Koudelka's most important images -- of the Prague Spring -- were made with a camera few of us would buy on the _bay. I also completely agree with Jim Richardson's statement that, "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff."

However, I shoot Leica. For a long time I snarked on all those expensive necklaces hanging from posers. But at Hurricane Andrew in 1992 a buddy with an M2 and I were sitting around waiting for Jessie Jackson to show up at a refugee shelter. I grabbed his camera, put it to my eye and had a career-changing epiphany:

I saw completely differently through a rangefinder. Seeing all planes in focus changed the way I constructed an image in significant ways. I bought an M6 and 35 Summicron a week later, and yes, it did improve my work -- not because of lens quality or other technical fussiness. I saw differently through all cameras after using one for a short while.

Any rangefinder can do this, and I have played with or used many. But as a photojournalist I need extreme durability and lightning quickness of use. No others have done the same for me. If you don't need that responsiveness or durability then you don't need a Leica. Any rangefinder can change the way an SLR shooter sees and vice versa.

The Hassy is beautiful, flexible and durable, but too slow for most of my work. I find a Rolleiflex as durable, sharp and delightful, and much faster to use.

Good point. However SLR users can see more like a rangefinder by moving away from their expensive wide aperture lenses and getting into slower glass. Wide angle SLR lenses are particularly good at focusing "everything at once", and this can be a PIA or a virtue depending on your point of view. It's one of the reasons I like the Nikon 28mm 3.5.

I believe Koudelka used an Exakta for his Prague Spring shots, not sure which model. I read somewhere he bought it from a widow along with a very wide lens (21mm and 28mm if I have the correct camera) and had to reload from a bulk loader back at base every time the cassette was finished. If anyone has more information on Koudelka's equipment at the time, or can correct what I've written I'd be very interested in reading the facts.

 

[HiHoSilver]

That's akin to the way I think. I want the best gear I can afford so I can eliminate all variables except myself. That puts the odds in my favor if I don't mess up and zero excuses if I do.

I assume the foul ups are mine. I'm seldom wrong. sigh.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Those do not make the photographer better, but they improve the quality of the optics and the camera so that those are optimal and any mistakes are owned by the photographer.

That's akin to the way I think. I want the best gear I can afford so I can eliminate all variables except myself. That puts the odds in my favor if I don't mess up and zero excuses if I do.

I assume the foul ups are mine. I'm seldom wrong. sigh.

Therefore I have found that rather than having to put the blame on "me, myself and I", I would rather spend more time making sure everything is correct before I fire the shutter. Ipso facto having better equipment results in better photographs.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'll share a story about my progression into photography...

When I was nine years old I begged my parents to get me a camera. They bought me a cheap Kodak 126 Instamatic... after all, what would a little kid do with a decent camera? I tried to like it but had zero control and versatility so I quickly lost interest.

When I was thirteen years old a friend was given a 135 format Exacta camera along with some darkroom gear. This rekindled my interest and I dug deep into a storage closet to find my dad's old Kalimar 120 Reflex. I took some really nice images with it until it quit working. So I asked my parents to buy me another camera... first a Yashica TL Electro... then an Olympus OM1... more OM lenses... Beseler 23C enlarger... Toyo 4x5... Bronica ETRS... etc.

The quality of equipment improved alongside my skills. Had I never been introduced to GOOD usable photo gear, I may never have gone into photography professionally. Had I only been exposed to cheap equipment, my interest probably would have waned because I wanted more control and more quality. After a few years of 135 format I dropped it because I could never achieve the look I wanted compared to that old Kalimar 120. The Bronica and Toyo gave me what I wanted.

My one regret is that I DID go into photography as a profession and this soon destroyed all the fun and creativity as did my ex-wife's complete lack of support for the medium I once loved.

My point is, decent equipment allowing more control and quality encouraged me to venture more deeply into photography. The Kodak 126 Instamatic was extreme discouragement!!

EDIT: You'll notice there was a breaking point for me regarding 'quality'. There's not a huge difference in 'cost' between a new Kodak Instamatic and an old Kalimar 120 but a HUGE difference in control, versatility and quality. So... there is a breaking point!!

 

[PerfesserKev]

Kevin, this is one of the more interesting things I've read on such a topic. Should you be inclined, would love to hear more about how the RF helps one see. I've gone the other direction - especially in small format - feeling like I didn't have space to waste on a negative. That led me to slrs. In MF, I give myself room to crop, but in 35, I'm always unsure as to what the final result will be. 'Love my retina & Oly XA, but I'm always drawn to WYSIWYG thinking. It sounds like there's ways to exploit the RF viewfinder I'm overlooking.

I love my XA!

The seeing and composition difference between SLRs and optical viewfinder cameras come down to how much you see in focus. With a good viewfinder -- clear, easy on the eye, big enough -- you see everything in focus at once. It makes for cleaner and more layered compositions whether you're shooting at deep depth or shallow depth. I found it helped me clean up frames a lot.

I had been shooting SLRs professionally for about five years by then. They are the opposite creature, showing everything at the shallowest possible depth of field all the time. Because some parts of the frame were a blurry mess I neglected them in the structure of the image, and if I happened to use a mid- or deep-DoF I ended up with unwanted clutter.

I still shoot a lot with SLRs, but found that using a good optical viewfinder camera alongside them improved by work with SLRs too. When shooting an SLR at small f you have to imagine the deep-depth image. When shooting a rangefinder at wide f you have to imagine the image at shallow depth. Just a reversal.

To be clear, there are many more affordable cameras that can do this. What matters most with a camera is how comfortable it is as an extension of hand and eye. Brand is irrelevant. Comfort and fluidity is extremely important. I know too many photographers so wedded to brand that they cannot let go of cameras that really don't fit their work.

Attached are a few examples of images I don't think I would have seen the same way through an SLR. The SLR finder focus would have been only on the foreground subjects and the other planes would have been too soft to see the moments happening in them and time the shot for all to come together. The square is a frame I don't think I could have timed with an MF SLR because for me they are slower to use. It's a TLR frame. I hope that clarifies!

 

[HiHoSilver]

Hmm. You raise a good point, Kevin. I'm probably not able to budget a bright, clear finder that focuses fast. The XA delivers the goods, to be sure, as does the retina & Ikonta. But the focus spot is not bright & contrasty to make confident focus fast for me.
I absolutely agree that some work *must* have speed. Its the only reason I've coveted an F6 - to have the speed (and image stabiliztion) of the digital. Its true that time in the saddle w/ a particular tool - the speed comes. So far, the SLR has been fastest for me.
I appreciate your kind help. The images are a treat - and show how the moments were quickly gone. Scheinpflug would miss the bus.

 

[removed account4]

The seeing and composition difference between SLRs and optical viewfinder cameras come down to how much you see in focus. With a good viewfinder -- clear, easy on the eye, big enough -- you see everything in focus at once. It makes for cleaner and more layered compositions whether you're shooting at deep depth or shallow depth. I found it helped me clean up frames a lot.

I had been shooting SLRs professionally for about five years by then. They are the opposite creature, showing everything at the shallowest possible depth of field all the time. Because some parts of the frame were a blurry mess I neglected them in the structure of the image, and if I happened to use a mid- or deep-DoF I ended up with unwanted clutter.

i never have noticed this at all. before i was given the m3 i had been shooting professionally for 15 years? i've continued another
15 years and have never used the leica for client work.
sorry, i have never experienced these phenomenon you are talking about or noticed how different it is composing and exposing with either of these cameras..

===

just like focusing and exposing with a super expensive view camera vs one that doesn't cost very much. people try to impress upon me some sort of divine situation
how the ground glass might be different, how the movements are more fluid or geared or whatever other nonsense the salesman ( or someone on the web ) might have filled their head with.
i've used expensive and i have used cheap. i haven't found much of a difference betrween the 2. or the drastic difference between using
light tested used film holders vs brand new ones i'd rather use my $$ for other things, thanks.
other people want to spend their money on boutique cameras and accessories, that's fine with me. i'd rather make photographs
than be wondering if it was my equipment that was causing me to lack competence, or my lack of skill. usually it is my lack of skill.

 

[PerfesserKev]

i never have noticed this at all. before i was given the m3 i had been shooting professionally for 15 years? i've continued another
15 years and have never used the leica for client work.
sorry, i have never experienced these phenomenon you are talking about or noticed how different it is composing and exposing with either of these cameras..

Yes, it probably comes down to what kind of work you do, too. It's not anything really relevant when I'm doing contemplative and quiet work. I have plenty of time to construct a frame using my mind's eye, a ground glass and a loupe. It matters most in my world when working to snatch collision of moments out of the flow of street life, or in telling a news story. The particular millisecond at which you push the trigger is everything then. That's where it matters to me and where the camera's form improved how I worked.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, it probably comes down to what kind of work you do, too. It's not anything really relevant when I'm doing contemplative and quiet work. I have plenty of time to construct a frame using my mind's eye, a ground glass and a loupe. It matters most in my world when working to snatch collision of moments out of the flow of street life, or in telling a news story. The particular millisecond at which you push the trigger is everything then. That's where it matters to me and where the camera's form improved how I worked.

i'm not into contemplative photography, nor do i use a loupe but that's oK i know where you are coming from. you like leica RFs and they help you excel and work comfortably, THATs what is important.
not the hype or hyperbole or nonsense that people selling kool aid are saying. it's imporant for people making photographs to find things that they are able to use without thinking about using,
so theyare an extension of them, like your leicas seem to be for you. these days with gear, and pro grade gear so cheap people can easily find something durable that might speak to them too. maybe not
a hassle blad or a leica, but still gives them the piece of mind that it will work effortlessly, so they can spend their time making photographs,.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I love my XA!

The seeing and composition difference between SLRs and optical viewfinder cameras come down to how much you see in focus. With a good viewfinder -- clear, easy on the eye, big enough -- you see everything in focus at once. ...

No, no, no. You look at the viewfinder and everything in the viewfinder. If necessary then stop down the lens to see the depth of field. No auxiliary viewfinder is necessary.

 

[PerfesserKev]

The images are a treat - and show how the moments were quickly gone. Scheinpflug would miss the bus.

Thank you, HiHoSilver!

 

[Arklatexian]

Leica is a rangefinder, and not all of us like the limitations of rangefinders. Hassie is square format, so for most purposes, only a 645 negative. There are numerous highly reliable 35mm and medium format pro brands out there to choose from. But any decent 4x5 will blow away that kind of small negative quality anyway. Back when I did gallery gigs in Carmel, the epicenter of West Coast art photography at one time, I'd sneak a little spare time at nearby Pt Lobos. I always got a kick out of seeing rich old men in suits and bowler hats fumbling around with their Hassies, just because they
thought they were getting good pictures because they had tons of money to waste on gear. Looked impressive as their chauffeur helped them back
into the Rolls Royce in the parking lot. Edward Weston they were not; you could just tell. But I am an advocate for buying good reliable gear. Get the best you can realistically afford, PROVIDED it dovetails well into your intended mode of shooting. If you don't like the way something handles, no amount of money is going to make up the difference. I remember when my brother was selling Linhof and Rollei gear. He owned a Technika and a
couple of Rollei SL66 kits - even classier than Hassie. But every time we went shooting together, he'd ask to borrow my Pentax 6x7, while I shot a
Sinar view camera. For some reason, he just liked the ergonomics of the Pentax better than his expensive German cameras, so got better shots with
it. And that same camera is itself still fully functional after all these decades. So handle gear first, see how it suits you. Cult branding is secondary.

Possibly you should have talked to some of those rich old men in suits and bowler hats. You might have been surprised to learn that they were really having a ball using their Hasselblads (or whatever) and really did not care what anyone else thought about it. I think the questions asked at the beginnings of this forum bring out the tendency to look down on other photographers for all kinds of reasons, most not having anything to do with photography......Regards!

 

[blockend]

I love my XA!

The seeing and composition difference between SLRs and optical viewfinder cameras come down to how much you see in focus. With a good viewfinder -- clear, easy on the eye, big enough -- you see everything in focus at once. It makes for cleaner and more layered compositions whether you're shooting at deep depth or shallow depth. I found it helped me clean up frames a lot.

I had been shooting SLRs professionally for about five years by then. They are the opposite creature, showing everything at the shallowest possible depth of field all the time. Because some parts of the frame were a blurry mess I neglected them in the structure of the image, and if I happened to use a mid- or deep-DoF I ended up with unwanted clutter.

I still shoot a lot with SLRs, but found that using a good optical viewfinder camera alongside them improved by work with SLRs too. When shooting an SLR at small f you have to imagine the deep-depth image. When shooting a rangefinder at wide f you have to imagine the image at shallow depth. Just a reversal.

To be clear, there are many more affordable cameras that can do this. What matters most with a camera is how comfortable it is as an extension of hand and eye. Brand is irrelevant. Comfort and fluidity is extremely important. I know too many photographers so wedded to brand that they cannot let go of cameras that really don't fit their work.

Attached are a few examples of images I don't think I would have seen the same way through an SLR. The SLR finder focus would have been only on the foreground subjects and the other planes would have been too soft to see the moments happening in them and time the shot for all to come together. The square is a frame I don't think I could have timed with an MF SLR because for me they are slower to use. It's a TLR frame. I hope that clarifies!

View attachment 157517 View attachment 157518 View attachment 157519 View attachment 157520 View attachment 157521 View attachment 157522

Good to see some genuinely excellent photographs on this site. They show what a hand held camera does best - catch life as it's happening.

 

[PerfesserKev]

Good to see some genuinely excellent photographs on this site. They show what a hand held camera does best - catch life as it's happening.

Thank you, blockend!

 

[Luis-F-S]

Does owning an expensive stove make someone a better cook?