How gear swapping & film/developer testing nearly ruined my photography

[CropDusterMan]

Years ago, I worked in a camera store part-time and there was this guy that would buy an F90 and lenses...no out and shoot. In a week, hew as back and traded it all for Canon EOS 1N. Then a while later, all it came and was traded for Mamiya RZ. Then back and Olympus. He's show us his work and it was terrible. Used to drive me crazy. I took him out for lunch and told him to quit messing around and just buy a f%$king Leica M6 and a 35 cron. It never came back.

 

[MattKing]

IMHO there is a difference between having inexpensive fun trying out unusual, different and often cheap cameras/accessories, and constantly replacing or effectively duplicating one's photographic equipment, in search of the magic bullet.

I've got a bunch of Canon EOS stuff now, along with my go to Olympus OM. I bought the first Canon body/lens combo because I wanted to try out an auto-focus, auto-wind, built in auto-flash camera. That first purchase was incredibly cheap, and the subsequent acquisitions have been almost free, save the new 40mm lens that is unlike anything else I've owned. But I wouldn't have any of it, if it wasn't fun and almost free.

There is an argument though for seeking things that are a really good fit.

Case in point: I recently stopped using one 6x6 scale folding folder in favour of another: a Baby Bessa. The performance of the two cameras is probably similar, but the Baby Bessa fits me better. It has left handed film wind, left handed shutter release and a viewfinder perfect for left eye operation. It is as if it was designed for me!

 

[benjiboy]

I was at a local photographic dealer today. I needed some batteries for my OM4-Ti. The chap who runs it is 85 and has known me since I was small. He mentioned a customer who had been in that day who had over 250 cameras. We chatted about why that was and did he actually take any photographs! Then I remembered a camera I had when I was 7 or 8. It was a plastic camera that came with some sort of "Action Man" (GI Joe) set. Plastic, fixed lens, fixed focus, fixed shutter speed. Using Sunny 16 and FP4 I took a picture of the clipper "Cutty Sark" and won a photography competition. OK a competition for kids but beyond a certain point it really is not about the equipment......Anyway we chuckled about that I said to the elderly shopkeeper "for goodness sake don't tell them!"

Anyone with 250 cameras unless he's a museum curater needs his head examining .

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Ansel Adams warned against getting involved with too many films. If you constantly have to think that this camera has Tri-X in it and this camera has FP4+ you are going to miss shots. I too finally realized the wisdom of one film, one camera. That is why I no longer take more than one camera with me.

I rarely take more than one camera with me, not even the one with color one with B&W approach because the two are a very different mindset for me and I cannot focus my direction well enough switching between the two. I will sometimes carry a 35mm and a MF camera with me in a multi-day shoot. Shooting one on one day and one another.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

IMHO there is a difference between having inexpensive fun trying out unusual, different and often cheap cameras/accessories, and constantly replacing or effectively duplicating one's photographic equipment, in search of the magic bullet.
...

You're making an assumption that people who buy multiple cameras, or other things, are in search of something that will improve their ability.

Sometimes that's true, but other times it's not. For some, it's enjoyable just to experience the different ways different cameras operate and what their features are. An M3, an F4s, an OM-2n, Hasselblad 500C/M, and a Minox III, are all very different and enjoyable. There's the hobby of making photos and the side hobby of enjoying a variety of equipment. In my case, I enjoy the features, lack of features, technology, simplicity, and all the other differences among different cameras. Contrary to what's often stated, the quality of one's photos is not inversely proportional to the amount of equipment owned.

Frankly, if someone wants to own just one camera and one lens (like I did for 15 years), I don't care. If someone wants to own 250 cameras, I don't care either. Yet, some people obsess over how others enjoy their hobbies.

When I'm using a camera, I will just use that camera and no others for quite a while.

 

[BrianShaw]

Still shooting the same old crap I've been using for the past 45 or so.

... I've never been the one to chase the magic bullet. Just didn't have the time. Like they say if it ain't broke .....

For me it's always been about the image. I could care less about the equipment. As long as it got me what I wanted and didn't break down all the time I stuck with it. Think of cars the same way.

Ditto. For me this approach saved a lot of time and frustration over the years with no impact on doing what I wanted/needed to do photographically. But I met admit that occasionally I secretly envied the folks with lots gear.

 

[Kirks518]

I do believe that the amount of equipment you own is directly related to how good of a photographer you are. For example, I'm one of those that is approaching the 250 camera mark, and even with all that stuff, I suck! So the more you have, the worse you are, simple.

But seriously, I really enjoy 'flipping' cameras, trying out different things, and selling when I'm done with them (usually a roll or two). I do have my main stable though. Those are the ones I may not use all the time, but are not going anywhere anytime soon. Different cameras have different purposes, IMO. Sometimes I want to go 645, sometimes 6x6, or 6x7. I have specific setups for each of those formats (as well as 4x5 and 35mm), and each of those systems does something, or has an ability the others don't. It could be that with the 645 system I can use the fastest MF lens made (Mamiya 80mm f/1.9), as an example.

In my case, much of what differentiates one from another is simply an accessory/lens/back that I was able to get for that system, and not for the others, so if I need that application, I have it, but only in that system. Another exampke is a Polaroid back. I only have a P-Back for my RB67, and that's why my RB is my 'potrait' camera. For light travel, it the Yashica 124G, for general stuff it's either the M645 or the C330. For just snapshots, its the GA645.

I'm in both schools on this; I'd love to get down to a relatively small kit, but I have too much fun trying out different things. With the way prices are nowadays, I feel this is my chance to try all the great gear from my youth that I had no chance of being able to afford when they were new.

I'm the same way with film if you were wondering. Although developer, I'm pretty much stuck with D-76 as I bought a near lifetime supply for pennies about a year ago.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I honestly think that we're all different. And it also really depends on what we want out of photography, what the end goal is, and what we want to put into it.
Personally, I'd like to think of myself as a person who creates photographs. I care a lot about the print, and relish when I get one that I'm really happy with. But at the same time I DO like to mess around with cameras, films, developers, and other material things that probably doesn't help the goal of creating prints that I'm happy with directly, however at some other level it might help me keep my interest in it alive and I can pick up my work horse and focus on the images again. Some play and fun, followed by some more soul searching work, and then take a break with play and fun again.

What I really do miss, however, is the ability to focus with full attention on a particular project, and treat all the pictures in it the same; this is sometimes driving me nuts where I find two pictures that go really well together, one is a 6x6 FP4+ and the other a 35mm Delta 3200. They will not look good next to one another.

 

[TheRook]

"If only I had camera X, my photography would become so much better!" we sometimes like to tell ourselves. But it rarely turns out to be true.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

"If only I had camera X, my photography would become so much better!" we sometimes like to tell ourselves. But it rarely turns out to be true.

Not "we". Internet writers such as Rockwell like to trot phrases like that out so that they can pontificate, but I don't know of anyone who has actually used that type of justification to buy a camera.

It's usually: "I want it because I just want it." They don't even pretend that buying another camera will improve their photography.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

"If only I had camera X, my photography would become so much better!" we sometimes like to tell ourselves. But it rarely turns out to be true.

 

[MattKing]

You're making an assumption that people who buy multiple cameras, or other things, are in search of something that will improve their ability.

Actually I was trying to differentiate between the various types of multiple camera people - only one such type (the "magic bullet seekers") are in search of something that will improve their results.

 

[munz6869]

There's a lot of truth here, but at the same time, experimenting with new films and cameras is a LOT OF FUN. The delight of figuring out new things, finally seeing that weird device in real life, waiting for a parcel... The photograph/negative/print don't have to be everything. Life's too short to deny yourself these joys (yet probably makes us all a bit more focussed if we do).

Marc!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think I'm in a similar boat, although instead of messing around with cameras it's messing around with theory/science. I enjoy it, but it doesn't translate to better prints. It's just another part of the hobby I enjoy. For me print quality is critical, and I've not found that to depend on much but artistic judgement and hard work.

I do also wish I had the time to focus in the way you describe, which would (at least in my mind) lead to more cohesive groups of prints. But I wrestle even with that notion. Part of me wants that kind of "unity", but another part of me just feels like each image should be treated on its own without influence or context within a broader group - unless there are obvious connections that require a sort of unanimity in printing. It's tough. Some photographers I admire, you flip through image after image and they are all printed in a similar way. Others I admire don't seem to focus on that and things seem much more hodge podge but still effective. Each image gets exactly the treatment it needs. I don't know. It's something I flip flop on and leads to frustration in generating series or portfolios. When it gets out of control it can lead to constant re-printing over time in an attempt to get prints of images made at different times to "match".

Michael,

I resonate with that very much. If one makes it a goal to sell prints and create a name for oneself, I think it's wise to have some visual hints that are recognizable as being 'you'. Like Michael Kenna - smallish square prints with wonderful mood. Sally Mann created series of work where it felt like the pictures belonged together. Cartier-Bresson had full frame 35mm frames printed with few (if any?) exceptions. Etc.

But, if it is not a goal to sell work and become a name that's recognized, all of that probably doesn't matter. And as you say, it's possible to still make it while using vastly different tools and materials.

It always seems to boil down to what we want out of it, either in terms of enjoyment or productive output, or both - whatever combination of the two it is that floats our boats.

 

[skorpiius]

Same here, and I got infected with GAS only about a year ago! Other than my Nikon F100 for 35mm, Yashica LM for 120, and Polaroid Land Automatic 250 for instant, I don't really need anything else. I also have 8 other cameras on display, and I promised myself I would not display any other additional ones than my current display furniture can hold. Which leaves 1 more spot.

 

[Michael Guzzi]

[...]and I got infected with GAS only about a year ago! [...]

Same here, actually less than a year ago.

My goal is to buy one of each of the main "types" (already have a FE2 with some good lenses, got a F5 on the mail, ditto on a Zeiss Ikon folder, and a 4X5" Korona. Now thinking about getting an inexpensive RF - maybe one of those Kievs, hmmm), then stop there, use each a lot and see which approach is more to my liking, what works for me what doesn't. From there I'll see what I'll keep and what (if anything)I'll sell.

My approach for film/chemistry is different - I use a few types of film and have standardized on HC-110 in its various dilutions, after using rodinal for some time. I may go back to it on LF, we'll see.

In my very very humble opinion it's good to experiment some early on, but don't let yourself get carried out! Buying a couple rolls of this and that film, a whole lot of developers, 10 rangefinder cameras that do nearly the same thing etc. I won't dare to venture too much until I've grabbed the basics well - and even then I will stick to a select few in each category, and try to master them.

I too really like the scientific/technical aspect of analog photography, it's what turned me to it. One can go broad or deep in this, both is very hard on you and your wallet.

 

[blockend]

The photograph/negative/print don't have to be everything.

True, but it does make your camera an attractively designed paper weight.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

True, but it does make your camera an attractively designed paper weight.

Or crappy prints good camp fire starter...

 

[Ian Grant]

It doesn't matter how many cameras or lenses you own it's which you use regularly, and making the best choices - knowing they'll give the results you need (or want).

When it come to films it's important again to know what to expect, have honed EI and development times. I'm mainly shooting Ilford Delta 100 & 400 and HP5 for 5x4, but also shoot Fomapan 100 & 200 120 & LF and get similar results from both makes. I also shoot the remains of my stock of LF EFKE 25 and Fortepan 200 but again my EI's and dev times mean regardless of which film I get negatives that print around the same grade (filtration).

If you have a lot of experience switching between cameras or films isn't an issue as long as you've used them before and can trust them

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

...When I think of all the time, effort and money I spent experimenting w/ this and the gear, it was just wasted...

IMO, such time and energy is never wasted -- all part of the learning process (or perhaps 'journey' as some mentioned)...but of course that process is different for different people. I imagine that you can return to Tri-X and D-76, and to a limited set of cameras/lenses, with a wealth of background information and experience that will inform and enrich your seeing and your images...perhaps allowing you to create better work than without having that experience. And of course, have a lot of fun with it all!

Financial restrictions limited any exploration into the equipment realm for me, with just a slow gentle creep up in format size over 35 years (one camera/format...Rollieflex up to an 8x10 and a co-owned 11x14). Time restrictions kept me from experimenting too much with papers/chemicals...instead I naturally fell into a couple different processes that matched how I wanted to express the light I found on the landscape (carbon and platinum printing). For me, practising the art of photography is a long-term process of growth. In my life, it has had to be folded in with other processes, such as raising triplet boys, marriage/divorce, and a paying job. And I would like to believe that my photography has been informed and improved by all my experiences...and vice versa.

At this point in the process, the boys are in college, I am on my own with a house in need of a darkroom (and a lot of other work), retired, single, two shows up on walls, and at 62 I am looking forward to some backpacking (w/ Rollie or 4x5) this Summer, and spending much more time under the redwoods this Fall.

Image: Shadow Self-portrait on Shell Mountain, Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, On the Occasion of My 60th Birthday. I hope to spend my 62nd on the peak on the far right horizon.

 

[Jerevan]

Vaughn,

I have to say you've been an inspiration of sorts, in how you seems to have managed to get photography to work alongside the rest of life. Not to mention that you actually make 11x14 carbon prints!

 

[blockend]

Or crappy prints good camp fire starter...

Analogue jewellery?

 

[Vaughn]

... Not to mention that you actually make 11x14 carbon prints!

Well, not lately. That will have to wait until the darkroom in built (last summer it was foundation work, this summer is just starting). But my lastest show is primarily 2 1/4 inch sq platinum/palladium prints (including the one above). Working with small platinum prints, while not new to me, has still been a great challenge. I must compose images differently when printing small. The small size of the prints, while as time and care consuming as larger pieces, allows the logistics of a bathroom darkroom and a kitchen 'dimroom' to work and keeps me creatively busy. Alas, I do have a growing number of LF images crying out to be printed!

 

[chip j]

YES! Experimenting IS a VERY useful learning experience! I mainly experiment w/different enlargers (w/different illumination systems), and papers & enlarging lenses. I could care less what film I shoot!

 

[Luis-F-S]

Analogue jewellery?

Almost every camera I own has more than paid for itself many many times over. The only exceptions are my 810 view cameras and enlargers.