Rangefinder photography legends.

[Spearhead]

<p>Mike brings up a good point when he comments on Avedon. Avedon mostly used one camera and one lens, especially in the field. But his work was hardly simple, a shot would take several days to set up. It's equipment fetishism that drives the original post - it is hardly what one chooses for equipment, whether simple or complex, that drives the results.<br /> <br />I have never known what Nan Goldin used for a camera or any other equipment. It seems completely irrelevant, I've never even thought about it. Goldin's work has always appeared to me to be about the interaction between Goldin and the subject. She could be totally involved with the latest of everything, but that wouldn't matter, her photos have nothing to do with that. The original post brings that up, but it seems completely misplaced. Anyone that thinks Goldin's photos are about the equipment has seriously missed the point of her work.</p>

<p>I've shot with rangefinders, SLRs, dSLRs, point and shoots, pinhole cameras, 35mm, medium format. None of that ever matters as much as the lighting, how I feel about the subject, how I interact with the subject. If you want to say that the equipment doesn't matter, then talk about something other than the equipment. This is an equipment fetish post from the start, not about photography.</p>

<p>This is typical of the portraits I shoot. The light mattered, both ambient and what I created, my interaction with the subject mattered, the under-the-street location mattered, the extreme activity the subject had just been through mattered. The equipment was solely what happened to be in my hand and was completely irrelevant once I set everything. I could be a minimalist or a total equipment acquisition nut and it wouldn't matter one bit. Photography isn't about this fetishism about what someone does or doesn't use, it's about photographs.</p>

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/fustercluck2011/content/images/large/IMG_5335.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="675" /></center>

[harper_westwood]

"If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it's not "to keep it simple." So....keep it complicated.. I'll look into

that. Thank you for that, Mike. Anyway, I realize I was generalizing too much, however thats another reason I posted in a

rangefinder forum because thats the type of photographers I was implying toward. Sorry if any of you took it too seriously.

I'm really just trying to have friendly conversations about photography/ art.

[harper_westwood]

Jeff, as far as I know, from what I've read about her in her books. She used a leica most her career because she liked the

durability for her shooting style.. She tried using an slr but didn't like it. And... Nice photo, I guess you're right whatever it

takes to get a good photo....

[mike dixon]

<i>So....keep it complicated.</i><P>

 

No, as I very clearly stated, "a huge variety of methods and equipment can be used to produce great photography." It possible to make great photos by keeping it simple; it's possible to make great photos using very complicated methods.<P>

 

If you want to have a friendly conversation, don't intentionally distort what other people have said or act as if they are at fault for taking things too seriously. <b>You</b> made statements that can't be backed up, <b>you</b> put the focus on the equipment used, and <b>you</b> have been the one who's combative and insulting.

[harper_westwood]

Mike, you're taking things too seriously again. I was really considering that method. So don't keep it simple or complicated.

Keep it somewhere In the middle? Or what. Please explain further so I can understand. You have some great photographes. And I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

[mike dixon]

It seems rather pointless to offer further explanation since you clearly haven't paid attention to what I've already said.

[harper_westwood]

Mmm... I read about large and medium format photographers equipment you mentioned and about keeping it not

simple... But you never really explained how that method is creating great photographes? And if that's something you

practice, maybe I'm missing something. And I'd like to get some insight to this style.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>She used a leica most her career because she liked the durability for her shooting style.. She tried using an slr but didn't like it</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

But that doesn't matter unless you don't care about her photos. It has nothing to do with the photos.</p>

[harper_westwood]

Oh, I must of read it wrong I thought you were wondering what she shot with because you liked the relationship. Ahah

wow I read your post so fast, it was so long. Sorry, Jeff. Absolutely, you're right.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I think many photographers and other creative types go through a very complicated process to end up with something simple. As Coltrane said, the reason you practice scales so hard is so you don't think about them when you are playing. </p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>There are some who post to PN forums as if they are lecturers. Its rife in the Nikon forum. Its so annoying. The big debate there atm is DX longevity. Who cares! </p>

<p>I have shot film all my life and now its some digital but not a lot. I have one goal and that is to buy a good Leica III and try to produce images a good as I can with my F4. I figure that I will have learned a lot if I can. And I am 62 and not afraid to learn new things.</p>

<p> </p>

[carbon_dragon]

Some people make it a point of pride to be artists who care little about the tools because it's all about artistic vision. In fact

they have to at least choose the right tool for the job or at least "a right tool" but they will say it's not about the tool. In the

old days, they might have to work hard to find a camera that did what they needed, whatever supported that vision.

 

 

Others love the cameras but are quite good photographers. There's no mutual exclusion principle to being a good

photographer and enjoying the gear too. At least I don't see one. These days there are so many cameras which all do a

great job of getting an image that you can afford to be a bit sloppy in your choices -- or you can pick one that suits you the

best.

 

 

Back when some of these people were using Leicas they were the state of the art and they were remarkable for their

reduced size and weight relative to their image quality. These days, Leicas are called out for their high quality results

more than their tiny size, there are smaller cameras these days.

 

 

You probably aren't going to create great art without a great artistic vision, but you need a camera too, and it should be

chosen to suit that purpose and chosen to suit the photographer. I've never seen why people think being a gear head

means you're somehow less a photographer. Maybe you should turn it on its head. If you lack confidence in your camera it will affect your photography, so it pays to choose a camera you trust and that is worth a little effort in the choice.

[Tony Rowlett]

Why are there so many styles and shapes of "hammers" in the tool section of a typical hardware store?

[harper_westwood]

Ian, I think you're right. There is a huge learning curve people tend to go through to get photographically what they want.

Curt cobain (musician) used to say, "practice makes perfect, but no one is perfect, so why practice." That always hit me

because it was like people will put so much effort into a précieved perfection but whats perfect. You're stressing out on

perfection and your photo masterpiece is happening outside and your're missing it.

 

Francisco, aha! Yeah, I feel like everyone is mad at everyone in here because they aren't cookie-cut-outs of each other.

I'm about half your age and shoot film, too! I love it. I started with digital and it just didnt look right to me. Can't explain it

just wasn't what I was looking for. I think you have a great attitude toward it all, I hope I can keep an open mind as I get

older.

 

David, I've found the best thing is what you said it to basically find what suits you. And for me, I've found that less is more.

And every photographer ive studied has essentially said the same thing. However, if some people find their way

differently, thats okay, too. You're absolutely right though, artistic vision is a must!

[baisao]

I have a lot of thoughts on this and sympathize with virtually every opinion posited. However, I would like to adress the

notion that the Leica/Rangefinder group on Photo.net is not friendly.

 

 

In the 1.5 years of posting here I have found this group to be exceptionally friendly and helpful. During this time the most

unpleasant behavior I witnessed was when someone WRONGLY stated that a photo of a Chinese man's armpit was

racist. The person making this ridiculous claim was promptly heaped upon and that was that. One lone exception out of

thousands of posts.

 

 

In all, this is a pretty friendly group. Certainly more friendly than other groups.

[starshooter]

<p>Yes, everybody was taller, better looking and had perfect hair in the "good old days." You are wrong. I was there. Many of the top and bottom photographers worked endlessly to get the right combination of camera, film, lens, angle, light and on and on to get first class photos. And the "right" thing was a moving target. Film was lousy. I worked for a firm that helped pioneer 35mm news photography and we could not use tri-x for ordinary situations because it was too grainy. We used Super Double X (for still cameras) or Plus-X for most things and Tri-X for available light despite grain the size of baseballs. Ever used a Leica 3f with a 135mm lens? I had one. A nightmare. But better'n nothing at the time.<br>

Sure some folks are a pain in the neck with their (sometimes imaginary) high Megapixel count but the PITN photographers have always been with us. There were those Polariod snapshooters who claimed our Leicas and Rollies were worthless because we had to wait so long to see a print. Our photos are in the history books, not theirs.<br>

I think perhaps you need to stop letting "cool" photogs or alleged photogs bully you. You are playing their game.</p>

[baisao]

<p>Legendary film cameras are OVER!!!</p>

<p><a href="http://youtu.be/YlGqN3AKOsA">http://youtu.be/YlGqN3AKOsA</a></p>

<p>[Yeah, this even hurt me a bit]</p>

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>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.</em><br>

I think Harper is saying that the people he mentions provide impressive evidence that people working in a photojournalistic style with a technically simple camera and a highly-developed visual sense could achieve impressive results, much more so than other people today who have much more sophisticated equipment but not the vision. I do not find this an unreasonable thing to say and would not criticise him for doing so. Obviously other genres of classic photography, such as studio portraiture, were anything but simple – for example, the “Hollywood” portrait style needed a truckload of lighting equipment and numerous camera and wardrobe assistants, stylists and possibly set-builders as well.<br>

Just one aside – the camera market today is dominated by the Japanese, and Japanese home-market consumers are very interested in bells and whistles. I feel this is a major reason why photo enthusiasts today, encouraged by advertising, are fixated on technical features.</p>

[harper_westwood]

David, the ONLY cristisim I have about your comment is that I'm not a boy, I'm a girl! Haha. It's okay. :). I'm glad someone understands my point of view and gets where I was coming from.

[dhbebb]

<p><em>… I’m a girl …</em><br /> No problem, Harper, here in the UK we’re pretty broad-minded, and the idea that a female can pick up and use a camera unaided does not disturb us :-) .<br /> <em>"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</em><br /> This seems to suggest that you have access to Weston’s Daybooks, at least in excerpt form. Good move - in Weston we have the rare combination of a cutting-edge creative talent and a highly articulate writer. I’m a veteran media pro, and I readily acknowledge the vast amount I learned from Weston about the creative process in photography (and also from Andreas Feininger).<br /> <em>I'm really just trying to have friendly conversations about photography/ art.</em><br /> <em>,,, 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.</em><br /> Some people have responded with a measure of positivity to this thread, others most definitely haven’t. I would really invite the latter group to re-think their attitude. Harper perhaps did not express her viewpoint with 100% clarity, but as someone who has extensive experience of mentoring younger practitioners (in photography and other media), I really did not have a problem understanding what she was trying to say.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I think Harper is saying that the people he mentions provide impressive evidence that people working in a photojournalistic style with a technically simple camera and a highly-developed visual sense could achieve impressive results, much more so than other people today who have much more sophisticated equipment but not the vision."<br>

<br /> 　<br /> Well, the gear does not make the Photographer. Neither does the gear unmake the Photographer.<br>

<br /> 　<br /> Obvious stuff to my mind...what were we talking about? Oh to be a better Photographer use simple gear.<br>

<br /> 　<br /> Best get some simple gear so as to be a better Photographer.<br>

<br /> Got it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>So, my IPhone which is really simple enhances my vision better than my M8 or D7000.</p>

<p>Hmm, the troubling thought is that they all express my vision in a equal way...so have I have found. Hey, I did have to spend some time working out how to use my D7000 but in did give me options I never thought about.</p>

<p>Some thoughts to ponder on.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"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 goal"</p>

<p>　<br /> "If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it was to keep it simple. To stick with what you know techniqually/atmospherically"</p>

<p>I don't think the legends said any such thing. Indeed, in their time they were very innovative seeking and finding new horizons to explore. The opposite of what you are claiming.</p>

<p>Indeed one on the Legends of Photography (HCB) did not want anyone to copy him but to move on and create their own vision. He also used the most advanced camera available in his time and the most skilled backroom technicians.</p>

[harper_westwood]

That argument that "they used the most advanced camera during their time" is a misconception. They were using very

nice cameras but camera companies don't seize camera advancements. People act like these masters of photography

lived in a frozen block of ice. By 1952 Henri cartier bresson would have published "the decisive moment." There were

several camera companies with "progressive" SLR cameras with better metering, and with more accurate focusing. In

1976 William eggleston would of got his big break and would have his show at the MOMA. Meanwhile auto focus camera

were appearing and still the rangefinder masters still stuck with what they knew...

[baisao]

HCB also chased a lot of fast primes and new systems, especially from the mid-60s on.