Good read; One camera, one lens, one film, one year

Thomas 99% of all photographers never saw a darkroom in their life, they put their film in the camera and when it's finished they go to the next lab and have it developed and printed in short they do not know a lot about the whole work flow especially not compared to a painter or sculptor. Like Varya I am an artist by training and when I walk around I see what I want to capture not what I want to frame there's a big difference. If my mind were calibrated to a specific focal length, that's what happens when you only use a single focal length, I would miss 90% of all good photo opportunities simply because I would overlook them.

MDR said:

"acclimation of perception through intelligent trial and error" I like that. "a good learning tool is something like a Zen pinhole camera" I like this idea as well no viewfinder is a liberating experience and one really has to learn to visualize in ones mind. I think it's interesting to note that some of the better photographers came from some other artform. HCB and Man Ray for instance started out as painter so were visually schooled before they started out as photographers. They learned to see before they turned their talent to photography.

Click to expand...

I was taught history of art by Fox Talbot's grandson, Major Talbot (showing my age here). He once mentioned that when he was studying sculpture, his art teacher told him to spend a year drawing and then when he came back to sculpture he found the year studying a different medium beneficial.

Ok, let me offer another point. Something I have experienced in other projects and one I am 'tossing' around (in my head/vision) right now. Each project (Noir/Sci-fi) had a TOTALLY different look and feel. The microscopic project even more so (I haven't posted those here). The vision I have for these projects require tools that I have not yet mastered, nor have I worked with much before maybe a week or two. But, I have the VISION to get me there. Now,... with your point of view would I still use that ONE film/paper combo that I have been using for years and fore-go the way I have visualized this project to look? Sacrificing something new and the challenge going along with it? The sense of adventure and process that I enjoy so much? Because I am venturing outside of my comfort zone?

I realize these ideas are personal to each individuals different skill set and ideas. What I am thinking is that point A and point B paths, will lead to the same intersection in the end. At least that is what we can hope for. And I think you said it before, "if we like what we are getting,"....

VaryaV said:

. I just see so many people become crippled by getting so hung up in the mathematical/technological side of things they forget 'how' to see.

Click to expand...

I DO agree with this! In fact, most of the discussion on line and in person with other photographers is about the technical aspects, and not the art. If I may be so bold as to generalize: it's because most people are not photographers, but merely camera owner/operators. They haven't forgotten how to see, they never saw anything in the first place.

David Brown said:

I DO agree with this! In fact, most of the discussion on line and in person with other photographers is about the technical aspects, and not the art. If I may be so bold as to generalize: it's because most people are not photographers, but merely camera owner/operators. They haven't forgotten how to see, they never saw anything in the first place.

Click to expand...

And that is precisely why they need to be removed from that thinking that it's about equipment. If you remove that aspect, left with a bare bones outfit with no bells and whistles, you HAVE TO rely on your skill, imagination, and hard work to improve.

I think anybody could improve the way they work by forcing ourselves to work with what we've got.

There are clearly several different thought patterns regarding this topic, and in the end I think we probably mean similar things.

In my humble experience I have noticed that when I become truly familiar with a camera, and when I use a film that I am thoroughly used to, my prints improve. When all my focus is on the image itself, and I can raise a camera to my eye where I have a good idea of what the finished print is going to look like, then I feel artistically free and have a clear head, where the full emotion of being in a place occupies my soul and hopefully permeates the resulting photograph BECAUSE I am not distracted. That is my experience with the Hasselblad camera I have used for years now, and the Pentax SLR. I haven't quite gotten that comfortable with the Leica yet, so I'll be practicing more with it. The only film I use when it matters is Tri-X (or TMax 400, which I have also used a lot). The only paper I print on is Ilford MGIV fiber. When I go out shooting I only ever bring one lens. Why? Because the moment I start thinking about changing something, I stop paying attention to what's around me.

Maybe it's a personal way of working that isn't right for everyone. We all enjoy different things.

In the case of film, it's certainly true that a proliferation of inexpensive equipment hasn't resulted in better photographs. Neither do I believe the popularity of zoom lenses, with the supposed flexibility they provide, gave way to an increase in great shots. The fact is making a really good photograph is an extremely difficult thing to do. There are no easy formulas, or short cuts and the gear we use is the least of our problems in making it happen.

Unless you're working commercially (sports, fashion, interiors, etc) excess equipment just gets in the way.

Photography is probably the easiest medium in which to produce an image, but the most difficult medium in which to produce a work of art.

The other thing that should be taken into account is just because the OP blog did it for a year doesn't mean we have to be sheep and do the same thing.

But it still may be a valid exercise or project to do it for a specific time, or as a test of ourselves.

Worrying about missing that award winning shot because you had the wrong lens is either overly dramatic or overstating your case, and if the exercise doesn't work for you then don't do it.

cliveh said:

Photography is probably the easiest medium in which to produce an image, but the most difficult medium in which to produce a work of art.

Click to expand...

I thought a while back we decided we couldn't define "art".

The point of one camera, one lens, one film (and one developer) is to eliminate the variables so that one knows:
Once those are learned then changing lenses or changing the film allows one to see the difference of the changes.

So which lens would you choose?

If you are like me, scenes that favour use of a wider angle lens tend to be more likely to resonate than scenes that favour use of a longer lens.

So do you choose a lens that you already like a lot, or do you choose something that will stretch your perceptions?

David Brown said:

I DO agree with this! In fact, most of the discussion on line and in person with other photographers is about the technical aspects, and not the art. If I may be so bold as to generalize: it's because most people are not photographers, but merely camera owner/operators. They haven't forgotten how to see, they never saw anything in the first place.

Click to expand...

It's also a *lot* harder to say something sensible about the artistic aspects of photography. Even people who are really good at them have a hard time articulating how they think about composition and light and line; and most of us are still trying to get good enough to have anything *to* articulate. By comparison, understanding the technicalities is fairly easy, and there's a well-developed language for talking about those...so we do.

Also, gear is fun. I think there are a lot of us (certainly I include myself) for which exploring the tools is a significant pleasure in itself. That activity isn't the same as artistic photography, but there's no reason they can't coexist, is there?

-NT

Also, gear is fun. I think there are a lot of us (certainly I include myself) for which exploring the tools is a significant pleasure in itself. That activity isn't the same as artistic photography, but there's no reason they can't coexist, is there?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. The whole history of photography as a medium whether it be as art, profession, document, hobby, gear lust, etc has been one of people interested in making images and those who love equipment. The breadth and choice of equipment we have available to us has always been driven by enthusiasts who love gear. We all benefit from this as it creates a market that manufacturers want to exploit.

Probably the smallest group of photographers is those who are only interested in making images. Thereafter comes those who like making images but equally like playing with the gear and the largest group of people are made up of those who either use cameras to record their lives (hence the explosion in phone cameras) and those who simply love getting the latest piece of gear.

Whatever motivates people to take up photography is irrelevant if they enjoy what they are doing. I do not understand the craze for using cameras such as Holgas, etc but I am very pleased that, in using film cameras, these people help to keep film photography alive and that I can still buy the materials I want for my photography.

The main point of the OP was, I think, that too many people who started out wanting to concentrate on making images get wrapped up in all the gear and technical options available to the detriment of making good photographs. I do not think anyone would seriously say that someone MUST only use one camera, lens, film, developer, paper for all applications of photography but, rather, that for a particular project, way of working, area of interest using only one camera, film, developer, paper can really sharpen your vision. If you do it long enough, you never 'miss' an image because of having the wrong lens, etc simply because you are so concentrated on what images you can make with your chosen combo and see them to the exclusion of anything else.

Certainly, for my work, using one camera, lens, film, developer paper for the past 12 years has resulted in me achieving a very high 'success' rate per film of images that I will print for exhibitions. It is not a solution for everyone and should not be interpreted as such. I have recently got a new camera (of the same format as my current combo) with a slightly longer lens and plan to use this over the coming months to see how it may or may not affect the images I choose to make. This will be a process of learning to see my chosen subject in a slightly different way. If I like the results then I will sell my current camera. If, after so many years being comfortable with my current combo, I find that the new camera is getting in the way of me achieving the images that I want, then the newer one will be sold.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

blansky said:

I thought a while back we decided we couldn't define "art".

Click to expand...

OK, how about - Photography is probably the easiest medium to produce stuff, but the most difficult medium in which to produce stuff, worthy enough to stick on a wall next to other stuff in an empty building.

"It's the easiest medium in which to be competent, but it's the hardest medium in which to have personal vision." Chuck Close on photography

He said it all.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

It's nice to see these things happen. I've always believed in photography being about seeing, and when we switch materials around too much we distract ourselves from truly seeing.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I understand and agree with the intent, but for me, this goes into the wrong directionby implying that photography is a hunt. To me making a picture is more creative than finding and taking one.

RalphLambrecht said:

I understand and agree with the intent, but for me, this goes into the wrong directionby implying that photography is a hunt. To me making a picture is more creative than finding and taking one.

Click to expand...

I don't usually 'create'. I try to be ready when the picture finds me!

ntenny said:

Also, gear is fun. I think there are a lot of us (certainly I include myself) for which exploring the tools is a significant pleasure in itself. That activity isn't the same as artistic photography, but there's no reason they can't coexist, is there?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I also enjoy cameras as much as I do photography.

David Brown said:

Not at all. I also enjoy cameras as much as I do photography.

Click to expand...

Perhaps therein lies the difference? If you're only interested in the making of photographs, the camera is of practical utility to record a scene.
If you have a passion for cameras you add something else to the process that does not directly apply to the making of photographs, so you have more to think about in your process. To me that would be a distraction, perhaps to others that adds to the experience.

My own approach is that the camera is a box that holds film and the lens lets light through to it. Of course it has to work well and do what it's intended to do, but I don't make a big deal out of lenses and so on. The camera is, to me, the very least important aspect of photography. The only things that really matter to me are to be there to embrace the subject matter when I feel something special is happening, and to bring that moment to the print.
Everything else along the way is just a tool that I try to make as invisible as possible to the process, so that I don't have to think about it.

cliveh said:

OK, how about - Photography is probably the easiest medium to produce stuff, but the most difficult medium in which to produce stuff, worthy enough to stick on a wall next to other stuff in an empty building.

Click to expand...

I think you nailed it.

The responses to this thread are interesting.

Imagine a group of photographers getting together once a month to shoot, and have a rotating leader picking the theme.

So he says, today, one camera, one lens etc etc.

And they start to object.

"I want all my lenses"

"Horses for courses"

" I don't need a camera and lens, I can already SEE the shot"

"Why should I restrict myself"

"I'm not going with you guys hunting, I'll wait here for the shot to come to me".

"But I'll miss 90% of my shots"

"Fuck this, you guys go ahead, I'm gonna go buy some more gear"

What a great summary! Got a good laugh out of that. Thanks.

blansky said:

"I'm not going with you guys hunting, I'll wait here for the shot to come to me".

Click to expand...

I think that one was pointed in my direction, (and it is funny); maybe I didn't explain myself well...

My philosophy is that my photographs will not be good until I encounter a situation, emotion, or some thing that affects me emotionally. So if I work with someone for a portrait, I will visit a couple of locations, work with getting the right composition, work on lighting, and so on, but there has to be some sort of emotional reaction for me to want to trip the shutter. It's kind of like having a conversation, and it can be awkward at first, but after a while some common ground is found, and an interesting topic is discovered. Or like all of a sudden having a good idea.
That's when I want to be able to react, and to be prepared for taking the shot, so that I don't miss it. If I use a camera that I know inside out, and can operate without thinking, then I am likely to be able to make something out of that moment. If I have to fiddle with settings and think about what I'm doing, I'm likely to miss it.

It's about being prepared for the moment when it strikes, and to be observant and recognize when the magic happens.

It is definitely not about just 'waiting' for something to happen. It is about working hard and putting in lots of effort, and when you do, eventually something good happens and the shot comes to me.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

What a great summary! Got a good laugh out of that. Thanks.



I think that one was pointed in my direction, (and it is funny); maybe I didn't explain myself well...

My philosophy is that my photographs will not be good until I encounter a situation, emotion, or some thing that affects me emotionally. So if I work with someone for a portrait, I will visit a couple of locations, work with getting the right composition, work on lighting, and so on, but there has to be some sort of emotional reaction for me to want to trip the shutter. It's kind of like having a conversation, and it can be awkward at first, but after a while some common ground is found, and an interesting topic is discovered. Or like all of a sudden having a good idea.
That's when I want to be able to react, and to be prepared for taking the shot, so that I don't miss it. If I use a camera that I know inside out, and can operate without thinking, then I am likely to be able to make something out of that moment. If I have to fiddle with settings and think about what I'm doing, I'm likely to miss it.

It's about being prepared for the moment when it strikes, and to be observant and recognize when the magic happens.

It is definitely not about just 'waiting' for something to happen. It is about working hard and putting in lots of effort, and when you do, eventually something good happens and the shot comes to me.

Click to expand...

I get that.

But the blog was really a self imposed exercise.

He wanted to discipline himself to certain parameters to test himself and to see if he could learn something.

Obviously his time frame is more than most would confine themselves to but that's up to you.

It was basically a self teaching experiment and he apparently benefited from it.

Obviously when we go out to take pictures we want all our tools, but he forced himself to not have them, and then forced himself to re-adjust his thinking.

The old, outside the box thing.

blansky said:

The responses to this thread are interesting.

Imagine a group of photographers getting together once a month to shoot, and have a rotating leader picking the theme.

So he says, today, one camera, one lens etc etc.

And they start to object.

"I want all my lenses"

"Horses for courses"

" I don't need a camera and lens, I can already SEE the shot"

"Why should I restrict myself"

"I'm not going with you guys hunting, I'll wait here for the shot to come to me".

"But I'll miss 90% of my shots"

"Fuck this, you guys go ahead, I'm gonna go buy some more gear"

Click to expand...

LMAO!

blansky said:

"I'm not going with you guys hunting, I'll wait here for the shot to come to me".

Click to expand...

I agree with Thomas; this scenario is great. And apt.

To be clear, I think there's a lot of value to working within constraints, and on any given day I'm likely to be using one camera, one or maybe two lenses, one pair of eyes, and so on. I might change from slow to fast film as evening comes on, or whatever. In the big picture, too much fiddling with toys is definitely a distraction.

But the reason we have different tools is, well, because there are different jobs for them. I'd generally prefer to use LF for landscapes and still-lifes, something light for travel photography, a fast lens and fast film indoors or at night, and so on; so would you, dear reader, wouldn't you? (Mutatis mutandis for particular people's preferences; maybe you don't like still life, or what-have-you. But you know what I mean.)

And with that in mind, I'm a little skeptical about the idea that "one of everything" is somehow an intrinsically superior way to photograph, especially over a long period. For many people, I'd think that "only a few options" is more of a sweet spot, both for learning and for image production.

I hunt for images, but I do it as an ambush predator, like an anglerfish or a Pac-Man frog.

-NT