Your camera is better than what AA and Weston used.

[Eric Rose]

While I have this in the digital area (sure to be ignored by 90% 0f Photrio members) my analog cameras and lenses are better imaging devices than what Weston used for sure and my newer Blad and Rollei stuff was better than what AA was using, My LF lenses are better than what either used.

Sadly at the end of the day have we produced anything with the staying power of the old Masters? Many try and imitate AA and Weston, but has anyone taken it a step further?

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/23/your-camera-is-better-than-what-legendary-photographers-used/

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Define "better". Thomas Earnshaw invented the modern marine chronometer using a treadle lathe, bow driven turns, and a superlative brain, in the late 18th century. I have better machine tools than Thomas ever dreamed of, also I have the type of tools he used 250 years ago and know how to use them. I'm not inventing anything, must be the brain thing...
Ansel and Edward were not only craftsmen but artists. The equipment they used will do the same today in the right hands.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The equipment is better. Your question comes down to is there anyone who can equal or beat their compositions repeatedly. I think that we are too close to present day work but in the future people looking back will be able to decide.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Cameras and technology have improved, but not the "photographers" that boldly take credit for the camera -- the bundle of technology that does all the decision-making for them, and that's the critical difference with the masters of old: they knew how to make a photograph based on skill and experience with even the most basic equipment compared to what we have today.

 

[faberryman]

It's never really been about the cameras.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Cameras and technology have improved, but not the "photographers" that boldly take credit for the camera -- the bundle of technology that does all the decision-making for them, and that's the critical difference with the masters of old: they knew how to make a photograph based on skill and experience with even the most basic equipment compared to what we have today.

Those improvements have mostly to do with convenience. Convenience isn't skill and talent.

 

[removed account4]

the funny thing about photography websties + photographers is that 90%+ of them
believe its all about the gear /gear fetishes, gear obsessions &c. the gear is tangible, lenses you can hold in your hands
cameras you can play with and oogle and fondle and have a glass of pino on the bearskin rug with
but its all ( or a lot of it at least ) a distraction.

 

[mshchem]

Just say you have a nice .357 Smith and Wesson revolver. How would you like to come face to face with 7 Inca warriors armed with obsidian blade tipped lances. Old don't necessarily mean that something is lesser. BTW I wouldn't want to have an encounter with Inca warriors without the 82nd airborne .

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just say you have a nice .357 Smith and Wesson revolver. How would you like to come face to face with 7 Inca warriors armed with obsidian blade tipped lances. Old don't necessarily mean that something is lesser. BTW I wouldn't want to have an encounter with Inca warriors without the 82nd airborne .

Just use a real gun, say a .45 Long Colt, and line a couple up. A Walker with 230 grn conical bullets might get you three in a row.
Or go "modern" with a m1911. Chance favors the prepared.

 

[Cholentpot]

The classic master did something that may not be done as much these days. They exploited their equipment and wrung every drop out of it.

How many of us here have wrecked havoc with our cameras? Do we experiment or follow the established rules? These old timers did not have the luxury that we do now, they had to experiment and invent methods because that was the only way they can get results that they needed. Kind of like pop music back in the day. Censors and the public came down with a heavy hand on what they thought was divisive. Musicians had to get creative thereby leading to more interesting work.

 

[mshchem]

Just use a real gun, say a .45 Long Colt, and line a couple up. A Walker with 230 grn conical bullets might get you three in a row.
Or go "modern" with a m1911. Chance favors the prepared.

My Grandad bought a 1911 brand new in 1917, I still have it . As it's all original it's no Gold Cup, from 35 feet on in pretty handy to have. I'm no warrior though so I stay back let the pros handle the gunplay. I have a dbl. action Ruger GP 100 4 In. Stainless in .357. I can reach out with that, but like I said I don't even shoot rabbits. Sure is fun on soup cans .

 

[Eric Rose]

Hey guys if you want to talk guns start your own thread please.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Those old masters proved that it's not the gear, but the person standing behind the camera that matters.

 

[MattKing]

One shouldn't discount the fact that not only are my cameras "better" than what AA and Weston used, they are also way more available to the multitudes than those used by AA and Weston.
Not to mention the quality of the films available.
At least part of the tremendous contribution of AA and Weston arises from the fact that their contributions are measured against what was happening then, and what had gone before. And the relatively primitive nature of the equipment and materials available then factors into that.

 

[mshchem]

What amazes me is the hard work, patience, packing everything, sleeping in the woods or in an old truck. Waiting for light, and of course these guys did the darkroom work. Really beyond my stamina even as a kid. I would like to try to do more landscape work , I've never been patient enough to just sit for hours waiting for just the right light.
I think more than equipment ,these types had stamina.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I would like to try to do more landscape work , I've never been patient enough to just sit for hours waiting for just the right light.

This — having the patience of a hindu cow, is an integral part of the discipline of landscape photography if you want to stand out and get an image that is different to the ordinary, every day run-of-the-mill stuff.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

While I have this in the digital area (sure to be ignored by 90% 0f Photrio members) my analog cameras and lenses are better imaging devices than what Weston used for sure and my newer Blad and Rollei stuff was better than what AA was using, My LF lenses are better than what either used.

Sadly at the end of the day have we produced anything with the staying power of the old Masters? Many try and imitate AA and Weston, but has anyone taken it a step further?

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/23/your-camera-is-better-than-what-legendary-photographers-used/

Meh. I have more than one state of the art digital camera. They have their uses for sure, however, I’ve found myself preferring to use older, simpler cameras, especially for personal stuff. Paid work tends to require a much faster turnaround time than what I can realistically do with film, so for a lot of paid stuff it’s digital all the way, though, I stick the camera in manual mode and turn off the auto iso crap and meter with a light meter and manually light just like I would with film. It’s not uncommon to walk out of a job with only a handful of images plus a couple backup images. I’m not one of those spray and pray types that shoots a ridiculous number of images hoping to have a few good ones. I cringe whenever I see one of those when out and about. Have fun spending half your life reviewing a ton of crap photos trying to find one or two you can use.

All that being said, I’m no Ansel or Weston, but over the years, I’ve had more than a couple of people tell me I’m not a slouch photographically speaking. It’s not really about the gear. Good gear definitely helps, but basic functionality is the only real hardware requirement. It’s far more important to have a good eye for what would make a good picture, and for more artistic stuff, having a vision definitely helps.

 

[juan]

My Wehman 8x10 may be a little better, but my lens is not. It’s a Rapid Rectilinear triple convertible made no later than 1917. Using orthochromatic X-ray film, I should be able to duplicate the masters, right?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My Wehman 8x10 may be a little better, but my lens is not. It’s a Rapid Rectilinear triple convertible made no later than 1917. Using orthochromatic X-ray film, I should be able to duplicate the masters, right?

Right!
For 8x10 it's a 65 year old Deardorff, the 54th built with front swings, and a set of Dagors made between 1904 and 1925.
So I'm right on the mark.
Btw never discount a Rapid Rectilinear, Weston used one for his peppers series. They have gorgeous smooth contrast and the central zone is as sharp as any Plasmat.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

What amazes me is the hard work, patience, packing everything, sleeping in the woods or in an old truck. Waiting for light, and of course these guys did the darkroom work. Really beyond my stamina even as a kid. I would like to try to do more landscape work , I've never been patient enough to just sit for hours waiting for just the right light.
I think more than equipment ,these types had stamina.

Very good point. People expected to work patiently for good results, something we have forgotten with the instant gratification based pop "culture" (which really belongs in a Petri dish).

 

[Ian Grant]

My camera is a similar late 1930s model 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View camera to the ones used by Edward Weston and also Ansel Adams, it came with a 12" Goerz Am Opt Dagor. So no better or worse the same

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

There are no "creative cameras" contrary to what the camera manufacturers advertising agencies copywriters would have you believe, there are only "creative photographers ".

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My camera is a similar late 1930s model 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View camera to the ones used by Edward Weston and also Ansel Adams, it came with a 12" Goerz Am Opt Dagor. So no better or worse the same

Ian

As I'm sure you know, there is no "modern" gear that will be significantly better than what you already have.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Those improvements have mostly to do with convenience. Convenience isn't skill and talent.

And interlocks so that it is harder to screw up.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just say you have a nice .357 Smith and Wesson revolver. How would you like to come face to face with 7 Inca warriors armed with obsidian blade tipped lances. Old don't necessarily mean that something is lesser. BTW I wouldn't want to have an encounter with Inca warriors without the 82nd airborne .

Just use a real gun, say a .45 Long Colt, and line a couple up. A Walker with 230 grn conical bullets might get you three in a row.
Or go "modern" with a m1911. Chance favors the prepared.

My Grandad bought a 1911 brand new in 1917, I still have it . As it's all original it's no Gold Cup, from 35 feet on in pretty handy to have. I'm no warrior though so I stay back let the pros handle the gunplay. I have a dbl. action Ruger GP 100 4 In. Stainless in .357. I can reach out with that, but like I said I don't even shoot rabbits. Sure is fun on soup cans .

Hey guys if you want to talk guns start your own thread please.

+ 10

We do not fill up your gun websites with photography. Show some respect.