How much part does a camera body play in analog photography ?

[anjoom_aj]

When we post images on social media, forums, etc what I noticed is people mention 'Shot with X camera' and get done with it. Even when people see a analog image the question is which camera you shot this with and sometimes the question of film. But technically the thing that plays a major part in the image might not be the camera body. I think it should start with the Lens & Film, Exposure settings (if you have written them), the development process/chemicals and the print/scan.

What is your stand on the camera body used ? Is it more important than the lens, film, development, print/scan ? :confused:

 

[frank]

After the image itself, everything else is secondary.

Trying to rank those secondary details in order of importance is pointless. It's just interesting background information.

 

[removed account4]

camera, lens, film, developer &c
its all just static
its the image that matters ...
to me at least,
its like tuning in a radio station you can barely get

 

[anjoom_aj]

After the image itself, everything else is secondary.

Trying to rank those secondary details in order of importance is pointless. It's just interesting background information.

Yes a lot of that is irrelevant but in these times people have that curiosity in analog photography and expecting to get a particular result that you got and they would like to replicate, the most common question remains 'which camera' and its sad to hear that as a first question rather than something more about the image itself.

Sent from my PLK-L01 using Tapatalk

 

[frank]

Which camera is easier to ask than which tools and materials.

 

[bdial]

I think sometimes it's just curiosity about tools. Additionally "gear-headedness" is pretty common around photographers, and has been forever, it seems, digital hasn't changed it any.

Yes, it should be about the image first, and it is in some gatherings I attend, but the conversations veer into what this, that or the other very easily.

If you think analog workers do this too much, say "What printer, ink or paper did you use" to a digital worker, be prepared for some long explanations.

 

[DannL.]

In truth, "the camera" is a system. Take away one of the parts and the process to expose the film must also change.

If "X camera" + "Y Lens" = "Z Exposure" and "V camera" + "Y Lens" = "Z Exposure" does "X camera" = "V camera"? ;-)

The camera body is simply a "film holder", and for some cameras it also provides the function of a "shutter". It also acts as an interface between the photographer and the process of making the exposure. Nothing new there. If it is operating properly, it's influence on the appearance of the exposure would be negligible. That's why you can move the lens from camera to camera with no apparent difference in exposure. But, swap lens on a 35mm body, ie; 28mm vs 135mm, the visual differences in the negative exposure would be quite noticeable. So when you hear people rant and rave that their particular camera is "the best". I have to ask . . . The best at what? Holding the film flat?

 

[anjoom_aj]

camera, lens, film, developer &c
its all just static
its the image that matters ...
to me at least,
its like tuning in a radio station you can barely get

Absolutely statistics, true. Just like embedded EXIF data on sites like Flickr, 500px, etc. I agree that it's the image that matters above all else and one cannot replicate an image by knowing those statistics which worked for another person. I was just wondering why the camera became more important and wanted to know peoples thoughts on the same.

 

[frank]

Maybe which camera didn't become more important, people are just asking for technical details in an imprecise/easy way.

 

[anjoom_aj]

I think sometimes it's just curiosity about tools. Additionally "gear-headedness" is pretty common around photographers, and has been forever, it seems, digital hasn't changed it any.

Yes, it should be about the image first, and it is in some gatherings I attend, but the conversations veer into what this, that or the other very easily.

If you think analog workers do this too much, say "What printer, ink or paper did you use" to a digital worker, be prepared for some long explanations.

Actually for digital cameras the arguments are even worse. Canikon
Those who ask more about analog generally people who have never shot analog and have a desire to own one just to own it.

"What printer, ink, paper..." hear that every day from our printing press

 

[anjoom_aj]

In truth, "the camera" is a system. Take away one of the parts and the process to expose the film must also change.

If "X camera" + "Y Lens" = "Z Exposure" and "V camera" + "Y Lens" = "Z Exposure" does "X camera" = "V camera"? ;-)

The camera body is simply a "film holder", and for some cameras it also provides the function of a "shutter". It also acts as an interface between the photographer and the process of making the exposure. Nothing new there. If it is operating properly, it's influence on the appearance of the exposure would be negligible. That's why you can move the lens from camera to camera with no apparent difference in exposure. But, swap lens on a 35mm body, ie; 28mm vs 135mm, the visual differences in the negative exposure would be quite noticeable. So when you hear people rant and rave that their particular camera is "the best". I have to ask . . . The best at what? Holding the film flat?

Love your answer.

"The best at what? Holding the film flat?" cracked me up

 

[anjoom_aj]

I started listing those details as everyone kept asking about it in comments. Now a little less to reply regarding such stuff as its already added in descriptions.

 

[dpurdy]

When looking at images here in the gallery I am sometimes curious about what format was used. Technical information is interesting to me but I am not interested in technical information unless I am interested in the image.

In real life, (not on the computer), when I encounter someone I don't know and they identify themselves as a photographer, and I have never seen their work, the first question I usually ask is "What kind of camera do you use?" The kind of camera a person uses, in that situation, tells me something about the person. It gives me a clue as to how much they know about photography and it gives me a clue of their skill level. Then I will ask what kind of photography they like to do. Those two questions are usually enough for me to determine if I am interested in the person and do I want to continue talking about photography.

 

[Jim Jones]

Information on film format, lens focal length and taking aperture, shutter speed, and lighting can help one replicate or avoid qualities of the posted photo in their own work. Some photographers post photos for their own glory. Some post to inform, help, or inspire other photographers. In the latter case, technical information can be valuable.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . In real life, (not on the computer), when I encounter someone I don't know and they identify themselves as a photographer, and I have never seen their work, the first question I usually ask is "What kind of camera do you use?" The kind of camera a person uses, in that situation, tells me something about the person. It gives me a clue as to how much they know about photography and it gives me a clue of their skill level. Then I will ask what kind of photography they like to do. Those two questions are usually enough for me to determine if I am interested in the person and do I want to continue talking about photography.

The camera one uses is not a good guide to their photographic expertise. Sixty years ago I used a Leica iiif. It cost over a month's wages, but didn't make me a competent photographer. Now I often use a modest DSLR with basic lenses, and do much better. I also have a library of a few hundred books on photography and access to the internet. More than the several cameras that I use, these resources indicate what I know or can find out about photography.

 

[anjoom_aj]

When looking at images here in the gallery I am sometimes curious about what format was used. Technical information is interesting to me but I am not interested in technical information unless I am interested in the image.

In real life, (not on the computer), when I encounter someone I don't know and they identify themselves as a photographer, and I have never seen their work, the first question I usually ask is "What kind of camera do you use?" The kind of camera a person uses, in that situation, tells me something about the person. It gives me a clue as to how much they know about photography and it gives me a clue of their skill level. Then I will ask what kind of photography they like to do. Those two questions are usually enough for me to determine if I am interested in the person and do I want to continue talking about photography.

Sometimes people just have the excess funds to buy something that they cannot justify by their images. I know some people who got a Nikon D4s because that was the top of the line Nikon from their google search. The images made from the D4s that I saw were pitiful. So probably we can't judge a persons work from the gear they used in most cases. Looking at work of those photographers is the best way to know their type.

I recently learnt that I can develop color film (C41) in regular B&W chemicals just because the image i saw was B&W while the description clarified that it was shot on Portra 160 and developed in B&W process.

 

[removed account4]

Absolutely statistics, true. Just like embedded EXIF data on sites like Flickr, 500px, etc. I agree that it's the image that matters above all else and one cannot replicate an image by knowing those statistics which worked for another person. I was just wondering why the camera became more important and wanted to know peoples thoughts on the same.

hi

i think gear has become more important because it is the only TANGIBLE part of the whole process
everything else is intrinsic, part of the person who made the photograph, their eyes, the way they
carressed the film in the tank when it was being processed, the tapwater used to make the developer &c

people WANT to replicate, so the gear is the easy part. you have a leica you can photograph like HCB,
you have a speed graphic you can photograph like weegee, you have a 14" commercial ektar, you can photograph like karsh, a verito, like hurell &c
their greatness rubs off into the gear, gives it a mythic quality, but in the end it is just gear, just a distraction ..
and unless it is a gear fetish site ( like this is sometimes, or flickr or fb or www-pyx... ( fill in the blank ) are sometimes )
where one speaks endlessly about gear, one realizes fast that the 14" ektar didn't make the portrait, karsh did

YMMV

 

[pdeeh]

on a 99.9% digital site I used to frequent, people used to get VERY pissed off when I refused to say what equipment I'd used for a shot they liked - it was suggested by one person that I was thereby stopping them improving their photographs :eek:

then when I started posting almost exclusively scanned negs, they got really annoyed that I wouldn't tell them the film and developer (utterly disregarding the fact that I could just about make any film look like any other film with digital post-processing).

 

[DannL.]

I always thought it would be fun to post a challenge titled "Guess the camera and lens." Participants to the challenge would get one guess at the camera/lens combinations that was used to create the negative which was used to make the print. Participants would not know in advance what others have guessed. The point of the challenge . . . if the camera/lens combination used had so much impact on a print, why can't anyone recognize it's fingerprint. A case-in-point which was brought up in another thread; Until they are informed, how many seasoned photographers realize that Ansel Adam's - "Moon and Half Dome" was made by using the negative from a Hasselblad 6x6?

 

[Ric Johnson]

It's very interesting when looking thought the Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day Gallery, but other then that not too much.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It is only the image that matters. All the rest is just unimportant blather. As far as the argument that the data is needed so someone can duplicate the work of some one else, let them develop their own style rather than copy. When I have exhibited a print I do not even give it a title. I don't want to influence how the viewer experiences the image.

I might also add that modern society is drowning in pointless, unimportant data. Why add more.

 

[MattKing]

It used to be quite difficult to obtain some of the cameras that are common here. It often required saving up for a long time, researching carefully the options, comparison shopping.

Some of us on APUG are old enough to remember that.

If you use, e.g., an Olympus OM-2n (as I do) than others who use that or something else in the OM line feel a sort of kinship when they learn that. We must have some commonalities, because we have made similar choices.

Some cameras get along well with me. To that end, they matter.

 

[frank]

"That's a really nice photograph. You must have a really good camera."

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If you use, e.g., an Olympus OM-2n (as I do) than others who use that or something else in the OM line feel a sort of kinship when they learn that. We must have some commonalities, because we have made similar choices.

Psychology recognizes a variety of defense mechanisms. One of these is termed validation or vindication. Seeing that someone else uses the same camera makes people feel better that they have made the correct choice. In the case of cameras it does no harm.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I can't use wooden flimsy cameras if I go out, but graflex works for me. It is body, first. Don't really care for lens and film on 4x5.
I can't use SLR for the street, only RF camera. So if it is Cron it is only on RF body for me.
Digital cameras - body first and foremost and this is very obvious.