Photographic Snobbery & Other Annoyances...

[dslater]

why do they name boats?

Originally, superstition. Now - tradition

 

[Flotsam]

Since we all are labeled "Elitists" by many merely by our preference to use film, I say that we pull together and celebrate by Burning more film through our favorite Glass and Souping the results.

Seriously, I find it impossible to be a snob on APUG. No matter how knowledgeable you think you are or how special your equipment is, there will always many here whose experience and knowledge greatly surpasses yours both in range and depth and those who always have more expensive and esoteric equipment to drool over.

 

[jstraw]

I come here to be humbled. Everywhere else I go, my superiority is overwhelming. APUG cleanses my soul and karma.

 

[jovo]

I think I really annoyed one of my photo instructors in college by consitently answering "Nothing" when she'd ask me what a ceratin photo meant, or what I was feeling that inspired me to shoot it, during our classwide critiques.

It's curious that such forums usually require significant verbal skill, which is not part of the curriculum, to assess the relative success of visual outcomes. I suppose the often lampooned 'art speak' drivel may have come into being as a consequence!

 

[Roger Hicks]

... celebrate by Burning more film through our favorite Glass and Souping the results.

I'd meant to say earlier: there's an interesting variation in usage here. I've always understood 'burning' film to mean 'using lots of', not 'exposing'. This was certainly the usage when I first encoutered it in the 70s.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dave Miller]

Quite right Roger, but unless you can suggest an alternative use for film that has passed me by; don’t they amount to the same thing?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Quite right Roger, but unless you can suggest an alternative use for film that has passed me by; don’t they amount to the same thing?

Dear Dave,

Some seem to be using it to mean 'exposing any film, even a single sheet'.

Another use? Viewing solar eclipses...

Cheers,

R.

 

[IloveTLRs]

- No-name photogs who think anyone would possibly want to dish out hundreds or thousands of dollars their “limited edition” prints. Check any issue of B&W for a reference.

In a way. I dislike it when people in their signatures on message boards (doesn't matter where, but I've seen them mostly on computer-related ones) put: "Help me buy a D2Xs - BUY MY PHOTOS!!"

Or those who look down on you because your photo equipment is cheaper than theirs. There's a guy I work with who's like that - he's such a prick that I can't even talk to him :rolleyes:

 

[removed account4]

I get it, it's a bit like calling an inkjet print a Giclée print and not putting the accent in the correct place would be awfully vulgar

yah, they should just call them "spurt prints" and there
wouldn't be any accent trouble

 

[Dan Fromm]

In a way. I dislike it when people in their signatures on message boards (doesn't matter where, but I've seen them mostly on computer-related ones) put: "Help me buy a D2Xs - BUY MY PHOTOS!!"

Or those who look down on you because your photo equipment is cheaper than theirs. There's a guy I work with who's like that - he's such a prick that I can't even talk to him :rolleyes:

Well, there's cheap and then there's cheap.

I give Alpa (the new MF camera, not the old SLRs) apologists a hard time because I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon that cost, after all the wheeling and dealing ended, around $275 on a Century Graphic that cost, after ... , $80 with a $25 Adapt-A-Roll 620 roll holder.

Results matter, not money expended. And I get slightly more useful results than they do because I have better cropping choices.

At times I find it hard not to look down on people whose gear cost more than mine.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, there's cheap and then there's cheap.

I give Alpa (the new MF camera, not the old SLRs) apologists a hard time because I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon that cost, after all the wheeling and dealing ended, around $275 on a Century Graphic that cost, after ... , $80 with a $25 Adapt-A-Roll 620 roll holder.

Results matter, not money expended. And I get slightly more useful results than they do because I have better cropping choices.

At times I find it hard not to look down on people whose gear cost more than mine.

Cheers,

Dan

Dear Dan,

How do you have 'better cropping choices'? I can use any back up to 56x84mm on my Alpa 12 WA. And with my wife's 12 S/WA there's shift too.

There's also the point that a rigid bodied Alpa is quite a bit more precise than a Century Graphic, probably more consistent, and a great deal easier to use (I've had both). Then there's the film flatness of a modern 120 back against that of an elderly 620 back (again, I've owned that back). All this matters when shooting ultra-wides at anything bigger than about f/11. To top it all, the grips on the Alpa make it much easier to hand-hold the camera steady (Zeiss's tests vs. a Hasselblad SWC, not mine); I'd be surprised if the CG were as easy to hold steady.

None of this is to decry your choice: I greatly admire your ingenuity, and do not deny for an instant the value-for-money aspect of your approach. But I'd no more look down on your choice than (I hope) you'd look down on mine. Nor do I regard myself as an 'apologist' -- merely as someone who is fortunate enough to have an extremely fine camera.

Cheers,

Roger.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Roger, I don't look down on Alpa cameras. SLRs and MF cameras alike, Alpas are lovely artifacts. They are what they are, and they are very well made camera bodies.

But I do have to work not to look down on the people -- you're not among them -- who say that one can only get good results on 6x7 or 66x44 or whatever with an Alpa. They're in the same vessel, which I see as full of eels, as the people who insist that one can only get good results with a Leica RF.

More power to those who can afford Alpas and use them well.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[laverdure]

It is really refreshing when someone calls an inkjet an inkjet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But I do have to work not to look down on the people -- you're not among them -- who say that one can only get good results on 6x7 or 66x44 or whatever with an Alpa. They're in the same vessel, which I see as full of eels, as the people who insist that one can only get good results with a Leica RF.

Dear Dan,

At the very least, I am deeply suspicious of such people. It is possible that their vision is so finely attuned, there sensibilities so refined, that they are telling the truth. It may be that they have such immense sympathy with their camera that they are telling the truth. It is however vastly more likely that they're rich twits...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Shawn Rahman]

In a way. I dislike it when people in their signatures on message boards (doesn't matter where, but I've seen them mostly on computer-related ones) put: "Help me buy a D2Xs - BUY MY PHOTOS!!":

Wow - if I ever saw something like that quote I think I'd never stop throwing up.

I saw something this weekend that made me laugh out loud. How can someone justify selling prints at $4K-$5K as limited editions, especially since they are printed on inkjet printers? I mean, isn't this, after photoshopping, just hitting the print button 6 or 7 more times? I am really trying to understand the logic behind the pricing.

 

[kb244]

Wow - if I ever saw something like that quote I think I'd never stop throwing up.

I saw something this weekend that made me laugh out loud. How can someone justify selling prints at $4K-$5K as limited editions, especially since they are printed on inkjet printers? I mean, isn't this, after photoshopping, just hitting the print button 6 or 7 more times? I am really trying to understand the logic behind the pricing.

It's basically assuming they'll keep their word on the limitation of the print, as it has been with traditional printing, you pretty much always gota trust the artist is only going to print x number of prints. Kinda like how some artist will limit the editions to 25, or 48 prints etc, and then scratch the negative after the last print (don't think I could ever do that).

*Shrugs*.

What makes me kinda grin is when someone sells a bunch of Glicee original prints of the same thing. (Course they're all 'originals'... )

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dear Dan,

At the very least, I am deeply suspicious of such people. It is possible that their vision is so finely attuned, there sensibilities so refined, that they are telling the truth. It may be that they have such immense sympathy with their camera that they are telling the truth. It is however vastly more likely that they're rich twits...

Cheers,

Roger

Roger, this may be true of some people who swear by their Alpa 12s. But it isn't true of all Leica nuts, they may be twits but some of them aren't rich.

Used Alpas are scarce and very dear. Used Leicas are much more abundant ...

I remain puzzled by the "it is impossible to take a good picture with any camera but a Leica" claim because I've found that my humble little Graphics, which were priced more or less at par with Leicas when new, produce negatives, when used with care, that can be printed larger than negatives taken with a Leica, also used with care. Why fight with equipment and film processing to get the most possible out of a small negative when a so-so larger negative will yield a larger print? Yes, I understand the charm of Leicas' relatively small size, relative quietness, encouragement of spontaneity, ... But I'm still baffled by the claims made for them.

Yes, I know, my vision is out of tune and my sensibilities are crude. If I were allowed alcohol, I'd be a beer-drinking slob. As is, I have to get along as a non-beer-drinking slob.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[jstraw]

Roger, this may be true of some people who swear by their Alpa 12s. But it isn't true of all Leica nuts, they may be twits but some of them aren't rich.

Used Alpas are scarce and very dear. Used Leicas are much more abundant ...

I remain puzzled by the "it is impossible to take a good picture with any camera but a Leica" claim because I've found that my humble little Graphics, which were priced more or less at par with Leicas when new, produce negatives, when used with care, that can be printed larger than negatives taken with a Leica, also used with care. Why fight with equipment and film processing to get the most possible out of a small negative when a so-so larger negative will yield a larger print? Yes, I understand the charm of Leicas' relatively small size, relative quietness, encouragement of spontaneity, ... But I'm still baffled by the claims made for them.

Yes, I know, my vision is out of tune and my sensibilities are crude. If I were allowed alcohol, I'd be a beer-drinking slob. As is, I have to get along as a non-beer-drinking slob.

Cheers,

Dan

There is simply no consensus as to the definition of "a good picture." I know that I make very good pictures with my Holga. Other's know that I'm deluded.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, this may be true of some people who swear by their Alpa 12s. But it isn't true of all Leica nuts, they may be twits but some of them aren't rich.

Used Alpas are scarce and very dear. Used Leicas are much more abundant ...

I remain puzzled by the "it is impossible to take a good picture with any camera but a Leica" claim because I've found that my humble little Graphics, which were priced more or less at par with Leicas when new, produce negatives, when used with care, that can be printed larger than negatives taken with a Leica, also used with care. Why fight with equipment and film processing to get the most possible out of a small negative when a so-so larger negative will yield a larger print? Yes, I understand the charm of Leicas' relatively small size, relative quietness, encouragement of spontaneity, ... But I'm still baffled by the claims made for them.

Yes, I know, my vision is out of tune and my sensibilities are crude. If I were allowed alcohol, I'd be a beer-drinking slob. As is, I have to get along as a non-beer-drinking slob.

Cheers,

Dan

Dear Dan,

I'd be surprised if there were more than about 2000 Alpas in existence, so Leicas are a lot easier to come by. Leica is currently building more cameras per month -- possibly, more per week -- than Alpa builds in a year.

As for Leicas, I've been using them for well over 30 years and I just like them more than any other 35mm camera, ever. They are the most 'transparent' cameras I've ever used, in that even when I started, I didn't need to think much about using them, and now, I hardly have to think at all. Sure, I've had and still have other 'transparent' 35mm cameras, especially Nikon F (but too big and heavy) and Pentax SV (but the lenses aren't as good) but I don't think my fondness for Leicas is irrational -- and I'm willing to believe that others feel the same way.

Even so, I'd say that anyone who buys a Leica other than as a sublime camera, or (possibly, for older and weirder ones -- Leicas not people, or then again...) as a collectible has to be rich, if not a twit, and anyone who reckons he can only get good pics with ANY one camera should be viewed with suspicion -- especially Holga owners. I'm sure even jstraw (previous post) would admit that he can get good pics with other cameras as well.

But de gustibus non disputandum est.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

They are the most 'transparent' cameras I've ever used, in that even when I started, I didn't need to think much about using them, and now, I hardly have to think at all.

Sadly, the most "transparent" camera I have is even rarer than Alpas. It's the Carbon Infinity 4x5"...

But I don't believe that that automatically gives me better pictures, or "Art" for that matter. The Speed Graphic gets just as much use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sadly, the most "transparent" camera I have is even rarer than Alpas. It's the Carbon Infinity 4x5"...

But I don't believe that that automatically gives me better pictures, or "Art" for that matter. The Speed Graphic gets just as much use.

Dear Ole,

I remember those when they came out. On very limited acquaintance (at shows) I found them some way from intuitive. Which argues (a) for practice and (b) that different cameras suit different people.

As fo rarity, yes, I'd be surprised if there were one-tenth as many Carbon Infinity cameras as MF Alpas. Then again, the Imperial 11x14 is even rarer -- as far as I recall, there were six made in the early 1980s, of which Terence Donovan bought two. But I saw one being rebuilt at Gandolfi a few years ago.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ole]

It took me a bit of fumbling to get used to the camera, but once that was done I found it lets me work directly on the image without thinking about the camera at all - the only perfectly transparent LF camera I've tried. Of course the knowledge that whatever movements I end up using will be well within the limits of the camera is a big help - the bellows are long enough to let me use the rear cell of a 240/420 Symmar convertible without problems, and compact enough to use a 65mm with movements.

I believe there were 80 of these made; mine is no. 64, and one of the few that has ever been used for photography...

 

[IloveTLRs]

Well, there's cheap and then there's cheap.

Results matter, not money expended. And I get slightly more useful results than they do because I have better cropping choices.

Definitely. I think if one is a cheapo-tightwad-total-cheapskate to begin with, then photography isn't something to be getting into. That said though, I've been able to get results with very low-cost equipment. For example my Diacord cost me $40 (has a broken film counter) and it's taken some photos that have knocked my socks off on more than one occasion (then again it could just be the TMAX 400 ) Even the guy at the shop was surprised when photos came out real nice.

If I can get the results I want with cheap equipment, then I'll buy the cheap equipment. My Diacord was cheap, my scratched-up Nikon FM was $50 (works great), my Retina 1a was about $60 and it taken beautiful photos, etc, etc. Why should I blow $3000 on an M3 when I can take photos I want with something that costs less than 1/10 the price?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Why should I blow $3000 on an M3 when I can take photos I want with something that costs less than 1/10 the price?

If the M3 just works better for you or it does something for you that other cameras don't, and you can afford it, then you buy it and it isn't blowing money on it at all. If you buy it just because it's an M3, and it never gets used, then it is blowing money.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

If the M3 just works better for you or it does something for you that other cameras don't, and you can afford it, then you buy it and it isn't blowing money on it at all. If you buy it just because it's an M3, and it never gets used, then it is blowing money.

It seems as if this thread should be joined at this point to the "urge to ruin collectibles" thread, to form an endless loop or a mobius strip.

kt