Not a question for camera enthusiasts, but for those into it for art

thomas

your list is a good one ..
cameras and lenses are just that, cameras and lenses. sometimes they lend themselves to
part of the "art" of an image, if the cameras and lenses have a signature look and the person using them
incorporates that into their method of working ... like using some sort of french landscape lens and large format camera
and a collodion negative and albumen print ( or gum over or ... ) the technique, lenses, cameras and everything are part of the entire process end to end
but sometimes using the camera and lens is just a means to get the foundation ( a negative or positive ) to work with to create something else ..
but i think you directed your post to the wrong crowd,
enthusiasts and artists are the same thing.
that said an "artist" can make "art" using the most meager of tools just like a chef can make a meal using a 300$ ironclad skillet or a few sheets of aluminum foil and hot coals

Well, I like to take the photograph with a camera and film of my choice and develop the negatives. Because I know what I have shot and in what lighting conditions. Thereafter, if I could afford it, I don't mind employing an Ansel quality printer, scanner expert, framer, worldwide promoter, as long as they don’t damage the negatives. Because if I don’t like what I see, I can repeat the process ad infinitum.

Having the best equipment means that I only have myself to blame for any imperfects.

jnanian said:

thomas

your list is a good one ..
cameras and lenses are just that, cameras and lenses. sometimes they lend themselves to
part of the "art" of an image, if the cameras and lenses have a signature look and the person using them
incorporates that into their method of working ... like using some sort of french landscape lens and large format camera
and a collodion negative and albumen print ( or gum over or ... ) the technique, lenses, cameras and everything are part of the entire process end to end
but sometimes using the camera and lens is just a means to get the foundation ( a negative or positive ) to work with to create something else ..
but i think you directed your post to the wrong crowd,
enthusiasts and artists are the same thing.
that said an "artist" can make "art" using the most meager of tools just like a chef can make a meal using a 300$ ironclad skillet or a few sheets of aluminum foil and hot coals

Click to expand...

+1 on that-the chef analogy is a really good one.

jnanian said:

but i think you directed your post to the wrong crowd,
enthusiasts and artists are the same thing.
that said an "artist" can make "art" using the most meager of tools just like a chef can make a meal using a 300$ ironclad skillet or a few sheets of aluminum foil and hot coals

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not really looking for any answers here. It's just curiosity, and stimulating discussion that might be of value to someone some day.

I too like that chef analogy. I think if our vision of what we want to achieve is clear enough, we'll get there no matter what camera or film we use. That 'concept', emotion, mood, design, or idea should be able to come through, irrespective of the tools used.
Of course it's nicer to work with a camera that's a good one, that we like, and that we know will perform. Of course. But if the camera, or lens signature, or film character ever becomes the idea, then I think artistically we are on very thin ice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomas Bertilsson said:

But if the camera, or lens signature, or film character ever becomes the idea, then I think artistically we are on very thin ice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

and that is as true for both sides of the street

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Of course it's nicer to work with a camera that's a good one, that we like, and that we know will perform. Of course. But if the camera, or lens signature, or film character ever becomes the idea, then I think artistically we are on very thin ice.

Click to expand...

I don't know that that's an absolute truth - someone could make art where the lens signature or film character are the point, but they'd have to have a pretty damn good justification for it not only in their artist's statement but also in the work itself. I think it would be nigh well impossible to pull it off, but I won't say it can't be done. Maybe they're producing a series of images that are all about a 19th century way of seeing, and using a 19th century lens to record images that have that look and feel is the point. But that would also be for most people I think rather uninteresting and an academic exercise. But some gallery might wax orgasmic over it - who knows. Being "meta" these days is all the rage in the art world.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Well, I'm not really looking for any answers here. It's just curiosity, and stimulating discussion that might be of value to someone some day.

Click to expand...

One approach might be to think in terms of the critical path, where all steps in the process carry equal weight and importance if the removal of any one of those steps prevents the final result from being realized.

To produce a meaningful piece of work, all of your originally listed criteria could be considered critical, as the removal of any one of those might reduce the final result from meaningful to mundane. But then the camera also falls equally on that same critical path. No camera, no photograph, no meaningful work. Even if all of the other steps are present. Same goes for the film inside the camera, the lens attached to the camera, and all of the other technical necessities of process.

On the other hand, let's say you own two identical cameras. Both expose negatives properly. But one is pristine and shiny, while the other is the beater "parts" camera. The choice of which one to pick up is not on the critical path. Either will do. Not having access to both in the creation of the work will not prevent the work from being created and, if the other critical path criteria are also present, meaningful.

In this sense, no one step is more or less important than any other, provided they are all required. They are all equally critical in an existential sense (the work cannot exist without all of them) and thus deserve equal attention by the work's creator.

Ken

The journey doesn't matter, it's only the destination which is artistically important. Everything else is just...

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

Ken,

Of course we assume a photographer has a camera, and having one is of course critical to making photographs (spare us the lumen print thing, please ).

My point is that as long as it works ok, ANY camera can be coaxed into carrying out our vision. It's a matter of applying oneself, our skill, our dedication, and hard work, and not let up until our creative energy tells us to stop. It's also about not letting tools be hindrances, or excuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I have long thought that the camera was the very least important part of the whole system of darkroom photography.
Does anybody agree with me? I'm not looking for sympathy, but it's rather a case of curiosity on my part.

Click to expand...

Well... since I've started making cameraless/filmless photographs, you know where I stand...
Still, when I'm using cameras/lenses, I like them to be ones I'm comfortable with using, and they're appropriate to what I'm trying to do.
I have seen, though, a tendency for some people to think they can't make the photographs they want until they get a certain lens/camera/etc. Instead of working with what they have, they don't pursue the project. I find this sad, and a cop out. In fact, I'm certain most of us started with a simple, modest camera system. It was working through the limitations which led to photographic growth.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I have long thought that the camera was the very least important part of the whole system of darkroom photography.
Does anybody agree with me? I'm not looking for sympathy, but it's rather a case of curiosity on my part.

Most important are these abilities/qualities of the photographer, in no particular order:
- The intellect
- Sense of design and composition
- Understanding light
- Emotional involvement
- Hard work and dedication to projects
- The ability to speak their voice and crystallize what they wish to express

After that comes printing skill and presentation, which helps carry forward the ideas the photographer had.
Then comes the skill of performing the other steps in the darkroom, into which I bunch film exposure, film processing, and spotting prints.
Finally, the choice of film and camera I find comes in a distant last place.

And, of course, if we want our art to be seen by others, we need to be good at business, but that's commerce and shouldn't be a part of the creative side. I believe that if one listens to the market first and then creates, it doesn't come from within. Art needs to be an expression of something that is borne out of passion or a desire to create and tell. It's not calculated to be profitable. If it is profitable, it's a lucky thing that somebody else liked the work enough to invest in it.

Click to expand...

Sorry.I can't fully agree.To me the camera is vert important.I'm mostly into studio prople photography and after trying a bunch of cameras,I finaly sttled on a Hasselblad system. No other camera felt so right for me.It's almost like anextension of my arm,connecting brain and shuter release;a pure joy to use,and therefore,most helpful in supporting the creative process;not to mention a negative quality,which truly supports fine-art work and prints to be proud of.My camera is very important to me.It and the photographer belong together like horse and jockey in a horse race. I do my best work when I feel this connection to my equipment.It's true love and it has to be to feel right.

RalphLambrecht said:

Sorry.I can't fully agree.To me the camera is vert important.I'm mostly into studio prople photography and after trying a bunch of cameras,I finaly sttled on a Hasselblad system. No other camera felt so right for me.It's almost like anextension of my arm,connecting brain and shuter release;a pure joy to use,and therefore,most helpful in supporting the creative process;not to mention a negative quality,which truly supports fine-art work and prints to be proud of.My camera is very important to me.It and the photographer belong together like horse and jockey in a horse race. I do my best work when I feel this connection to my equipment.It's true love and it has to be to feel right.

Click to expand...

Somebody breaks into your house, takes all your cameras, and you have no money to buy new ones. A good friend gives you a Pentax K1000 camera with a 50mm lens to use.
Would you simply not be able to bring forward your art and your ideas?

Now picture that there are people poor enough that a K1000 is all they can afford. Will they not be able to pursue photography as an art because they have a 'lesser' camera?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I have long thought that the camera was the very least important part of the whole system of darkroom photography.

Click to expand...

What you have done is attempt to break out some steps (cameras) in the photographic process of creating a work as being inherently less important than others. While I respect that in a relative sense this may be true for your own approach, in an absolute sense I believe that to be false.

Cameras cannot be lesser (nor greater) contributors in importance than the intellectual contributions, because both are required to realize a meaningful result. Thinking further about it, from a strictly logical point of view the opposite argument may in fact be more compelling.

Consider, one can certainly make a photograph without:

- The intellect
- Sense of design and composition
- Understanding light
- Emotional involvement
- Hard work and dedication to projects
- The ability to speak their voice and crystallize what they wish to express

But one cannot make a photograph without:

- A camera

(Lumen prints notwithstanding in this generalized example...)

Now I don't disagree that your list of enumerated intellectual contributions are critical. They most certainly are. But they are not a more important part of the whole process. Just an equal part of it.

"The hard part isn’t the decisive moment or anything like that. It’s getting the film on the reel." — John Szarkowski

Ken

Not A camera, Ken. To be a photographer you need to have one. It's the importance of THE camera (that you have).

It's THE camera you have available that captures light on film. It's not whether you have one or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that is not how you framed the topic. You said:

"...the camera was the very least important part of the whole system..."

I, and several others, gently disagree. In my case I think it's an equal (but not greater) part. Others appear to feel similarly. I also believe that the tools one uses to create something directly affect the essence of that creation.

Tools affect capability. Capability affects perception. Perception affects creativity. Creativity affects implementation. Implementation affects form. Form affects message. And message defines art.

Ken

So if I gave you an inexpensive 35mm camera, with a standard lens that is middle of the road, your work would also become less creative and perceptive?

I understand what you're saying, Ken. I do. But I don't agree (obviously), so I'm trying to see what it is about your favorite camera(s) that is enabling, with respect to creating art.

From my own standpoint, being as comfortable with the equipment as possible would be an important factor, to make the camera disappear from the work flow to such an extent that using it is borderline automatic, where I don't have to think about how to accomplish what I set out to do. That would be enabling.
I've been able to do that with little simple point and shoot cameras, with Pentax SLRs, my Hasselblad, a Holga, a pinhole camera, and a few others.

The camera is important only in the sense that it must not hinder the creative process. Every photographer works differently, which is why there is no one perfect camera. I'm currently dedicating all of my creative energy to a singular long-term project for the first time, and it's interesting how this has changed my perspective. The aspect of storytelling in photography transcends photography. Are my contact sheets generally supporting the story I wish to convey? What new material do I need? How many angles do I want to explore? The camera? That's the easy part.

Q. What is a photographer without a camera?
A. Not a photographer.

Q. What is a craftsman without a tool?
A. Up s**t creek without a paddle.

Q. What is a Photographer who thinks tools are un-important.
A. A Pseud.

Guard your tools with your life, without them you are nothing.

Tools provide the human race with the means to progress to a better life. Where would we be without the axe and and the pen?

Thomas Bertilsson said:

So if I gave you an inexpensive 35mm camera, with a standard lens that is middle of the road, your work would also become less creative and perceptive?

Click to expand...

No, of course not. But what I created would of necessity be different than if you had given me a 16x20 camera.

The tool of a 35mm camera carries with it certain strengths and weaknesses regarding its properties and behaviors. Things such as size, weight, number of frames available without reloading. Stuff like that. A 16x20 carries with it its own set of unique capabilities and constraints. Unique because the two are different and not the same.

Each of those sets of properties and behaviors affect what is possible to achieve with each camera. And what we can do (are allowed to do) with each camera affects how we perceive the world through it.

While I can certainly set up the 16x20 underneath the basket at an NBA game, the resulting photos will be entirely different than had I used my Nikon F2 w/motor drive, which itself would produce completely different results from the modern professional DSLR the Sports Illustrated guy is using.

Actually, not to belabor the point, but SI is an excellent example of tools affecting the final photographic message. I'm a 40+ year subscriber. In the beginning (early 70s) I signed up because I loved the photography. But now I continue only for the writing.

When SI made the jump to digital, the photography changed radically. It ceased being... substantive, for want of a better term. There was more shallow fluff and less intellectual depth.* At the beginning the eyes behind the cameras had not changed. They had simply migrated. And the games were still exactly the same, as they are governed by set rules.

What changed were the tools. The cameras. Specifically, the properties and behaviors of those cameras. And those changes affected how the SI photographers perceived the competitive sports world before them. What they could show of that world has always been directly related to their camera's capabilities. And those capabilities had radically changed. As a result, so did their pictures.

So sure, hand me a different camera than I am accustomed to using and I can still make photographs. And those photographs will still match my vision. But the implementation of that vision will be unavoidably altered. Because it's not the same camera. Not the same tool.

Hand Michelangelo a pneumatic chisel and David would unavoidably look different as well. My guess is that he might have been noticeably more detailed. Or he might have been completed quicker. Or he might have been larger. But he would not—could not—have looked exactly the same. Because he would have been created differently.

Ken

* For what it's worth, the acknowledged Greatest Sports Photograph In History, Muhammad Ali standing over and sneering down at a defeated Sonny Liston, was made at ringside by a then very young Neil Leifer using a Rolleiflex TLR. He knew the camera property was that he had only a handful of frames to work with, so he concentrated a lot harder...

IMHO cameras can be bought. The technical ability to use them can be taught.

Though necessary to the act of making a photograph they cannot be the prime ingredient. Pressing the shutter is actually quite a minor part of the process.

More important is the eye to recognize and appreciate that something will look interesting when printed.

But what I believe is even more important even than all of that is the patience and persistence to make it so.

I have found that there are big creative differences across formats, but not within formats.

How can I say that? I worked for years for a large photofinisher as a printer, chemical mixer and processor among other things. I looked at a lot of prints from different formats and from different cameras. I found that there was little difference among the 35mm pix and 120 pix, but the 35mm and 120 showed some difference in style (I guess you would call it). As you went up to 4x5 there was another style difference.

I saw the same thing in my own work and at Cape Canaveral. The smaller sizes seemed more spontaneous and the larger sizes were more "posed" I guess you would say. People tended to stop work or talk when they faced the authority of a 4x5 camera, photographer and assistant, no matter the type of 4x5. They hardly blinked at 35mm or 120. However, the 35mm and 120 did show distinct differences.

Looking at Nikon, Pentax, Petri, Kodak and other 35mm cameras, I saw little difference. The first 4 are ones I owned back then (and today), and the others were cameras of friends. Very similar work.

PE

did bostic and sullivan sell a 16x20 hobo ?
i think they did,and i am sure similar photographs could be made
using both a 35mm and a 16x20, this was certainly the case
with their handheld walk about 8x10 hobo + 35mm ... the main difference would be
the aspect ratio ...

thomas,
i am more than happy working with a pentaxK1000,
just used mine a few days ago ( been using it for 34 years ) and then a few mins later something else ..
i've made walk around stranger portraits with 5x7, 4x5 35mm and 6x6, they all look the same or similar,
and were equally as easy/difficult to make.
people are too hung up on gear, claiming it plays a huge part in the creative part of making photographs
.. you don't need to guard them with your life, its strange that people even would say that

The branding on the camera is irrelevant. But anyone as a photographer that tries to say the "camera" is unimportant, is deluded. You can't make a photograph without a camera. The camera is an essential part of the process and to suggest that essential part is unimportant is folly.
Some people like to stand on the shoulders of giants and then deny the existance of the giant that keeps them in place.

I didn't say it's unimportant. I said it's the least important. Big difference.
Sure you can't make a photo without one. I didn't argue that either. We assume you have a camera, because you are a photographer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk