Your camera is better than what AA and Weston used.

[Eric Rose]

It seems most agree it's not so much the equipment as the talent of the person using it. My question is, why is so much time spent on the mechanics of photography here on Photrio and almost none on the skill building required to advance a members photographic skills?

 

[Kino]

A few things they had that we don't is the luxury of fewer choices of gear and little of the distraction of marketing to the photographer as a consumer.

But then again, if you go research the era, there WERE plenty of photo magazines full of techno geeks endlessly trying combinations of film, developers and equipment, so maybe it all boils down to personal drive and skills.

Less is more; something I have yet to learn...

 

[Ian Grant]

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

Well in theory "Modern" post WWII coated and Multi-coated lenses are better. I bought my Agfa Ansco from a photography Professor in the US, he told me the original owner had been a student and later teacher at the Clarence white School of Photography who had bought the best US made 10x8 camera and lens available in 1940. He said the Dagor was old and useless and had separation - in fact it had years of dirt, no separation and had been coated after the war, he'd never tried it and used a Nikon 300mm M lens instead.

I have a Nikon 300mm M lens but use the Dagor, it's an excellent lens far better coverage than the Nikon, the only down side is it doesn't have flash sync.

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

I think we'd all agree, however there are cameras that can hinder creativity due to a lack of certain features, for instance a poor range of movements on an LF camera lice the Speed and later Crown Graphics, cameras with limited shutter speed ranges etc.

Ian

 

[mark]

I know someone who thinks both ed and ansel were horrid terribly boring hacks. He is in his late 60s now and an avid photographer most of this life. According to him they were just great marketers of their own work.

That being said, Michael Jordan could have rocked the court in a pair of Crocks. Talent, vision, and the desire to get yourself out there sets people apart. I bet there are people producing just as poignant images today who are content to just leave them on their computers or on their walls.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It seems most agree it's not so much the equipment as the talent of the person using it. My question is, why is so much time spent on the mechanics of photography here on Photrio and almost none on the skill building required to advance a members photographic skills?

It is easier to look up equipment features and talk about numbers than learn about composition. It is also easier to throw money than to study about art and perception. There are no bragging rights for knowing:

• Composition
• Art
• Perception

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well in theory "Modern" post WWII coated and Multi-coated lenses are better. I bought my Agfa Ansco from a photography Professor in the US, he told me the original owner had been a student and later teacher at the Clarence white School of Photography who had bought the best US made 10x8 camera and lens available in 1940. He said the Dagor was old and useless and had separation - in fact it had years of dirt, no separation and had been coated after the war, he'd never tried it and used a Nikon 300mm M lens instead.

I have a Nikon 300mm M lens but use the Dagor, it's an excellent lens far better coverage than the Nikon, the only down side is it doesn't have flash sync.




I think we'd all agree, however there are cameras that can hinder creativity due to a lack of certain features, for instance a poor range of movements on an LF camera lice the Speed and later Crown Graphics, cameras with limited shutter speed ranges etc.

Ian

An uncoated Dagor has similar contrast to a single coated Plasmat, a 'single" coated Dagor is comparable to a multicoated Plasmat. All of mine are uncoated, flare and contrast have never been an issue, even with color transparencies.
Your lens was probably coated either by Goerz or Burke & James, both offered coating services post war. Very nice find!

 

[Ian Grant]

My experience when I tested some Uncoated lenses two years ago was that an uncoated Dagor wasn't far off modern Multi-coated lenses in terms of contrast, so I'd agree. I bought a 1913 12cm Dagor in a small Compound which it appears had never been mounted on a camera or lens board, the seller had two other 1913 lenses - again unused they were listed for more despite being less desirable.

I don't use the term single coated because many coated lenses had more than one coating on each air/glass surface so in practice have multiple coatings. The problem is that modern Multi-Coating is really the equivalent to the Pentax Super Multi Coating developed with Carl Zeiss, but I have/had a Rodenstock 150mm Sironar with coating that's equally as good and pre-dates SMC.

Ian

 

[mshchem]

+ 10

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

I was trying to make a point about obsidian. They still use tiny obsidian blades for eye surgery . Anyway message received about firearms. I will be more careful. Peace , Mike

 

[Cholentpot]

I was trying to make a point about obsidian. They still use tiny obsidian blades for eye surgery . Anyway message received about firearms. I will be more careful. Peace , Mike

+ 10

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

To be fair, firearms and photography have a lot in common. A lot of crossover jargon has filtered through, not to mention techniques.

Here is The Atlantic describing 'ol Ansel

"Adams, standing beside the giant camera in his grizzled beard, wearing his camera vest of many pockets, looked like Hemingway with a new elephant gun"

 

[Peter Schrager]

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.

Ansel used,pack horses to carry his equipment

 

[Peter Schrager]

It seems most agree it's not so much the equipment as the talent of the person using it. My question is, why is so much time spent on the mechanics of photography here on Photrio and almost none on the skill building required to advance a members photographic skills?

Because it's a skill that is earned not given
Your first 10000 negatives are just practice
Trust me I know...
I purged lots of extra equipment six months ago ..do I miss it. .not...

 

[Arklatexian]

It is easier to look up equipment features and talk about numbers than learn about composition. It is also easier to throw money than to study about art and perception. There are no bragging rights for knowing:

• Composition
• Art
• Perception

+1

 

[Cholentpot]

Ansel used,pack horses to carry his equipment

US Army still uses mules and horses. Some terrain can't be driven over.

 

[Russ - SVP]

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/

Technology will never trump vision.

 

[Paul Howell]

Technology has it's place, I'm sure Robert Capa, Eugene Smith and Margaret Book-White would have though they had died and gone to heaven with a new pro level digital camera. What technology does not provide is talent and grit. We often overlook grit as a factor in success. Someone with great talent can just give up because he/she does not want to spent the time and energy developing their talent. On the other hand someone with out talent and a bucket load of grit can spend a career producing mundane images. AA had talent, a vision, (not that everyone likes his vision, a lot of people don't like Picasso) grit, and clear understanding of the technology available to him. He use densitometers, 1degree spot meters, updated his lens, used Polaroid, had prints made from Cibachrome. What would he have done with a Nikon D6 or Pentax 645D? Who knows.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well Ansel Adams used a Hasselblad, Moon and Half Dome for example. So I have a new model body and newer lenses, but the lens prescriptions have not significantly changed. He still could see compositions better than I will ever be able to.

 

[Paul Howell]

He used Contax 35mm rangefinders and later Nikon SLRs, moved from glass plates to film, in his latter years pretty much shot with a 4X5 and his Hasselblad. John Schaffer was president and latter president emeritus at the U of Arizona, learned the zone system from AA. He was the driving force in developing the Center for Creative Photography, wrote an update to AA books on the zone system, and obtained AA's negatives among others including Eugene Smith's for the Center for Creative Photography. He is a very gifted photographer, he shoots digital. I shoot film because its what I enjoy, if still working it would be digital.

 

[benjiboy]

Technology has it's place, I'm sure Robert Capa, Eugene Smith and Margaret Book-White would have though they had died and gone to heaven with a new pro level digital camera. What technology does not provide is talent and grit. We often overlook grit as a factor in success. Someone with great talent can just give up because he/she does not want to spent the time and energy developing their talent. On the other hand someone with out talent and a bucket load of grit can spend a career producing mundane images. AA had talent, a vision, (not that everyone likes his vision, a lot of people don't like Picasso) grit, and clear understanding of the technology available to him. He use densitometers, 1degree spot meters, updated his lens, used Polaroid, had prints made from Cibachrome. What would he have done with a Nikon D6 or Pentax 645D? Who knows.

I agree with you, but do you mean Margaret Bourke - White?.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with you, but do you mean Margaret Bourke - White?.

Can we call it an auto correction error and have the mods correct it?

 

[MattKing]

Or just consider it as having been corrected in thread.

 

[KerrKid]

I think Clyde Butcher does a good job with large format. It's not the wand, it's the magician.

 

[awty]

I think Clyde Butcher does a good job with large format. It's not the wand, it's the magician.

Clyde would do a "good job" with a box Brownie.
In fact if you cant take a good picture with a Brownie then you cant take a good picture.

 

[KerrKid]

Clyde would do a "good job" with a box Brownie.
In fact if you cant take a good picture with a Brownie then you cant take a good picture.

Yes, Clyde is no slouch. He probably started with a Brownie.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, Clyde is no slouch. He probably started with a Brownie.

I started with a Kodak Hawkeye Brownie camera too.