Your equipment

[aizan_sasayama]

i like my cameras because they serve me well, and i don't buy ones i don't like. i don't

trash my stuff because i don't have all the money in the world, but i don't baby it

because they're all well made and it's wasted effort (unless you need the resale value,

which is paradoxical). i respect discussions of what techniques, cameras, film,

development, paper, etc. people use to get what they want, because it's, well, the

physical, sensual means to a spiritual experience. it's ritualistic. i actually find edmo's

comment astute, except his outlook or attitude is mundane.

 

sentimental value might influence what i photograph. using an heirloom to

photograph my family or hometown, for instance. but that's atypical. normally, my

"admiration" for a camera is only an appreciation for features i need to do something.

[david_henderson]

The question is whether admiration for the equipment affects what you do with it. It isn't whether you admire your equipment or not and I'm sure we all know people for whom photography is almost a by-product of equipment ownership, and others for whom the equipment really doesn't matter much so long as its performing decently. I'm more in the latter camp if it matters, though I would point out to some responders that the opposites of "love" or "admire" in this context are more likely to be "indifference" or "treat casually" than hate or active disdain.

 

But I do know people who won't leave equipment in a car or hotel room in case it gets stolen, and this limits where they can get to. I know people who will not expose their camera to the slightest rain, who won't take their expensive tripod on a beach, who won't put a camera bag down in the dirt if there's no alternative. These people miss opportunities in my eyes though maybe they think its worth it.

 

For me, the last thing I'm thinking about when I'm photographing, looking to photograph, or on a trip is how I feel about my gear. Indeed if these things come up at all its likely to be a negative- like why I can't, after using a Mamiya 7 for 5 years, ever remember to press the curtain release after I've attached a lens, so most of the time the shutter doesn't fire. In general. if I'm happy to be somewhere I assume my gear is up to it; if I lose something (not unknown) my thoughts are about where/when I can replace it and how I'm going to cope short term without it. I don't sense regret or loss. Now if I miss what could have been a great photograph---*thats* loss.

 

I think the musical thing is different. There, individual instruments have their own characteristics and tone. I can't imagine another Bronica taking better photographs than mine, or an author writing better because he loves his pencil or keyboard or Word software.

[mike dixon]

<i>I don't know any cacpable musician that doesn't love their favourite instrument...you aren't gunna make anything any good using stuff you hate</i><P>

I freely admit that I enjoy using some of my cameras more than I enjoy using others, but my favorite cameras don't inspire me to take better photos. My photography isn't really impacted by my admiration for the equipment I use.<P>

I don't buy your second statement. I have a set of top-quality knives, and enjoy cooking with them more than I do cooking with cheap, dull knives. My admiration of my knives, however, doesn't make me a better cook, nor does using cheap knives make the meal taste any worse.<P>

It would be an interesting experiment (well, interesting to a bunch of photography-obsessed geeks) to see whether people other than the creator of the images consider those photos made with the creator's favorite equipment to be superior to photos made with less-favored equipment. People often let the enjoyment of the process (or enjoyment of the event, or feelings toward the subject, etc.) influence how they evaluate the quality of their own work--perhaps their equipment preferences are also reflected in that bias.

[rokkor fan]

In answer to Matt's original question, my photographic process is actually affected by my love for my cameras. What I mean is that while I have converted to EOS Digital for my pro work, I still shoot film in my manual focus Minolta cameras, because I just love using them. They are simple, they make me really think about my photography, and I really enjoy the whole photographic experience when I am using an older manual focus body. I also just love the Rokkor lenses and the 'look' of the images they create.

 

So my photography is actually affected because I shoot film instead of digital when using them, I determine my exposure myself instead of relying on a histogram and matrix metering, and really my entire approach to a shoot changes. I tend to think much more about each shot, making each image in the roll count.

 

So of course I don't love them, not like a pet or a partner or family member, but I do love the way I photograph, and the enjoyment I derive from shooting with my older gear. Of course, I love the end result they give me too - a real feeling of satisfaction when I look at my slides on a lightbox.

 

Cheers,

 

Antony

[james_ogara1]

Jeffrey wrote: "I know a lot of photographers.... They talk about equipment, but it's usually an offhand discussion, unless it's a professional issue."

 

Jeffrey's a real pro, see?

 

He's waaaaay past all that gearhead stuff.

[edmo]

<i>People who dismiss their tools are just plain selfish.</i>

<p>

Love, hate relationships????

<p>

Selfish for realizing a metal box with film in it is nothing more than a metal box with film in it.....keep on strokin'.

[james_ogara1]

WHo said anything about being a pro? I loved my M-6 until I had to sell it. I have three F-4s and I think they are the coolest camera ever made (that I can afford). The word amateur does connote a sense of being in love, after all, even if the equipment is secondary.

[maylon_roberts]

"nothing more than a metal box with film in it"

 

if you're gonna go that route,...

your final images are nothing more than pieces of paper or pixel brightness values.

[edmo]

<i>if you're gonna go that route,... your final images are nothing more than pieces of paper or pixel brightness values.</I>

<p>

Pure unadulterated BS...the cam is the means whereas the pic or print is the final result.

[eugene_scherba]

one excellent artist i know paints with fingers when out of brushes

and produces paintings that are just as good as those he makes when

using brushes.

[Brad_]

<I>... your final images are nothing more than pieces of paper or pixel brightness

values.</I><P>

 

Let's see,,,, Which would I rather have in my home? One of Avedon's cams, or one of his

full-size photographs, from <I>In the American West</I>. Not even close... Yes, that 5' x

4' image of Billy Mudd would look great hanging above my sofa.

[claudia__]

good morning (on the left coast.) interesting discussion. someone brought up musicians and their instruments. i don't know the answer but someone might have read an interview with Willy Nelson and so has a clue. i think he has since replaced it but for years he used a guitar that had a second ragged hole carved out by his picks. did he fail to replace it because

 

a) it didn't matter it was just a tool and the song was the product

or

b) he had some emotional attachment to that particular guitar

 

as i said i don't know but some CW mavens might have the answer.

 

and then, what will we think of Avedon years from now after his biographers have gone thru all his stuff if they find evidence that he did in fact "love" one or more of his cameras? does it matter? i don't really think so. doubt that love of equipment prevents a great photographer from being a great photographer.

[barefoot]

<i>Selfish for realizing a metal box with film in it is nothing more than a metal box with film in it.....keep on strokin'.</i>

<p>

No. Selfish for dismissing all the components, over and above the photog, that are required to make an image.

<p>

A metal box with film in it. You appear to have a mental block when it comes to realising functional items can be objects of desire. That's why we have things like Design Awards.

<p>

Take any well designed camera - say, for example, a Leica M. If the cam is just a metal box, please explain why the M is more aesthetically pleasing than 95% of all photos ever taken by any camera by any person.

[ray g.]

Claudia,

<p>

I don't know about Willie Nelson, but Liberace used to travel with his own white grand piano on tours around the world. Billie Joel even wrote a song about his "Baby Grand." You had mentioned anthropomorphism; Antonius Stradivari gave his violins names. Eddie Van Halen often smashed his guitar at the end of the concert.

<p>

<i>does it matter? i don't really think so. doubt that love of equipment prevents a great photographer from being a great photographer.</i>

<p>

Bravo

[Spearhead]

Claudia said: <i>doubt that love of equipment prevents a great photographer from being a great photographer.</i><p>

 

and that is very different from the premise of the original poster, who said: <i>

I'd like to hear some stories of how your photography is affected by your admiration for the equipment you use</i><p>

 

Two completely different statements. I think Claudia's is fine, but the other one clearly indicates little knowledge of how photographs are created.<p>

 

And then there's this: <i> the M is more aesthetically pleasing than 95% of all photos ever taken by any camera by any person</i><p>

 

which explains why art museums, galleries, cafes, corporate offices, etc etc display Leicas on their wall rather than photographs.

[rj]

I think love is much too strong of a word to use for feelings about ones cameras, but I can see that a photographer would have feelings about a certain camera or system and this could affect their photography just because the photog may be more likely to use the equipment. I am the kind of photographer who shoots different formats and chooses based on the subject I plan on shooting. Its a decision I try to make before photographing, so each camera system will have an effect on the images I make.

 

I am going to go out on a limb here and say the image is not the most important aspect of photography, for me. The image is just the culmination of the craft and the vision. The time spent picking a subject, shooting, printing in the darkroom and the editing are the reasons I shoot. If the image was the only reason I choose to spend time and effort with photography I would just buy a finished product from another photographer and admire the work. In other words, its the journey, not the destination that counts for me.

 

I think there are too many people above who mistake someones admiration of a camera or system as being obsessed. Its not the same thing.

[claudia__]

"which explains why art museums, galleries, cafes, corporate offices, etc etc display Leicas on their wall rather than photographs."

 

well, that's one way to end a discussion... not much more to say after that. (~_-)

[barefoot]

<i>which explains why art museums, galleries, cafes, corporate offices, etc etc display Leicas on their wall rather than photographs.</i>

<p>

Jeff,

<p>

Think about what I wrote. You'll notice I made no comparison between the aesthetical qualities of a leica and the 5% of photos that are worth keeping. Just the 95% that aren't worth keeping.

[Brad_]

<I>Just the 95% that aren't worth keeping.</I><p>

 

All of which, oddly enough, end up on the leica forum. Go figure...

[pazellisphoto]

As time passes and I become more experienced and come into some more cash, I buy "better" equipment. It instills some confidence because it has more capabilities than my last camera, tripod, etc... However, what I "see" with a Brownie or a Canon dslr or Rolleiflex or whatever, is unchanged. The prints will vary from camera to camera, but the intention of the shot remains the same. The emotions each shot evokes in the viewers may be different, but I remain the same. I photograph because I Love to do so. Period.

 

Our use of the word "love" is often used rather loosely.... "I love this battery grip on my camera.....It gives me more control, more weight, more battery life....." But, I will not cry the day my battery grip, camera or lenses hit the ground and break. I won't go to a funeral, I will just get on my pc and order new ones ASAP from B&H Photo.

[edmo]

Stuart, the photog is the most important element and not the cam, period.

 

Mental block? That's funny, I don't feel bound by the cam at all as you do with your M's. If the M takes better pics than others, then you should have no problem going through my pics and identifying the pics taken with an M and those taken with a handy me down AE-1 that can be had on the 'bay' for 25 bucks. It would be interesting to see what you come up with.

 

Design awards are given to 'designs' and not the tools designers use such as t-squares and cad programs.

[barefoot]

<i>Stuart, the photog is the most important element and not the cam, period.</i>

<p>

That's fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. For some people that isn't the case. Maybe some of us take a more holistic approach to photography. Horses for courses.

<p>

BTW, I dont use leicas, M or other. I used the Leica as an example of a beautifully made machine that is capable, in the right hands, of taking great pictures. And, I'm sure, is considered a source of inspiration for some of those photogs.

[Brad_]

<I>And, I'm sure, is considered a source of inspiration for some of those photogs.

</I><P>

 

Which is the problem. Photogs I know, as well as myself, are inspired by great work from

other photographers - not cameras of elevated pedigree.

[barefoot]

I should have added that I can't tell the difference between a leica image and an image from a different system. So I would loose your challenge ;>)

[chelsea]

LOVE my trusty old Konica TC but there's a love/hate relationship with the Minolta 7000i. I often take better pics with the Konica, probably because it's simple, easy to use, and I can play with the exposure. Working with the Minolta is a running battle, it's an evil creature just waiting for it's chance to change settings at a critical moment. Who says inanimate objects aren't out to get you??

<BR><BR>

All kidding aside, there's as many feelings about equipment and photography as there are photographers. Photography is about the captured image, and in order to get it it's necessary to use a tool. Whether I'm comfortable with that tool and feel competent enough to use it properly will affect how I capture the image. We all approach it differently, and we all feel about the process and the tools differently. Some people fondle the equipment and tuck it in at night, others just see it as a chunk of metal and glass and chuck it in the bag at the end of day. Mine don't get caressed, but they get carefully stowed and looked after simply because I'm a person who looks after my stuff and can't afford to replace the expensive toys. <BR><BR>

"Maybe your camera is why you photograph." In my case, partially true, in the beginning. My ex significant other had his car broken into, his snapshot camera was stolen. Insurance replaced everything, so he went into a camera store where they sold him this super-duper Minolta with 100-300 lens and 35-85 lens. All these new bells and whistles...and telephoto to boot! Neither one of us had a clue. So...off I went to a night school college course on photography. The funny part was that I used the Konica during the course, but learned enough to figure this new whiz-bang electronic contraption, and how to make better use of the Konica. This whole new world of photography opened up, and has literally taken me places where I would never have gone. Is the camera itself WHY I photograph? No, not any more. But it's a big part of the process and certainly affects the final result.