more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[removed account4]

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.

 

[trythis]

Status anxiety.

 

[removed account4]

What to do? Other side of the world is always like that...

grass is always greener or just bored ?

 

[wy2l]

What to do? Refer to the law of diminshing returns...

Also, my thinking is "don't buy junk". A few good pieces, in my opinion, are better than a pile of junk.


Kris

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Better gear is usually a lot easier to use than cheaper stuff. Very cheap gear often does compromise things like sharpness, but once you get to midpriced gear, there is no image quality difference between that and the top of the line stuff. I'm a professional, and I prefer to buy the higher-end stuff because daily professional use wears out inexpensive cameras quickly, while expensive pro gear is built for the heavy use. Also, the higher end stuff is just easier to use. Manufacturers often deliberately hobble lower-end gear to make it a pain to use. Two good examples. Nikon, in the 80s, sold the top-line F3 and the lower end FE/FE2/FM/FM2/FA series. The cheaper cameras used the same lenses as the F3, so image quality was a non-issue, but I hate the ergonomics of the cheaper ones. The shutter on them won't fire unless the film advance is pulled out. I had an FM2 for a short time and was always forgetting that. I got tired of fighting the damned camera. The F3 "Just worked"; no silly operating procedure to remember. More modern example: low end digital SLRs only have one finger-wheel, which operates the shutter-speed control in manual mode. To change aperture, most require you to hold down a button while turning the wheel. This is true of cameras from many different companies. Higher end models have two wheels, one for shutter speed and one for aperture. You don't have to fight the gear and miss shots fumbling with stupidly designed interfaces.

Will expensive gear make your photos better? Nope, but they do make it easier for me to do my job.

 

[darkosaric]

I got my 2 Leicas knowing that they will not make me better photographer. I got them because at that time I was single, making good money in IT, and I have no interest to buy other expensive toys like smartphones, tablets, expensive laptops, cars, motorcycles ...
I wanted to be part of long tradition, to see how they feel in long usage, to see if they are magical as other were speaking. And they truly earned those reputation. Please of using it is greater than any other cameras (that are 5% cost and make 99% same quality images).
Overall cost with lenses was around 2K, so not too extreme, but not small either.

 

[TXFZ1]

This is an interesting subject that I have been thinking about lately. I saw a photograph in which I liked the effect of using a soft focus lens on a landscape. Should I go out and buy the Cooke PS945 or buy a filter or use an old trick of fastening fishnet stocking around the rear element or apply vaseline on a filter. I could try to acheive the same effect in photoshop. Lots of options but in reality, I would have to master all before deciding which method produced the effect I visualized. I going for the fishnet stockings first as I think it will be more fun removing them from a woman.

David

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

The list of photographers who made their careers off of one camera and one lens is nearly endless: Carter, Avedon, Cartier-Bresson, Erwitt. I personally think a sack full of lenses is totally counterproductive.

My theory is that most photographers are "process" photographers. They think the process, the materials, is what makes a photograph art, ie. platinum. "All my photographs are printed in platinum..."

The classic example is the photographer who buys an 8x10 camera, develops his film in Pyro, develops his prints in Amidol and mistakenly think that's why Edward Weston was Edward Weston. When they don't get the expected results, the complaint is always "oh, all the really good papers are gone. None of the materials we have available these days are suitable for me to express the power of my artistic vision." Which is, of course, complete nonsense.

Only your brain that makes the photograph.

 

[removed account4]

hi chris and darko

totally understand what you are saying.
chris, you are right cheap stuff can be a pain, and understandably as a pro ( i am one too )
reliability and ease of use and heft are important. and i agree it wont make better photographs, but
ease of use makes a difference to make the gear part of oneself, so it is more intuition
and less thought to make the camera respond without thought to the brain saying depress shutter now.

darko i agree with what you say about tradition. sometimes it is hard for me to see the forest through
the trees. tradition is an important thing i couldnt agree more. there is something to be said
to hold a camera that is as much a tool as it is a work of art and knowing of others
who have used the same or similar equipment somehow stirs the soul and there IS something
almost magical that happens. i forget that sometimes ... i wonder if the person i remember
with the awe inspiring big camera had a shirpa or a pack mule for her equipment
and immersed herself in collodion plate negatives and albumen / ptpd prints if
my view would have been different. there is something to be said about the idea
of travel huge negatives and the need of a canvas darkroom footsteps away from a cliff
that for me makes even a carnival trick something to behold ...

 

[DannL.]

In my case it just so happens that the photography equipment that produces negatives and prints that are closer to my expectations is also more expensive than the equipment I used when I first started out. Of course I had to go through some fifty cameras, seven enlargers, and a ton of processing equipment to find the "magic bullet". I think many folks give up looking early and settle on the simply easy solution . . . "Use what you have, and live with the results". I promised I would leave no stone unturned, until I was completely satisfied with my work. I have always seen life as being too short. Why give in to mediocrity if you still have the capacity to do better? Having "good" equipment really helps.

 

[ic-racer]

It was true in the not so distant past that inexpensive cameras produced crap images. No longer true in todays used camera market.

 

[removed account4]

david

there are a few threads here on apug ( search the archives ) about soft focus effect
with stockings vasoline &c. if i remember correctly depending in the stocking
( white or black ) it changes the highlights and how they are rendered
you might poke a small hole in the stocking too, or do the smoke trick on a glass filter
( have a light film of lamp black /soot /smoke on the glass and unsoot a spot in the middle with
your little finger's tip. ). wont be as fun as removing he stockings from a live person
but it might be another way to achieve your goal and be another tool to master
( sorry for another ) ...

thanks parker,
i couldnt agree more with your perspective

 

[Rick A]

Marketing hype, you aren't good enough on your own, you need the biggest and best, because nothing short of that will suffice.

 

[Dan Fromm]

It was true in the not so distant past that inexpensive cameras produced crap images. No longer true in todays used camera market.

Ic, I don't know what our doctors do now, but there was a time when West Germany seemed to be infested with US MDs on vacation. They were there to take european delivery of a spiffy new Mercedes and to see the sights, were accompanied by low mileage late model second wives, and toted Nikon Fs with a 50 mm lens with which they photographed the sights. Interesting display. They could have taken as good pictures with a good grade of Instamatic. Back then there were many inexpensive cameras that took good images.

 

[georg16nik]

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?...

Basic narrative psychology, personality types and how the human mind works.
Melanie Anne Phillips did a video a while ago, entitles John Muir and the Poodle People.
You might wanna take a look.
[video=youtube;Awnr8s72yaE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awnr8s72yaE[/video]

 

[baachitraka]

'What to do? Other side of the world is always like that...'

It is a realization process for me...

Before start shooting film I was using some modern camera fitted with a very decent lens that was produced very good digital files.

One day I got bitten by Analog bug and the first analog camera was the one which can use that modern lens.

Delta 3200 was my first film.

Quite impressed by the result.

Then bitten by one more bug to own an all mechanical camera. Till that day, I have no idea about film cameras nor the glory of Leica.

First one is OM-1n, second and third are also the same. Fourth one is OM-2sp, because of spot-metering.

Until now I was very happy shooting with APX 100 and enlarging with Focomat Ic.


After few months, I was reading a lot here and often about tonal gradation. Bad day, I must say.

Result Rolleicord V, Rolleicord IIb and Holga 120GFN.

Right now, I feel so much of pain for not using enough of those gear.

 

[David Brown]

My theory is that most photographers are "process" photographers. They think the process, the materials, is what makes a photograph art, ie. platinum. "All my photographs are printed in platinum..."

The classic example is the photographer who buys an 8x10 camera, develops his film in Pyro, develops his prints in Amidol and mistakenly think that's why Edward Weston was Edward Weston. When they don't get the expected results, the complaint is always "oh, all the really good papers are gone. None of the materials we have available these days are suitable for me to express the power of my artistic vision." Which is, of course, complete nonsense.

Preach it, Brother!


As to the OP:

I agree that better gear is often easier to use and lasts longer. It won't make better pictures in and of itself, but it might help you to make better pictures. I feel this way about darkrooms, too. A comfortable and well equiped darkroom won't have you automatically making better prints, but it might entice you to spend more time there, which in turn just might lead to better work.

Photographers (or to use a better term for what we're discussing: "camera owners") are not alone in this. Know any woodworkers? I see a lot of them that spend thousands on high end tools and gadgets and spend most of their time making more tools and jigs for their shop, but never really create anything. Or, they just make yet more boxes, but with fancier joints.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For me, as an amateur, it is about having fun. I don't think my pictures made with 5x7 negatives are any better than 35mm, or vice versa. Technically, one can regurgitate endless arguments for a bigger negative, but I just don't care. If my pictures are not interesting enough, then I sure as hell won't blame my equipment for it.

I enjoy using the Leica because it's silky smooth and a hell of a piece of equipment. I enjoy using the Pentax 35mm because it's what I've used since I started. I enjoy using the Canon EOS-3 because it helps me get pin sharp focus every time with my failing eye sight. I enjoy using a Holga because it removes ALL of the bull$hit from the photographic process and makes me think only about the picture. I enjoy using the Hasselblad because that focusing screen is so beautiful to look at, and the resulting square pictures are something I like for landscape work. I enjoy using pinhole cameras because I literally have to let go of all control and try to truly see what's in front of the lens.

It's all good. If I was a professional I would want something that is reliable, repeatable, easily repaired and serviced, and something that can stand up to a little bit of abuse; things get dinged when you use them a lot.

All the same, negative from all the cameras above are treated with the same amount of respect, and I treat them all equally seriously in the darkroom. No matter what camera I use, I do the best that I can with it, and try to tell the best story that I can. The camera is, by far, the least important aspect of photography, as long as it works when I need it to work.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'd also add people with fancy stuff don't have a monopoly on snobbery. There are plenty of people using junk who have their noses in the air precisely because they are using junk.

 

[snapguy]

gear

I was a professional photog for many years -- in Hollywood, New York City, the Olympics, all major league sports, Presidential campaigns, Broadway backstage and the whole shebang. The guys (and they were mostly guys) who had the most expensive, shiny new cameras and lenses were usually the dentists and the doctors' sons. They would mostly stand around and try to look pretty and did not shoot much in the way of photos. Expensive or shiny new cameras does not mean diddly dick. There were plenty of top pros who carried cameras that looked downright shabby. Only results count, not how cool you look to the other dentists.

 

[Nuff]

Yes, you do need a Leica, I'm getting one myself I'm currently shopping for a body and I have lenses on the way.

Back on topic, I was very much into latest gear and I need this and that. All fo it would make my photos amazing. I was told this by the marketing teams and sales people and they would never lie to me. The photos were nice snapshots, but there were far from great.
I got my first film camera, I liked the results. Then I got a hasselblad, still the photos had nice look, but the photos were more of the same snapshots.

At this point I realised that wasn't the tools which made photos and best of the best couldn't create great photo for me. It had to start with me. So for the past 9 months or so, I have been educating myself about art and photography.

The End!

...or so I thought, I had a Leica itch for a while and just decided to scratch it :-/ I got the itch thanks to my photography research and liking photos by a fellow called Junku Nishimura. He uses old Leica Summarit lens and I really like that look. Here's his flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus/

Be warned, both approaches can result in buying more gear.

 

[removed account4]

I was a professional photog for many years -- in Hollywood, New York City, the Olympics, all major league sports, Presidential campaigns, Broadway backstage and the whole shebang. The guys (and they were mostly guys) who had the most expensive, shiny new cameras and lenses were usually the dentists and the doctors' sons. They would mostly stand around and try to look pretty and did not shoot much in the way of photos. Expensive or shiny new cameras does not mean diddly dick. There were plenty of top pros who carried cameras that looked downright shabby. Only results count, not how cool you look to the other dentists.

snapguy

you cut to the chase every time. when i lived in boston i used to buy things at a pro shop. actually i bought my first speed graphic there
back in the day ... and i was friendly with the sales staff ... and they used to say the same exact thing about their clients. the pros had
well worn, well healed well used equipment and the "dentists in newton" had the shiny stuff that looked good. and a printer friend who
used to print for pros and aspiring pros who had no darkrooms but were the equiv. of the soccer mom taking kid's lifestyle photos in the 1990s
used to give the printer the worst negatives imaginable, under exposed, over exposed blown highlights, nearly unprintable ... but all taken
with the tippity top of the line gear money could buy. the printer friend used to make the prints give them back and wonder if the next roll would be
just as bad as the last one ...

 

[eddie]

A good photographer makes cheap gear seem more expensive.

 

[removed account4]

Now I'm confused. Are you talking about shiny/pretty vs worn/battle-scarred, or high end vs low end?

It isn't the same thing. The pros may have well-worn equipment, but it is usually high quality stuff.

no,i am not
i am talking about exactly what i said in my opening post ...

 

[darkosaric]

John, here is something that I just saw on rangefinder forum: to make some laugh + expensive equipment in nice use .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTQ9WQCCFyQ