Not always the gear

[airfrogusmc]

Heres an interesting book
http://nicnichols.com/FourCornersDark/?page_id=1101

Shot with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_camera

I think the choice of camera fits the photographers vision.

[Perry Ge]

I agree with you about the book being interesting and the camera fitting his style (heck, holga type cameras are FUN), but I don't entirely understand the point you're trying to get across - could you explain a bit more?

[airfrogusmc]

Hi Perry,
The point is that the photographer picks the tool and sometimes its not the high end gear thats the right choice. Sometimes around these forums the its about the gear when I think more should be put on the vision.
Allen

[_Sim]

That's very true.

I think this gets back to the standard comment we're all used to hearing: "Wow! What kind of camera is that? I should get one..."

[Perry Ge]

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you Allen. I know we talk about our 5Ds and 85Ls (and in your case, that 200L you rave about :lol:, one day you're gonna make me buy one of those, and my wallet will have you forever) but y'know, none of this is needed for good images.

I have a lot of cheap gear (like my Canonet, ElanIIe, Powershot A590, some MF lenses) that are just as fun to use as my 5D, and it's possible to get terrific results with all of them if you know what you're doing, and what you want to achieve.

Pixel peeping, telling newbies they 'need' L glass to make images, buying gear and shooting boxes - all of this distracts from why we do this. This hobby is all about the final images, and while it's fine to have top quality equipment that you are 100% confident in, one should never lose focus on the purpose of all this - the final images.

I think everyone here shares a love for good images. I suspect that the obsession with good gear is looking for that magic bullet, when someone thinks 'I wanna do that!' but doesn't understand the work and knowledge needed to achieve it, and instead tries to buy the end result. That's always very disappointing.

I remember when I got my first SLR - I had a cheap, crappy camera at the time, and my dad (who's also into this hobby, but not as much as I am) said to me: get one of your photos published first, and I'll buy you an SLR. So I spent a few months really working hard on technique, composition, processing, and eventually I got one of my photos published, and he came good on his promise.

I was always grateful for that - because from that experience, by the time I got my first SLR, I had a better idea of exactly why it is I wanted one.

[airfrogusmc]

Perry,

I think a photographer needs to know what tool will best express his vision. Like in the case of the book I posted a cheap camera with a plastic lens was perfect for that project. Just like some things need to be shot on B&W film and some things need to be digital. But its the knowledge of which tool to use for what visual statement is so important and understanding WHY is equally important.

I don't have allot of gear but the gear I have is all gear that helps me express my vision. I shot with Hasselblads and until 3 years ago I shot with old Canon F-1s also and always good glass. One of my old F-1s is 30 years old. I'm not one to easily quit on gear. If I need to use a Holga, Diana, Hasselbad, 4X5 or digital to get my vision expressed then I will pick the right format and camera to express that.

Sometimes a Diana or a Holga is the only way to get the images you need and sometimes its a Hasselblad.

Allen

[nicnichols]

Just wanted to pop in a say thanks for linking to the Chicago Holga book on my blog... and to thank you guys for being open-minded about alternative cameras and image processes.

I read too many posts in Digital forums about how Toy Cameras have no place in today's photography, and its very refreshing to hear what Perry and AirFrog were saying. My personal motto is: if you need filters and effects to make a great image, then you didn't start with a good image...

To us, its all about the end result, and we try to get the best possible image in camera without using any post (maybe some levels + curves.. but no filters... ect..)

Dan's book on Chicago was a great example of using the perfect camera for the feeling he wanted to convey. He did a great job with it, (and his other books...) and I don't think it would have had the same feeling with a d-slr.

I hope you will take a few minutes and check out the rest of the blog, and the rest of the tech and book reviews as well. There are some great guest photographers and editors who have contributed to the success of Four Corners Dark.

Some more reviews here: Reviews (http://nicnichols.com/FourCornersDark/?page_id=85)

and some featured artisits here (http://nicnichols.com/FourCornersDark/index.php?page_id=84), and on the front page.. (http://www.fourcornersdark.com)

..and check the front page for news and contests as well.. we just wrapped the end-of-the-year contest and gave away 8 cameras!

Cheers-
Nic Nichols

----------
nicnichols.com (http://www.nicnichols.com)
fourcornersdark.com (http://www.fourcornersdark.com)

[breal101]

Allen, I agree with what you are saying despite the fact that I have always been a gear snob to a certain extent. Not so much as looking down on others for the gear they have but always having the best gear I could get. Some people are born with vision, others like me, had to develop it over a long period of time. I have always thought of myself as a photo technician, maybe through osmosis I have some vision in me. I can't be critical of those who don't value work done on cheap gear because I was once there myself. I don't think you are being critical either. Sometimes a post like yours might plant a seed, hopefully a few reading this thread will get it. If they don't now, in time they might.

[cdifoto]

I read too many posts in Digital forums about how Toy Cameras have no place in today's photography
Maybe I'm not on the forums enough, but I've never seen one such statement, let alone "too many"...

[nicnichols]

Cdifoto..

A few interesting comments were included in a piece I wrote called "Digital People just don't get it (http://nicnichols.com/FourCornersDark/?page_id=688)" which got picked up by a few magazines, and let to some angry emails that I included in my 'letters to the editor (http://nicnichols.com/FourCornersDark/?page_id=859)"

My all time favorite comment was from the Rangefinder Forum regarding the Blackbird, Fly TLR (http://nicnichols.com/FourCornersDark/?page_id=956).. some yokel called it “A gimmick to make someone a few bucks. I wouldn’t pay 2 cents for it.”


..also, I hope you guys don't think that I am just bashing Digital cams on the blog, its a toy camera blog.. I am a full time retoucher and photographer for a large firm that uses plenty of Canon D-slr's and we love 'em.. we use those and Phase One backs on Hassy's... and we are waiting for the new Canon to get here that shoots video too.. we ordered one after we saw those amazing videos it shot..

[airfrogusmc]

I'm certainly not bashing digital either. It certainly has its place but its not the end all and Canon though certainly great stuff isn't the greatest for EVERYTHING. Allot of studio work is probably better suited for large and medium format while street photography Leica has nailed. And if you're talking IQ in lenses some of Canon Ls are certainly great (the 85L, 35L and the 200 2L I would put in with the big dogs) but some of Leicas Ms and Hasselblad Zeiss (CF) lenses are incredible but very expensive. But the problem I see is sometimes some people think the gear will make'm great photographers and they don't put enough into learning the basics and understanding which medium is right for their vision.

Also I do see to much put on just one photograph. One photograph doesn't make a great photographer no more than one good at bat makes a great baseball player. I do find sometimes theres to much on try to get one great image instead of thinking about bodies of work.