Bob Michaels
nobody special
cameras vs. photographs
cameras vs. photographs
It boils down to those whose primary interest is photographs vs. those whose primary interest is cameras.
Nothing wrong with either area of interest. Most of us have some level of interest in both, it's just the primary focus that differs.
cameras vs. photographs
It boils down to those whose primary interest is photographs vs. those whose primary interest is cameras.
Nothing wrong with either area of interest. Most of us have some level of interest in both, it's just the primary focus that differs.
40oz
...
I note what camera and film on the negative sheet. And lens, if all shots were with one lens. I find it helps jog my memory - I can build that day in my mind, and it triggers more memories.
I also find it useful for those times I care. And often, I find I do care about context when it is given. While I might say I could take it or leave it, I tend to take it if it is given. I don't think caring about the camera, lens, and film is caring more about cameras than pictures. I don't even know what that might mean, anyway. Pictures are taken with cameras, so to claim you don't care about cameras is pretty much saying you don't care if it was a picture or a painting, IMHO. That's fine, but I for one find details fascinating.
Knowing a shot was taken on a film long dead in a camera I know means something more to me than "camera, lens, film unknown." It helps me understand the circumstances and context of the shot. It's not about appreciating art at that point, it's about appreciating the artist. It's like knowing that Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth did their thing in a time when beer and cigarettes were dugout regulars vs. today when those have been banned in favor of steroids and cortisone shots. Context adds to the art without detracting from anything. Just MHO.
I also find it useful for those times I care. And often, I find I do care about context when it is given. While I might say I could take it or leave it, I tend to take it if it is given. I don't think caring about the camera, lens, and film is caring more about cameras than pictures. I don't even know what that might mean, anyway. Pictures are taken with cameras, so to claim you don't care about cameras is pretty much saying you don't care if it was a picture or a painting, IMHO. That's fine, but I for one find details fascinating.
Knowing a shot was taken on a film long dead in a camera I know means something more to me than "camera, lens, film unknown." It helps me understand the circumstances and context of the shot. It's not about appreciating art at that point, it's about appreciating the artist. It's like knowing that Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth did their thing in a time when beer and cigarettes were dugout regulars vs. today when those have been banned in favor of steroids and cortisone shots. Context adds to the art without detracting from anything. Just MHO.
furcafe
Mentor
True enough. I am also the sort of person who tracks his expenses down to the penny.
I briefly tried using a regular (paper) notebook, but found it difficult to read my own handwriting (the reason why I've been writing via keyboards since I was in elementary school). Then I discovered FotoLog . . . Should I eventually abandon the Palm operating system for an iPhone or whatnot, I may end up taking up a notebook again.
I briefly tried using a regular (paper) notebook, but found it difficult to read my own handwriting (the reason why I've been writing via keyboards since I was in elementary school). Then I discovered FotoLog . . . Should I eventually abandon the Palm operating system for an iPhone or whatnot, I may end up taking up a notebook again.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
That's what I like about RFF. In many forums, we'd be trading insults by now.
Fortunately we (and most but not all other RFF members) are prepared to accept that there are different ways of doing things, and that ultimately, it ain't that important anyway. The purpose is to take pictures and enjoy yourself. As long as we both do that, and as long as we make it clear to others that they, personally, may prefer either your approach or mine, no problems.
The thing is, I genuinely can't understand your approach, and presumably, you feel much the same about mine; so all we can do is shrug and say, hey, that's fine too.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Philipp,
To quote the late Terence Donovan, "Not my problem, sunshine."
The origin of the quote is this:
We were talking one day and Terence said, "Let's face it, cameras are so ****ing cheap you can buy a new camera for each ****ing job."
I replied, "Maybe you can, Terence, but we're not all Terence Donovan."
And he said, "Not my problem, sunshine."
Since then, I've regarded that as some of the best advice I've ever had. It's amazing how many things aren't "my problem, sunshine" unless I want them to be.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Mentor
The only reason for me to put the equipment used is for bragging rights: "Leica M8 and 35mm Summilux-M ASPH" (might as well have written "This ****ty snapshot was taken with $9000 worth of gear").
As for aperture, iso and shutter speed - I actually prefer it when people don't put it up with the photo. If they do, it all turns into a technical discussion in my head. That is - the photo itself kind of disappears. That is my own fault, but...
- This post was written on a Apple MacBook Pro, 2.16GHz, 2GB RAM, running OS X 10.5.2 and Firefox 3.0b5.
Only $9,000! Peasant! Go and buy an Alpa immediately! Or a commemorative Noctilux!
Seriously, that's an interesting point about NOT wanting to know. On the other hand, I sometimes find it interesting to go through the readers' pics in Amateur Photographer and see if I can guess what they were taken with -- especially digital, which often has an 'airbrushed' look to me. I can often spot MF, too, even in 1/4 page shots.
Which makes me realize that indeed, it is detracting from the picture to know, but usually, only in a negative sense: 'Bloody hell, if that's what pics from a _________ look like, I'm glad I don't use one...'
Cheers,
Roger
kram
Well-known
I don't note down any setting of the camera and try to remember any out of the ordinary setting (lens wide open or 1 stop down, or f16/22 settings, shutter speed slower than 1/30) so when I view the photography and there is subject blur -'oh that was the 1/15 of a second shot , humm background/forground looks sharp , must be subject movement'. Or the image loks abit woolly -'oh yeh that was the f22 shot'.
However, with other people's photographs, I find it interesting if it is outside the 'normal' stuff - 'Alpa + 48mm pan F plus - what a cracking picture' - or 'Nikon D40 + Kit lens great picture'. I find most colour digital photographs 'muddy' or over sharpened and colours too bright. However, now and again (with recent kit) some of it looks quite good.
However, with other people's photographs, I find it interesting if it is outside the 'normal' stuff - 'Alpa + 48mm pan F plus - what a cracking picture' - or 'Nikon D40 + Kit lens great picture'. I find most colour digital photographs 'muddy' or over sharpened and colours too bright. However, now and again (with recent kit) some of it looks quite good.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Ben Z
Mentor
Bravo. Too many times on internet forums, social dynamics spur people to defend their preferences. For most of us, photography is a hobby, and the only "rule" to a hobby is that it should be fun.
swoop
Well-known
I rarely mention what I used to take a photo.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Which prompts another question: why do people list the gear they own in their signature? Not trying to be funny or combative: just wondering.
Cheers,
Roger
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That's actually worde, because in addition to raising all sorts of ego-related questions, it also breaks site search in Google. How is one supposed to look for Leica-specific information when the search function reports hits on everybody and their dog's proudly listed signature Leicas?
Philipp