Comments on: The Tools We Use

By: The O/A | Writes and Photographs Here

The O/A | Writes and Photographs Here — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 06:10:47 +0000

[...] post by Darius Himes really captured this concept beautifully. As a response to comments made in his interview with [...]

By: Ian van Coller

Ian van Coller — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:09:51 +0000

I photograph using many different camera formats, both digital and analog. I consistently find that I prefer the images made with my 4×5. I agree with many of the things said by others here–that the physicality of the process forces one to slow down’ and so on. I think what really makes the difference for me is that with a 4×5 you view the world upside down and reversed. This forces me to see the world in a way that my eyes are not used to and that seems to make a difference to how I compose the image. I find myself being more rigorous about how things fit into the frame.

By: Jim Birdwell

Jim Birdwell — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:22:02 +0000

I’ve heard this whole “slow down” argument even since digital came along. I agree with some it, but not all of it. I just found that, when I shot 8×10 and 4×5, it took so much effort and time to set everything up, that when I got back and ran the film, I placed much more value on that image, thinking it might have been better than it actually was, due solely to the effort and memory of that effort. Is that good? Absolutely not.

I also found that I was much less prone to search around, and find various different views of the same scene. Not good. It was something about “setting up the camera and finding that one right spot”, as if there were no other acceptable (and maybe better) angles. That is bullshit.

I suggest try every camera. See what fits for you. But don’t get sucked in to that whole zen crap of 8×10. A beautiful Deardorff with the most excellent lens pointed at a boring scene will make the most excellent boring photograph. It takes forever to shoot a frame with the 8×10 and 4×5, but if that’s your cup of tea, then do it. But it’s not the gear, and it’s certainly not about the hype about the gear. In the end, the image must stand on its own. If you have to tell the viewer some long boring story about how you had to drag the Deardorff up that hill, and it was raining, blah blah blah, then that’s a pretty good indication that you’ve got yourself a pretty half-ass image.

4×5 is good. 8×10 is good. Phase One is good. Leaf is good. Holga is good.

Don’t get sucked into this navel-gazing, airy-fairy argument. This is just one opinion.

By: Gilbert Plantinga

Gilbert Plantinga — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:01:26 +0000

And didn’t Garry Winogrand say something to the effect that “An artist is someone who plays with the materials.”

By: Real People | Real Stories » Blog Archive » Gearhead Disease, Explained

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:04:09 +0000

[...] Here’s a lovely essay on how equipment is related to the way we work. It is a finer articulation that I can manage, not least because it effectively raises the question: Which came first–the gearhead or the disease? [...]

By: mims

mims — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:24 +0000

One point that many people skip over in this discussion is that physical format size will always matter, regardless of a camera’s image quality, working method, etc. It is a matter of physics. Take a 300mm lens with a large f-stop and place a digital SLR sensor behind it and you get a tiny crop of the lens’ potential with very shallow depth of field. Stick an 8×10″ ’sensor’ (or sheet of film), and it gives the photographer a much, much wider view with the exact same depth of field. The lens and it’s characteristics have not changed, only the amount of it’s image you are utilizing. As your sensor gets physically smaller, all you can do is lower your focal length to an approximately equivalent focal length, as well as increase the aperture size to try and achieve a similar depth of field effect.

This is why HD video operators go to great lengths to make or buy 35mm adapters. The HD sensors are generally small and most cameras have a non-interchangeable lens (resulting in a ‘video’ look to their footage, ie. everything’s in focus). This makes it difficult to produce footage with the shallow depth of field you see at the cinema. As a compromise, they make an adapter which utilizes standard 35mm type still camera lenses (like a 50mm f1.4) that project an image onto a ground glass inside a dark box. Their HD camera attaches to the other side and simply films this image directly off of the ground glass. Then you must vibrate or spin the ground glass to eliminate the grain visibility. Regardless of quality, if the HD sensor was physically larger, this problem would be completely eliminated.

By: Charles Allen

Charles Allen — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:33:10 +0000

That argument comes up alot in alot of photography forums. A novice will ask “What kind of camera should I get” and no doubt someone with little more experience will say “It’s not the camera it’s the photographer”. This post really brings to light good reasons why the camera does matter because it affects not only the picture but the photographer.

By: Keith Johnson

Keith Johnson — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:21:10 +0000

Hello Darius,
You have nicely put together the talk I give at my workshops called “Tool Management”. I always wanted to have the tolerance and energy required by an 8×10, but alas I found out in graduate school that I simply could not abide by having a car be an accessory to the photographic act. So what did I end up doing? Using the car as an accessory to the photographic act as transporting me not so much as my gear. The look and feel and presence and connection when using an medium format camera was in keeping with what became my voice, but then my involvement with the picture (elements) is much more of a drive-by shooting.
With your permission I will copy and distribute “The Tools We Use” to my students.
best to,
kj

By: The Camera Phones Of The World Wept Gently Today at Notes From Nowhere

The Camera Phones Of The World Wept Gently Today at Notes From Nowhere — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:42:16 +0000

[...] Himes takes issue (here) with a comment that I made some time ago (here) on his excellent interview with Stephen Shore, and [...]

By: Denkrahm

Denkrahm — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:42:22 +0000

hi, this is an interesting topic about which photographers (like on http://www.rangefinderforum.com) talk about often, due to some extent to the popularity of digital photography. But, for philosophers, the topic – the influence of tools on the brain – is much older. See e.g. Vilem Flussers “On photography”, which has nice insights on this topic. E.g. the simplicity of an 8×10, but the complexity in use, versus the modern digital SLR’s which are vastly more complex machines, yet easy to use.