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

[blockend]

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.

munz6869 said cameras weren't all about taking pictures. In the sense that every technology becomes redundant eventually, and the objects are museum pieces, he is correct. However we are not there yet, and film in the more popular formats is still available. If there's fun in clicking well made dials for their own sake, it's beyond my appreciation. I think the sole purpose of cameras is to create pictures.

 

[Cycler]

I know the feeling! My two best B&W images were taken with quite modest kit. First was on a 'Caving for Photographers' course at Whernside Manor in Dent when Cumbria county council ran it as an educational centre. I saw some sophisticated kit then, one student was sent by his employer, a national newspaper, and had kit I could only drool over. Oddly my basic kit, 'made' the shot; of a waterfall into a pool. Using an Agfa cubeflash the longer light pulse gave the water a creamy look. Camera Zorki 4/50 F2-22 @f11. In Upper Long Churn Cave, Ribblesdale!
Next one was with a Petri 7s2 rangefinder compact with 45 f2.8. I was on Goathland station of the North York Moors Railway preparing to shoot a pic of an oncoming train when a guy walked in the way. This one was 'made' by the signalman stepping in front of me as I set-up, I was about to object when I saw his uniform and stance; he was ready to accept the token satchel from the fireman! I couldn't shoot that as we would have been wreathed in while steam when it occurred!

 

[blockend]

I couldn't shoot that as we would have been wreathed in while steam when it occurred!

That might have been the best photo of the lot! The few really good shots I've taken have been when my intentions were taken over by events happening in front of the lens. The mix of control and happenstance creates a potent visual brew, and one has to resist the temptation not to press the shutter because our aim has been undermined by events. If it doubt, take the picture. Take enough of them and there might be a few great shots in the portfolio.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been going through all of my negatives to see which of them might be good candidates for making large darkroom prints, and what struck me was all the great gear I used to own and later sold in order to buy other gear. The old buy/sell obsession. Some of the cameras like the Rolleicords, Autocords, Rolleiflex E3 w/ Planar, Rolleiflex T, various Nikon SLRs w/ Leica R 90 Summicron and Elmarit lenses....what on earth made me sell those? The negatives from them are perfect. Clear and sharp. If I thought it was going to improve my photography w/ something else I was a fool.

Then there were all the different films and developers I tried. Why didn't I just stay w/ Tri-X in D76? That's a classic combination the suited me perfectly. When I think of all the time, effort and money I spent experimenting w/ this and the gear, it was just wasted. I should have stuck w/ what worked really well and devoted myself to taking better photos w/ what I had, which was some great cameras, film, developer and lenses. Not going to make that mistake w/ my printing. I have some good fiber paper that is what I like (Adox MCC 110 in Dektol), and once I fine tune my new enlarger w/ some less expensive fiber paper that's all I'm going to use because that's all I need.

We all come to that conclusion eventually but few admit it so clearly. good for you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry to disappoint, my photography improved when I moved from the Minolta X-700 to the Nikon N75 and Nikon F100, and again when I added the Hasselblads. Improved quality optics and better systems does make a difference if the talent has already been developed.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sorry to disappoint, my photography improved when I moved from the Minolta X-700 to the Nikon N75 and Nikon F100, and again when I added the Hasselblads. Improved quality optics and better systems does make a difference if the talent has already been developed.

There is no one way that fits everyone. It doesn't sound to like you were wildly experimenting, though. It sounds to me as if you were rather methodical and went from one type to the next, or did you mix and match a lot?
My own journey was very scattered. 35mm Neopan 1600 one day, and 5x7 FP4 the next, with no rhyme or reason (using 20/20 hindsight vision, at the time it seemed reasonable).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry to disappoint, my photography improved when I moved from the Minolta X-700 to the Nikon N75 and Nikon F100, and again when I added the Hasselblads. Improved quality optics and better systems does make a difference if the talent has already been developed.

There is no one way that fits everyone. It doesn't sound to like you were wildly experimenting, though. It sounds to me as if you were rather methodical and went from one type to the next, or did you mix and match a lot?
My own journey was very scattered. 35mm Neopan 1600 one day, and 5x7 FP4 the next, with no rhyme or reason (using 20/20 hindsight vision, at the time it seemed reasonable).

You are right I had used Minoltas for 40 years, then added Nikons, and after joining APUG it traded in the Mamiya C330 which I had inherited and never liked for the first Hasselblad and several months of serious research.

 

[Saganich]

Yep! Same here. Experimenting is good but not without a compass to get you somewhere, or get you back to where you started sometimes. Often the comparisons necessary to determine if things are actually improving gets lost in the GAS. Sometimes it seems playing with equipment becomes the focus over making images. It is necessary sometimes but better to forget the equipment and play with composition.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So, OP sold of the cameras and just trying to print now?
I see nothing wrong with buying and trying. It is normal. Almost all of my famous photographers went through it before settling on one style and gear. And some switched to another gear for different projects. It is absolutely normal to have different gear for different projects. And if you are photography enthusiast it is normal to try different gear and learn about different photography.
Plus, some of it is not going to lasts for long. For example, I'm glad I was able to try classic Polariod, before Fuji killed last mass available film for it.

 

[blockend]

So, OP sold of the cameras and just trying to print now?
I see nothing wrong with buying and trying. It is normal. Almost all of my famous photographers went through it before settling on one style and gear. And some switched to another gear for different projects. It is absolutely normal to have different gear for different projects. And if you are photography enthusiast it is normal to try different gear and learn about different photography.
Plus, some of it is not going to lasts for long. For example, I'm glad I was able to try classic Polariod, before Fuji killed last mass available film for it.

I disagree that "buying and trying" is normal, though we'd have to confirm what we mean by normal. When the cameras most of us buy were new the majority of people owned one camera, with only the keenest amateurs owning two or more of the same format. The numbers who swapped 35mm cameras on a regular basis was very small.

I'd argue there's little difference between cameras of a similar type, and probably not enough to swap them and certainly not swap systems. Anyone used to a Nikkormat would quickly adapt to a Spotmatic, a Minolt SRT, Canon FTb, etc., and I don't think lenses in an equivalent price band would reveal any difference in a print. Swapping cameras is a young mans game if your emphasis is on the photographic print. Changing almost any other part of the process will improve your photography before swapping for a similar camera.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I disagree that "buying and trying" is normal, though we'd have to confirm what we mean by normal. When the cameras most of us buy were new the majority of people owned one camera, with only the keenest amateurs owning two or more of the same format. The numbers who swapped 35mm cameras on a regular basis was very small.

I'd argue there's little difference between cameras of a similar type, and probably not enough to swap them and certainly not swap systems. Anyone used to a Nikkormat would quickly adapt to a Spotmatic, a Minolt SRT, Canon FTb, etc., and I don't think lenses in an equivalent price band would reveal any difference in a print. Swapping cameras is a young mans game if your emphasis is on the photographic print. Changing almost any other part of the process will improve your photography before swapping for a similar camera.

I'm not talking about the past. In the past (film gear still manufactured and expensive), I had only one camera and was able to photograph only certain things.
I'm talking about Winogrand trying SLR, Meyerovich jumping on LF, HCB leaving big camera on the tripod for small Leica and Mayer getting Rolleiflex and trying movie cameras. As of Spotmatic, FTd, SRT SLRs- it is not trying different gear for different projects, it is gearheading. Age has nothing to do with it. I have tried it as well at the age of 40+ and it isn't as productive and educational as trying 8x11, MF, LF or trying TLR and RF to realize how different they are and how it is affecting what and how you could photograph.

 

[blockend]

I'm not talking about the past. In the past (film gear still manufactured and expensive), I had only one camera and was able to photograph only certain things.
I'm talking about Winogrand trying SLR, Meyerovich jumping on LF, HCB leaving big camera on the tripod for small Leica and Mayer getting Rolleiflex and trying movie cameras. As of Spotmatic, FTd, SRT SLRs- it is not trying different gear for different projects, it is gearheading. Age has nothing to do with it. I have tried it as well at the age of 40+ and it isn't as productive and educational as trying 8x11, MF, LF or trying TLR and RF to realize how different they are and how it is affecting what and how you could photograph.

Age is a factor because it means you're running out of time to try new things, if you are serious about the image as your priority. The photographers you mention were known for two camera types in an entire lifetime, not one a month. You can learn the merits of 35mm, medium and large format in a few months, it doesn't require familiarity with every camera ever made to see what the different film sizes do well and less well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Age is a factor because it means you're running out of time to try new things, if you are seriouus about the image. The photographers you mention were known for two camera types in an entire lifetime, not one a month. You can learn the merits of 35mm, medium and large format in a few months, it doesn't require familiarity with every camera ever made to see what the different film sizes do well and less well.

Actually, the photographers I have mentioned tried and used different cameras not for a month

Even if money to buy film gear is not a factor for many of us now, you can't understand how particular camera type and format works in short amount of time. Every format, style and sometimes single lens needs months to learn. Not just try couple of times outside and get nothing from it.
And if you are photography enthusiast it means you have limited amount of time for photography. So, we are talking about years to try different film photography gears and styles, not months.

 

[blockend]

Actually, the photographers I have mentioned tried and used different cameras not for a month

Even if money to buy film gear is not a factor for many of us now, you can't understand how particular camera type and format works in short amount of time. Every format, style and sometimes single lens needs months to learn. Not just try couple of times outside and get nothing from it.
And if you are photography enthusiast it means you have limited amount of time for photography. So, we are talking about years to try different film photography gears and styles, not months.

That's simply incorrect. To the best of my knowledge Winogrand used Leica and a Nikon for longer lenses, Joel Meyerowiz used a Leica and later a large format camera. Cartier-Bresson used Leicas almost exclusively. He shot with a few almost identical cameras from the beginning of his career. Most of Maier's work is on a 6x6 Rollei.

The only photographers I can think of who were known for habitually picking up different cameras are Eggleston and Araki, though I'm sure there are others. A photographer can find a camera, film and preferred focal length lens very quickly, and never exhaust the visual possibilities of that combination.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

That's simply incorrect. To the best of my knowledge Winogrand used Leica and a Nikon for longer lenses, Joel Meyerowiz used a Leica and later a large format camera. Cartier-Bresson used Leicas almost exclusively. He shot with a few almost identical cameras from the beginning of his career. Most of Maier's work is on a 6x6 Rollei.

The only photographers I can think of who were known for habitually picking up different cameras are Eggleston and Araki, though I'm sure there are others. A photographer can find a camera, film and preferred focal length lens very quickly, and never exhaust the visual possibilities of that combination.

Wrong?

Maier used Brownie, before TLRs and switched to SLRs, RF later on. She stopped using TLRs in seventies and was still taking pictures in eighties and nineties. She also used movie cameras for interviews.
HCB started not with Leica. And it wasn't just for few months before he started to use Leica.
Herzog tried Leica for Vancouver BC photography, but didn't liked it and he switched MF SLR and SLRs.
Winogrand used LEica RF for street, but for sports he might use Nikons SLRs.
Meyerowiz switched to LF for some time, because RF wasn't good enough for particular projects.
They switched as soon as certain camera type and format wasn't good enough. But Ansel Adams had many cameras to play with and it wasn't just in large league

It is not so quick and simple as you think. And "most" doesn't mean all.

 

[blockend]

Wrong?

Maier used Brownie, before TLRs and switched to SLRs, RF later on. She stopped using TLRs in seventies and was still taking pictures in eighties and nineties. She also used movie cameras for interviews.
HCB started not with Leica. And it wasn't just for few months before he started to use Leica.
Herzog tried Leica for Vancouver BC photography, but didn't liked it and he switched MF SLR and SLRs.
Winogrand used LEica RF for street, but for sports he might use Nikons SLRs.
Meyerowiz switched to LF for some time, because RF wasn't good enough for particular projects.
They switched as soon as certain camera type and format wasn't good enough. But Ansel Adams had many cameras to play with and it wasn't just in large league

It is not so quick and simple as you think. And "most" doesn't mean all.

The point is they were known for their work on particular cameras. What they used in their early years, as a hobby, is different from the tools they used in pursuit of their vision.
The point, which is in danger of getting lost, is that someone does not need to try on every garment in a shop to find something that suits him. He usually follows conventions, often by looking at the work of other photographers, to short cut the process of choosing a camera, a lens, and a film. Otherwise he may kid himself he's on a mission to express himself with the perfect tool, when he merely has GAS.

 

[Steve Smith]

I've been going through all of my negatives to see which of them might be good candidates for making large darkroom prints, and what struck me was all the great gear I used to own and later sold in order to buy other gear. The old buy/sell obsession. Some of the cameras like the Rolleicords, Autocords, Rolleiflex E3 w/ Planar, Rolleiflex T, various Nikon SLRs w/ Leica R 90 Summicron and Elmarit lenses....what on earth made me sell those? The negatives from them are perfect. Clear and sharp.

Yes. I have 70 film cameras. I think the sharpest lens I own is on my Rolleicord V. If I was oinly going to keep one camera, this would be it - I would even choose it over my Tessar equipped Rolleiflex.


Steve.

 

[removed account4]

its easy to say one size fits all, but that is rarely the case. playing with stuff is fun, and rewarding.
and for me at least the kind of camera, film or developer has nothing to do with the way i "see" or "make" photographs
im able to make ( and even sell sometimes ) things made with a 110 camera, or enlarged 8mm movie film, or
paper negatives put in a old bellows camera, or no camera at all ... for me its just whats handy and useful and is loaded at the time.
there is a lot of 1 camera 1 lens 1 film 1 developer 1 paper 1 developer and thats great too but i get bored if i am
expected to look like pee weeherman every day ...

 

[jojoman2]

I just made the switch from d76 to rodinal to get some sharper grain. I like the switch. I previously tried out hc-110. Even souped some of my work in dektol for fun. I process some c41 myself on the side. I think one just needs to be conscious of whether they are unhappy with the results they are getting, and so a little experimentation is needed, or if they just aren't getting the images they want or aren't shooting enough. I think when you are primarily scanning your images you may have some more freedom to experiment. Definitely all the stuff I developed in HC110 has remarkably higher contrast than anything I did in D76, but I know that about those negatives and still get some decent stuff out of them I print.

I also think there's a place for using different deveelopers for desired effect, so long as you have control over it and can predict the results.

souped this in dektol when I mistakenly mixed that instead of D76, figured what the hell why not when I realized. haven't printed it yet.

Dead Link Removed

 

[blockend]

I just made the switch from d76 to rodinal to get some sharper grain. I like the switch. I previously tried out hc-110. Even souped some of my work in dektol for fun. I process some c41 myself on the side. I think one just needs to be conscious of whether they are unhappy with the results they are getting, and so a little experimentation is needed, or if they just aren't getting the images they want or aren't shooting enough. I think when you are primarily scanning your images you may have some more freedom to experiment. Definitely all the stuff I developed in HC110 has remarkably higher contrast than anything I did in D76, but I know that about those negatives and still get some decent stuff out of them I print.

I also think there's a place for using different deveelopers for desired effect, so long as you have control over it and can predict the results.

souped this in dektol when I mistakenly mixed that instead of D76, figured what the hell why not when I realized. haven't printed it yet.

Dead Link Removed

I'm in favour of experimenting with film, developer and printing methods. Once you've found something that works for you it makes sense to stick with it. The thread has gone down the familiar GAS territory, and is primarily about cameras.

People should use what they choose, but be honest about their motives. Is it to mess with gear, or take the best photographs we can? If you have three cameras you'll have a favourite. If you have ten you'll like one best, and so it goes to 100. That does not mean you need to buy a hundred cameras to find out which you prefer. Same logic for film, developers and paper.

BTW, very nice shot jojoman!

 

[onre]

I've found it rather advantageous to fearlessly try out different things gear-, film- and process-wise. For example, turned out that cross-processing Velvia in C41 creates the kind of wildly saturated and sometimes rather unrealistic colours that I find really useful in certain cases. Without experimentation, I wouldn't have this in my "creative toolbox".