more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[dpurdy]

I think this whole topic is very closely related to the GAS. It seems to me a lot of times a photographer is frustrated by his lack of new exciting work or any work at all and starts to think that he needs more or better equipment. I would bet that GAS goes up for a lot of people in late Winter when they haven't been out shooting for a few months. Also I would bet that a lot of photographers failed creativity gets eventually blamed on inadequate equipment.
Dennis

 

[removed account4]

thanks dennis
i think you nailed it ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Anyone who believes that great equipment is needed for great photography should review the photographs of Eugene Atget. His vision and perserverance more than compensated for the inadequate lens he sometimes used. O'Sullivan's iconic photograph of the White House ruin at the Canyon de Chelly is more satisfying than the two that Ansel Adams took from a similar point 69 years later. Perhaps the labor and time required for the earlier wet plate negative compelled O'Sullivan to expend extra effort to make the most of his opportunity. My first Leica in 1952 produced better photographs than the Mercury II that preceded it, but the improvement was certainly not proportional to the cost.

Yes, and even Ansel Adams had to work his way up to using a Hasselblad.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

AA tested and used the very best/sharpest lenses available to him at the time. Would he not do the same with today's offerings?

 

[removed account4]

AA tested and used the very best/sharpest lenses available to him at the time. Would he not do the same with today's offerings?

there is nothing wrong with doing this but thinking it is a panacea for bad photography,
or a silver bullet probably isnt the best thing to do ... and i posted about people thinking
getting high-line equipment will cure them of bad technique, lack of imagination/creativity
and a general lack of photographic understanding ...
i havent suggested it is bad to use new or expensive equipment, or professionals shouldnt use things that are needed, but my general lack of understanding of how someone might think a 10000 camera and lens
will cure all that ails ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

... but my general lack of understanding of how someone might think a 10000 camera and lens
will cure all that ails ...

And I did not address that. Look at my posts. I said that upgrading my equipment had immediate and big payoff.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

in 11 years i have asked this question maybe 4 times
and it is always interesting to read different people's thoughts on this subject ..


why is it that many people believe if they have expensive equipment,
excessively large format cameras &c. that they will be better photographers?

im not talking the fun factor here, or that what used to be obscenely expensive
professional gear a few years back now costs a song and a dance so why not ..
but the fact that if a person cant drive the cheapest of the cheap cars ..
lets say a 1980 chevy citation that they think if they have a carbon fiber
bmw they will be an expert driver?
is it perception? that others will think people are experts, after all the car cost
as much as a house in 1970, and that perceived greatness rubs off
and the photographer actually becomes great by association?

i am as stumped in 2014 as i was in 2006.
back in 2006 i remember an apug member bought an 11x14 ebony (new)
with lenses that cost more than my first 2cars thinking
it would make her an expert, she hiked with it on her back
and did all the things she did with her spotamatic or whatever it was she had before and her photographs were less than expert in look.
she must have exposed thousands of dollars worth of color and b/w film.
i just wondered why she would do this, cause i never understood the point ... sure people do whatever they want and its their money and their business and it really doesnt matter ... but
i just wonder what the point is ..

thanks
john

if you want to post something not serious i couldnt care less
im not anal retentive about seriousness.

because, they can and...
Compensating for lack of skill with technology is
progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances,
craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our
possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one
thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless
without perception.
— David Vestal

 

[DannL.]

AA tested and used the very best/sharpest lenses available to him at the time. Would he not do the same with today's offerings?

In this crowd he would surely be denounced for it.

 

[benjiboy]

The problem with having the best equipment that money can buy is that if your work is still crap you have nothing to blame and nowhere to go, except to blame yourself.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem with having the best equipment that money can buy is that if your work is still crap you have nothing to blame and nowhere to go, except to blame yourself.

Therein is concisely stated the problem the the OP is facing. Jest sayin'.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

there is nothing wrong with doing this but thinking it is a panacea for bad photography,
or a silver bullet probably isnt the best thing to do ... and i posted about people thinking
getting high-line equipment will cure them of bad technique, lack of imagination/creativity
and a general lack of photographic understanding ...
i havent suggested it is bad to use new or expensive equipment, or professionals shouldnt use things that are needed, but my general lack of understanding of how someone might think a 10000 camera and lens
will cure all that ails ...

That's just it - they presume, rather than think.
A craftsman uses tools that let him accomplish what he wants - and a craftsman knows his tools, what they can and cannot do.
I had a Kodak 35 RF when I was about 14. It's f:3.5 lens would be considered a limitation for low light photography - but, I took pictures indoors using High Speed Ekatachrome @ ASA 160, and many rolls of Kodachrome - which was ASA 25 - under less than ideal lighting by bracing the camera against something. The max. shutter speed of 1/200 was a limitation, too, when it came to freezing motion. But other than that, it was a very good camera - I still have many of the slides, and they are not noticeably inferior to the ones I now make with my Nikkormats, or made with my Leica M3s.

 

[Dan Fromm]

That's just it - they presume, rather than think.
A craftsman uses tools that let him accomplish what he wants - and a craftsman knows his tools, what they can and cannot do.
I had a Kodak 35 RF when I was about 14. It's f:3.5 lens would be considered a limitation for low light photography - but, I took pictures indoors using High Speed Ekatachrome @ ASA 160, and many rolls of Kodachrome - which was ASA 25 - under less than ideal lighting by bracing the camera against something. The max. shutter speed of 1/200 was a limitation, too, when it came to freezing motion. But other than that, it was a very good camera - I still have many of the slides, and they are not noticeably inferior to the ones I now make with my Nikkormats, or made with my Leica M3s.

E., all that you say is true. But and however, when I bought my first 35 mm camera (a Nikkormat, you have good taste) I bought a camera that accepted interchangeable lenses and that could, therefore, do things that were impossible with a fixed lens 35 mm camera. In some cases a higher price buys greater capability. Against that, my humble Nik'mat with 55/3.5 MicroNikkor was a better camera for closeup work than any Leica rangefinder plus Visoflex. Sometimes more money buys less capability. Auto-diaphragm beats stop down, proper macro lens beats a lens not optimized for near distances.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[DannL.]

there is nothing wrong with doing this but thinking it is a panacea for bad photography,
or a silver bullet probably isnt the best thing to do ... and i posted about people thinking
getting high-line equipment will cure them of bad technique, lack of imagination/creativity
and a general lack of photographic understanding ...
i havent suggested it is bad to use new or expensive equipment, or professionals shouldnt use things that are needed, but my general lack of understanding of how someone might think a 10000 camera and lens
will cure all that ails ...

I think you may be getting hung-up on Value vs. Cost of equipment. So, in a hypothetical situation you are given a choice from three cameras to conduct your photographic business. Whatever that business be. It's free, so choose wisely.

1. A new modern Hasselblad system, with all the bells and whistles.
2. A new Holga, missing it's box and manual.
3. That Vivitar 110 camera that I mentioned previously.

With the obstacle of cost having been removed in the scenario above, which would you choose to take home and use indefinitely. And when you are tired of the camera, you can sell it and keep the proceeds.

I think it helps to understand that if the cost (the monetary price we must pay) is not an obstacle, we choose what we want without any hesitation. It's when the cost is beyond our means that we may begin to question others for their purchasing behavior. So, put yourself in their shoes. If there is no pain or obstacle in making a purchase . . . Why not? This is really about being satisfied with the equipment choice you have made, and has little to do with whether or not you will become a better photographer or not because of it. My three pesetas.

 

[pdeeh]

It's when the cost is beyond our means that we question others for their purchasing behaviour

A nice point, which might perhaps be extended beyond the sour grapes that "beyond our means" implies.

I think examining the motives for being angry about other peoples' choices is rather more interesting than why people make certain choices (or, at least, at least as interesting) ... there's a bit of "how dare they" comes into it, often associated with ridicule: He bought a M9/Ebony 11x14/whatever and all he does is take pictures of his cat!

Well, yes ... that's what cameras are for: Taking pictures.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The problem with having the best equipment that money can buy is that if your work is still crap you have nothing to blame and nowhere to go, except to blame yourself.

I mentioned this a couple of times. Doesn't this encourage us to improve?

 

[removed account4]

i totally understand what you are saying, but the thing is DannL
BUT this thread has nothing to do with being a professional and owning cameras
for business purposes ... as i said, i have no misunderstanding whatsoever
about being a professional and using high grade equipment ...
i have been a working pro since 1986 or so and i have always tried
to have the best equipment i can afford, so i don't look like a putz on the job
with old cobbled together equipment. clients like new and shiny
and it makes a difference because they know you are a professional and not
someone who isn't "serious" about his work ...
the difference is that a pro knows what he is doing ( i hope / think ? )
and the people i have used as examples don't ... and they must have believed
that the top of the line equipment they were using was magic
because they certainly had trouble making them on their own. i remember getting a photograph in a post card exchange
from the 11x14 owner and i was utterly amazed at what she wrote on the back of the card, something like, my photographs are terrible i
know i don't know how to use my camera well or even make prints well, hope you like this.
and remembering the guy with the expensive camera's crit sessions in photography classes ... they were painful to participate in ..


im not angry or sour grapes or wishing i could afford different than i have
besides i wouldn't know what to do with something that nice ...
it would probably just end up sitting on a shelf while i use the junque i presently use ...
i have just been wondering why someone would drop such a wad of cash
on something like a camera + lenses that cost as much as a small house
when the end results might never be realized ( because of their skill level ? ) ...
and i guess in the end people do photography for different reasons, its a hobby for most not a job / work
and if they want high end equipment and can afford it more power to them because high end is a work of art compared to lower tier.
and works of art are a pleasure to use and look at and a nice conversation piece ...
and if they don't take great photographs who cares, it really doesn't matter because it is all about having a good time in the end anyways ...
using a 12000 camera to photograph their cat is fine by me ...

thanks all for your responses
john

 

[pdeeh]

my remark about "sour grapes" wasn't intended to include you jn

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I was given a Voitlander Vito II it was so much better than what I had been using that my photographic skills immediately jumped and continued to improve for the next few years. Then I bought a Minolta SR-7 and the transition from a range finder to an slr with a larger viewing image again increased my skills. Both of these upgrades were low cost, the first was free and the second was for not a lot of money.

I guess this kills the complaint raised by others.

 

[DannL.]

i totally understand what you are saying, but the thing is DannL
BUT this thread has nothing to do with being a professional and owning cameras
for business purposes ... as i said, i have no misunderstanding whatsoever
about being a professional and using high grade equipment ...
i have been a working pro since 1986 or so and i have always tried
to have the best equipment i can afford, so i don't look like a putz on the job
with old cobbled together equipment. clients like new and shiny
and it makes a difference because they know you are a professional and not
someone who isn't "serious" about his work ...
the difference is that i a pro knows what he is doing ( i hope / think ? )
and the people i have used as examples don't ... and they must have believed
that the top of the line equipment they were using was magic
because they certainly had trouble making them on their own. i remember getting a photograph in a post card exchange
from the 11x14 owner and i was utterly amazed at what she wrote on the back of the card, something like, my photographs are terrible i
know i don't know how to use my camera well or even make prints well, hope you like this.
and remembering the guy with the expensive camera's crit sessions in photography classes ... they were painful to participate in ..


im not angry or sour grapes or wishing i could afford different than i have
i have just been wondering why someone would drop such a wad of cash
on something like a camera
when the end results might never be realized ( because of their skill level ? ) ...
and i guess in the end people do photography for different reasons, its a hobby for most not a job / work
and if they want high end equipment and can afford it more power to them because high end is a work of art compared to lower tier.
and if they don't take great photographs it really doesn't matter because it is all about having a good time in the end anyways ...
using a 12000 camera to photograph their cat is fine by me ...

thanks all for your responses
john

When I say "business", that includes leisure or any activity you would like to choose. My business right now is to play devil's advocate. And when I get home, my business will be "couch potato" for the rest of the evening. Where does this . . ."they must have believed that the top of the line equipment they were using was magic" . . . come from? Did they tell you this directly, or did you "assume" this?

Buying good equipment so you won't look like a putz makes sense. Maybe they originally purchased their equipment for the exact same reason. Maybe they bought their equipment because they are easily persuaded by advertising or a sales person. And maybe they like new expensive shiny things. I like new expensive shiny things. Though I don't get them very often.

 

[removed account4]

When I say "business", that includes leisure or any activity you would like to choose. My business right now is to play devil's advocate. And when I get home, my business will be "couch potato" for the rest of the evening. Where does this . . ."they must have believed that the top of the line equipment they were using was magic" . . . come from? Did they tell you this directly, or did you "assume" this?

Buying good equipment so you won't look like a putz makes sense. Maybe they originally purchased their equipment for the exact same reason? Maybe they bought their equipment because they are easily persuaded by advertising or a sales person. And maybe they like new expensive shiny things. I like new expensive shiny things. Though I don't get them very often.

no they never told me they were magical, but to be honest magic can manifest itself in different ways ...
and maybe after i lost touch with these people they grew into their cameras and ended up making photographs that inspire ( THAT'S MAGIC )
i don't know i lost touch with the woman years ago, and i haven't seen the classmate in 30+ years ...
i have googled them over the years to see what their photography is like these days, but they don't have online footprints ...

i agree new and shiny is nice ... the only new and shiny i ever get are shoes maybe once every 4 or 5 years ... everything else i tend to own is old and dull/drab..

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Short story: I was given a Kodak 126 Instamatic when I was nine years old because I begged for a camera. I lost interest within days because of the extreme technical limitations and poor image quality. Later, when I was thirteen I found my father's old Kalimar Reflex in a storage closet. I was given permission to try it and the darkroom gear I also found. The quality was very good and I was able to adjust aperture and shutter speeds to suit the subject. This got me kick-started and I instantly fell in love with photography. That camera eventually failed and couldn't be repaired so Santa brought me a Yashica TL Electro for which I bought short, normal and long lenses. I preferred the larger film size of the Kalimar 120 format camera but enjoyed the versatility of interchangeable lenses with the 135 I now had. The equipment evolution moves forward but it's already becoming boring, I'm sure.

I realize the above example is a bit extreme but the point is equipment quality and versatility both make a difference and we adjust our skills and techniques to take advantage of them.

 

[NedL]

.... everything else i tend to own is old and dull/drab..

made me think of eeyore!

I'm not looking for any cameras or lenses right now, but if I was, I'd love an old 6x9 folder with a nice lens, in really good condition. The two I own have various light leak and focusing problems, which I might be able to fix but I do enjoy the 6x9 negatives and one of mine is amazingly light and compact. So if I was looking to spend $$ it would be on something old, not new and shiny...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

no they never told me they were magical, but to be honest magic can manifest itself in different ways ...
and maybe after i lost touch with these people they grew into their cameras and ended up making photographs that inspire ( THAT'S MAGIC )
i don't know i lost touch with the woman years ago, and i haven't seen the classmate in 30+ years ...
i have googled them over the years to see what their photography is like these days, but they don't have online footprints ...

i agree new and shiny is nice ... the only new and shiny i ever get are shoes maybe once every 4 or 5 years ... everything else i tend to own is old and dull/drab..

expensive equipment makes you a better photographerbecause, ,spending a lot of money takes all other xcuses away

 

[removed account4]

expensive equipment makes you a better photographerbecause, ,spending a lot of money takes all other xcuses away

exactly !

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I must be on a lot of ignore lists.