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

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[Ian Leake]

I think the camera is important because it's part of the end-to-end creative process. But it's only important to the artist. The art buyer probably couldn't care less.

Having said that, I completely agree with your prioritisation: having something to say and having the skill to make something of value are far more important than the camera.

 

[Ian Grant]

In some ways I disagree, the camera and the accompanying lens(es) are important but not to the degree that it becomes obsessional. They are a key tool on the process.

To me choice of format and then camera is important at the outset of any photographic project or session. But I think that one has to treat them as tools, no amount of automation will help you take better images, in fact it may lead to mediocrity.

Essentially I've used one main camera (a 5x4 field camera) for just short of 30 years & many of my lenses for around the same length of time. However I do use other formats and sometimes that choice is made before going out shooting, so I see this decision as far more important, choice of film comes next as often that's all I'll have loaded.

For me sense of place comes next, and the way I approach that place, even the routes I take having an effect on my mood and frame of mind, that's the emotional involvement.

Ian.

 

[baachitraka]

The camera and lens together are used to apply those points you have mentioned, in Photography.

 

[trythis]

For art, its what the artist decides. If its all about the camera and the shot at the moment for them, thats what its about. If its process and chemicals, or the relationship with customers, thats fine too. Trying to define what is important to yourself can be your artistic exploration and if you decide on a path that works its fine.

If you make money, publish books and people know you and that makes you happy, thats success to most because you get Paid to do it.

Does any of that matter? Sounds like a job for a psychotherapist getting their phd.


Sent with typotalk

 

[DannL.]

The tools & processes that I use are essential to the "look" of my prints.

 

[blansky]

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.

For those that agree and aspire to the notion that photography is some kind of art form, then the most important aspect of the process is the brain of the author. And this encompasses his life experience, his moral compass, his natural talent and everything he consciously does to make it possible for his brain to communicate his "art" to other people. Which obviously includes training, and mastering of equipment and technique.

Alternately if a person enjoys photography for other reasons, like fun to do, makes lots of money, gets him out of the house, love tinkering with "machines" or a myriad of other reasons then that's another story.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Nobody cares what brand of tools or paint Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo used. For that matter, nobody cares what brand of paint or brush Francis Bacon, David Hockney, or Andy Warhol used either (well, except for the art historians and/or pissed off buyers who bought early Hockneys that he made with house paint that are fading and/or flaking off the canvases). Those things, while historically important to know for archival and/or art historical purposes, have no real bearing on the artistic value of the image (I was going to say aesthetic value, but you wouldn't use a Holga if you wanted to make a picture that looked like what a Hasselblad or Rollei would do, and vice versa). Yes, an image made with my Rolleiflex will look different than an image made with my Canham 5x7 with the Hermagis Eidoscope mounted on it, because the lenses have very different signatures. But from an artistic perspective, it doesn't matter so long as the aesthetic rendering of the image is appropriate to the message I want the image to convey. Ultimately the measure of my success as an artist will be whether I used my tools appropriately to convey the message I wanted with maximum clarity, not whether I used a specific tool to convey the message.

 

[darkosaric]

For me it is simple: it camera is reliable, easy to use and you don't think about the camera at all - then camera stops to be important. But those characteristic I have found only in Leica M's, Nikon F, F2, F3 and Holga/Diana cameras.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For me it is simple: it camera is reliable, easy to use and you don't think about the camera at all - then camera stops to be important. But those characteristic I have found only in Leica M's, Nikon F, F2, F3 and Holga/Diana cameras.

This is how I feel too. When I use my Hasselblad or Pentax 35mm cameras, I don't have to think about what I do. The less I have to think about my camera, the more I can connect with what's in front of the lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[winger]

Which camera it is matters much less than whether the photographer knows how to use it to the best of its capabilities. Ditto for type of film, developer, etc... Each go into the final result, but the brain and heart of the photographer are much more involved in the creation of that result.

 

[MattKing]

I'd be willing to bet that if you put a bunch of really creative photographers in a room, you would get a bunch of different, individual responses to your question.

For some people, the interaction between themselves and their tools is fundamental to their creative process. For others, they could rent a different camera each week, and it just wouldn't matter.

You could ask the same question, in essence, on a forum for musicians and get the same sort of variety of answers.

In my case, there are some cameras that are problematic for me to operate, while others are easy to operate. The easy to operate cameras are important to my realizing what my creative interests envision.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the camera is important because it's part of the end-to-end creative process. But it's only important to the artist. The art buyer probably couldn't care less.

Having said that, I completely agree with your prioritisation: having something to say and having the skill to make something of value are far more important than the camera.

In some ways I disagree, the camera and the accompanying lens(es) are important but not to the degree that it becomes obsessional. They are a key tool on the process.

To me choice of format and then camera is important at the outset of any photographic project or session. But I think that one has to treat them as tools, no amount of automation will help you take better images, in fact it may lead to mediocrity.

Essentially I've used one main camera (a 5x4 field camera) for just short of 30 years & many of my lenses for around the same length of time. However I do use other formats and sometimes that choice is made before going out shooting, so I see this decision as far more important, choice of film comes next as often that's all I'll have loaded.

For me sense of place comes next, and the way I approach that place, even the routes I take having an effect on my mood and frame of mind, that's the emotional involvement.

Ian.

The camera and lens together are used to apply those points you have mentioned, in Photography.

There is a pattern here. The camera is important. Some try to diminish the importance of the camera, but if the camera has poor optics the photographer is limited.

 

[doughowk]

For me, the decision as to which format is paramount to my work. If I happen to chose 4X5 or smaller, the remaining process will be enlarging. If 5X7 or larger, then contact printing. The actual camera chosen is of far less importance. Format determines my workflow and even to some extent the resulting aesthetic value of the results (ie, I value a pt/pd print over a silver print). But that's just me and my limitations.

 

[fotch]

The camera, lens, film, is a tool. Its up to the artist or user to choose the tools. Not that much different that if you were racing cars, what would you choose, what vehicle, tires, oils, etc. Or a painter, what media, paint, etc.

Some photographers are more like a mechanic rather than an artist.

Both produce pictures.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I really appreciate reading everybody's responses and takes on the subject.

I guess I should have clarified that the camera is important to me kind of like how a train is important to a commuter. It has to work or things fall apart.

@ SiriusGlass - I have seen wonderful things done with poor optics. I'm sure it can be thought of as a limitation, but I opine it can actually help someone work harder in overcoming those limitations in their pursuit, where the hard work pays off more than better optics.
Limitations can be a good thing, if we let them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ko.Fe.]

First of all, I read OP's OP. Just in case.

It seems to be the same old thing about "not the camera thing" here...
So, same to apply:

I'm into photography as the art of documenting the moment. But I would love to try lith printing as well.

Now, tell me.
Why Karsh used 8x10 and only one camera. Why GW and HCB went with Leica, but Jane Bown used OM and Vivian Maier spend her time with Rolleiflex?

My answer is - finding the camera system which set you unobstructed at your own creative part (art).

I can't use SLR, TLR, field/studio LF and very plastic toy cameras. I'm into RF and not so primitive scale focusing cameras. Why?
Because only with those I'm able to get the images of the moments I'm into.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[baachitraka]

Even a very good camera and lens is limited in a strict sense.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@ SiriusGlass - I have seen wonderful things done with poor optics. I'm sure it can be thought of as a limitation, but I opine it can actually help someone work harder in overcoming those limitations in their pursuit, where the hard work pays off more than better optics.
Limitations can be a good thing, if we let them.

I took some really memorable photographs with my Brownie Hawkeye camera. In fact I still have one of its photographs displayed in my home. I just do not like the inflated superiority of some of those who put down and insult those of us who have chosen to use their resources to buy some upscale equipment.

 

[blansky]

It always a matter of degree, how much the tools are important to the communicator.

Some say they couldn't communicate at all without specific tools and others say the tools are just that, tools.

And most are in the middle.

Someone said they do xxx type of print and couldn't do it without the tool. But does using xxx type of print change the communication or just the communicator.

So maybe a question to ask is could you as an "artist" communicator succeed in your communication, if you were forced to use the only tool available, just handed to you.

Or would you feel so inadequate and unfulfilled that you would not communicate at all.

Because if your work is defined by the process/tool, then are you a communicator or are you something else.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I took some really memorable photographs with my Brownie Hawkeye camera. In fact I still have one of its photographs displayed in my home. I just do not like the inflated superiority of some of those who put down and insult those of us who have chosen to use their resources to buy some upscale equipment.

No insult intended. I love the feel of a well made camera, or any other 'thing'. You can work just as hard with a Hasselblad as you can a Holga.

I guess my focus is on the imagination of photographers, especially those who don't have the means to buy expensive cameras. Too many people getting hung up on things that are technical in nature, when they should be encouraged to create with what they have, and make good art. It doesn't have to be sharp corner to corner to be good work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So maybe a question to ask is could you as an "artist" communicator succeed in your communication, if you were forced to use the only tool available, just handed to you.

Or would you feel so inadequate and unfulfilled that you would not communicate at all.

Because if your work is defined by the process/tool, then are you a communicator or are you something else.

That is at the very heart of my thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sirius Glass]

No insult intended.

None taken.

I love the feel of a well made camera, or any other 'thing'. You can work just as hard with a Hasselblad as you can a Holga.

I guess my focus is on the imagination of photographers, especially those who don't have the means to buy expensive cameras. Too many people getting hung up on things that are technical in nature, when they should be encouraged to create with what they have, and make good art. It doesn't have to be sharp corner to corner to be good work.

Ever since I started on APUG I have carefully followed your discussion on Leica and Leica compatible equipment. I choose in the 1960's that I preferred slrs to rf cameras even though I envy the feel of a Leica. I have been thinking about buying a Leica, but other than the feel of the Leica a Leica for me would not bring anything new to what I have. So I just read about them on APUG.

 

[Ian Grant]

There is a pattern here. The camera is important. Some try to diminish the importance of the camera, but if the camera has poor optics the photographer is limited.

It's the format and type of camera that's important rather then the make or model itself. The camera has to be an extension of our vision so choice needs to be informed by experience. It's like a painter or sculptor choosing their medium.

It's about having artistic freedom when you're actually shooting, it's something I gave some thought to this summer and brought up during a talk I gave last month. I don't compose with the camera I do it by moving into a situation, watching how perspectives and the spatial juxtaposition of the components change as I move (rarely in a straight line) so I'm scouting for my final position subconsciously. When you know you're equipment it's second nature and I've found that invariably that first position is the one that works best and need very little fine tuning when I get the camera setup and view the scene. I'll also have chosen what lens to use.

Of course there may well be other images to be made but it's instinct.

Ian

 

[jovo]

...So maybe a question to ask is could you as an "artist" communicator succeed in your communication, if you were forced to use the only tool available, just handed to you.
Or would you feel so inadequate and unfulfilled that you would not communicate at all.
Because if your work is defined by the process/tool, then are you a communicator or are you something else.

Except for the very top echelon of concert pianists, the touring soloist is stuck with whatever instrument the concert venue can provide. The only contractual obligation is that the instrument be in tune for the performance. One night it may be a Steinway, and the next a Baldwin or a Yamaha or Bosendorfer (rarely). And the soloist must also deal with concert halls that vary widely in every possible way adjusting his/her playing on the spot to adapt to an unfamiliar instrument in an unfamiliar hall. But, they do, and succeed. Only when they practice at home do they savor the luxury of their own instrument with its particular action and sonority.

Of course every photographer is likely to have a preferred camera, but the best of them should be able to use whatever is at hand. As we all know, it's the photographer not the camera that counts the most.