Rangefinder photography legends.

Henri-cartier bresson, friendlander, eggleston, winogrand, ghirri, nan goldin, robert frank...etc. If the legends of photography have taught

us anything, it was to keep it simple. To stick with what you know techniqually/atmospherically and to study how we actually see the

things we look at. With all this advice from the masters of photography why do you think some people still don't get it? Why do people

care so much about new cameras, lenses, megapixels, paper, printers, the new hot whatever...

<blockquote>

<p>Why do people care so much about new cameras, lenses, megapixels, paper, printers, the new hot whatever...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Plenty of people don't, regardless of what they use. Rangefinder has nothing to do with it.<br>

<br />However, many old school photographers cared a lot about their lenses, new films and papers, new processes, etc. etc. Not sure why you think they don't/didn't.</p>

Actually the people I mentioned, found what they needed and stuck with it. They cared a lot more about photography and

seeing differently than technical data sheets or lens resolution.

<p>Jeff can be right from time to time and I would say he is right in this instance. The legends you have named used the best cameras and lenses of their time. They are not using my cheapskate old manual gear mounted on old DSLR or mirrorless bodies. They also had good printers if they didn't do it themselves. Once you get to know your equipment intimately you feel a little more free. Also, having some sort of expectation of the final result tends to make you veer towards that direction.</p>

You guys are missing the point entirely. No matter what camera they used, it wasn't about the equipment it was about

seeing.

When you are young or badly funded, the name of the game is bang for the buck. When you get older, if you are better

funded you probably want what you are more comfortable with. Plus the gear is neat, why not appreciate it?

Okay, I've woken up the tech heads, I'm out of this thread. You're changing the composition of this thread to a technical

redundant one.. Before I leave here is a great quote.

 

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them

and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying

with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that

is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."- Edward Weston

<blockquote>

<p>You guys are missing the point entirely. No matter what camera they used, it wasn't about the equipment it was about seeing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If so, why place this thread in the Leica and RF forum? Isn't your very thread title predicated on rangefinder photography and its legends a bit gear/technique bias already?</p>

I'm new to photo.net and I wasn't sure where to post. I suppose I posted in this rangefinder forum because the photographers I listed all take photos with rangefinders. And I figured I would have more in common with people In this thread. I supposed wrong.

<p>No worries, Harper. There's a leica/rf crowd here, if that's what you are looking for...</p>

<p>It's because photography, unlike nearly all of the other arts, is dependent on the gear you use to make the images. You just can't get the same images from a Holga that you get from a Rolleiflex. Then there's the matter of different formats for different types of work. You don't want to bring your 'blad when you go shooting birds. The proper type of camera and format is needed for specific jobs. A lot of people try lots of different types of cameras because until you hold it in your hands and look at the negs later, how do you know? You don't, you have to try it to know. Once you find what works, and you'll know it when it happens, then it is good to stay w/ that. Why wouldn't you anyway?</p>

<p>Choosing a rangefinder is itself an equipment choice-it was even back then. While equipment importance is often overstated, only a fool would say it was completely unimportant. Since this is what most of us can easily change and it is easiest to talk about (discussions of aesthetics are not all that useful much of the time) so people tend to talk about equipment more than anything else on these forums.</p>

<p>There is also the philosophy of photography forum if you want to discuss matters that are devoid of equipment, although you may wonder, on occasion, if any of the participants have actually ever taken a photo...</p>

<p>You could start a thread there called "Rangefinder seeing" or some such.</p>

Carl Mydans and David Douglas Duncan went directly to the Nikon factory to witness the manufacture and test of their lenses before buying them. David Douglas Duncan bought a Nikkor 5cm F1.5 for his Leica. Good enough for him, good enough for me. I will let people know how it does on the M Monochrom.

<p>"Good enough for him, good enough for me. I will let people know how it does on the M Monochrom"</p>

<p>　<br /> My mate Freddy Goldenstar uses a Bell and Stein lens on a Contax 11a with wonderful results.</p>

<p>　<br /> Freddy is a marvel of photography and the combination of simplicity of the Contax... and the Bell and Stein gives him the magic of vision which would be lost on one of those new fangled devices.</p>

<p>　<br /> Good enough for Freddy good enough for me.</p>

<p>　<br /> The Bell on the end of the Monochrom would be a masterpiece of magic simplicity.</p>

<p>;))</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do people care so much about new cameras, lenses, megapixels, paper, printers, the new hot whatever...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's easy, Harper. Not everyone involved with the hobby of photography is interested , primarily, in making photographs. Some really just are interested in the gear from a design or engineering aspect. Some love optical design or new imaging technologies. Some are history buffs or collectors or are interested in repair issues. Some just want the latest gee-whiz gizmo, be it phone, computer or camera. They may shoot casually, but picture making is not the main focus. The photography hobby casts a wide net and there is room for all...including photographers who focus on the art of photography. </p>

<p>Most successful artists, whatever the medium, at various points in their careers, recognized the benefit of having equipment which would allow them to achieve their objectives without worrying about the equipment itself as they moved along....Michaelangelo experimented and found the ideal marble from a particular quarry for his statues, Van Gogh experimented and found the right combinations of pigments, Ansel Adams experimented with darkroom chemicals and films, and most others try out new and exciting equipment to determine if it gives them an edge in accomplishing their goals. Me too....although I used Leica gear for over 47 years, I certainly avidly tried other equipment along the way...because some of it facilitated easier solutions to the issues I encountered. These days I rely on some current gee whiz gear as well as my 1950s era rangefinders....there's room for them all!</p>

<p>My Leica M4 kit with five lenses is over 40 years old, but the 50mm Summicron has been used more than the other four lenses combined. However, occasionally having one of the other lenses is worthwhile. Even Cartier-Bresson sometimes used other than 50mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Henri-cartier bresson, friendlander, eggleston, winogrand, ghirri, nan goldin, robert frank...etc. If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it was to keep it simple.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eggleston has a collection of 'about 300' cameras, and Cartier-Bresson first bonded with Magnum co-founder Chim when they noticed each other's Leicas and had a geeky conversation about the Vidom accessory finder...</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>They cared a lot more about photography and seeing differently than technical data sheets or lens resolution.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

A lot more than who? People on web forums? Where are your photos? All of your posts have been about equipment or materials. Even this one.

 

 

 

<blockquote>

No matter what camera they used, it wasn't about the equipment it was about seeing.

</blockquote>

 

 

 

Who said it wasn't? You are the one who brought up the equipment they were using. There are plenty of other photographers out there who don't bring up their equipment.

 

 

 

<blockquote>

And I figured I would have more in common with people In this thread. I supposed wrong.

</blockquote>

 

 

A lot of people in this thread care more about photography than equipment. They have photos here and posted online in other places, and share with the other people here. It's you that seems to be hung up on this.

 

 

I think Jeff Spirer may be having a bad day… Unless he is always this worked up over someone's opinion? I don't know,

I'm new here, photo.net locals probably know him better.. In my initial post, I didn't know how to pose my wonderment for

all these remarkable photographers and their advice in a question… so I ended my statement with, why would anyone

basically overcomplicate things with all this equipment, when legends tell you to use less. I suppose I struck a nerve with

him, who doesn't agree with that type of method? I'm not mad at you, Jeff. I personally don't care what you use, as long

as you get what you're looking for creatively. I just think there is a lot of damn validity when several accomplished and

awarded photographers have a very simple approach to taking photographs.

<p>There are plenty of other great photographers. Have you looked into what they use? </p>

<p>It has nothing to do with a bad day, I simply pointed out the problems with what you said above. There doesn't seem to be much point to it. And where are your photos, if what it's about is photography and not equipment?</p>

Honestly, Jeff… I'm not uploading anything to this site. My work is not very good. And from my experiences while on this

forum, within this community of photographers, I've found a lot of negativity. It's just not a very comfortable place to be

creative or upload my work.

If you do it right, know equipment, know how to work on it, know what you are doing when buying it-it pays for the Hobby. My M9 and M Monochrome were 1/2 paid for by selling 1930s Sonnars converted to Leica mount, other 30% by selling equipment- most for over 2x what was paid for it. Subsidized 2/3rds of the total cost of the cameras. So for me, the M9 and M Monochrom cost a total of $5K "out of pocket" for the pair. The first lens I used on it was free, a German made 5cm F1.5 Jupiter-3 from 1950. A Trade for doing repair work. The optical fixture was too short, the focal length was wrong, the lens was unusable- and consequently had perfect glass because it had never been used. I fixed it.

Harper, the reason you're experiencing so much "negativity" is that you're making claims that simply aren't supported by the evidence. Man Ray constantly experimented with different techniques. Atget was shooting dry plates on large-format cameras that were relatively "cutting edge" at the time. Avedon used backdrops, props, extensive retouching, and more to produce his images. If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it's not "to keep it simple," it's that a huge variety of methods and equipment can be used to produce great photography.