Taboo Photo Forum

🛑 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 INFORMATION AVAILABLE CLICK HERE👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

OK. I know some can do this. But bet most can't.
Off the tops of your heads (quick - no looking up))
What were the favorite cameras of:
1. Richard Avedon
2. Henri C. Bresson
3. Robert Cappa
4. Ansel Adams
5. Vivian Maier
6. Dorthea Lange
And I bet very few, would know the lenses every one of them used.
The only reason I've posted this, is because how much..once the basics are met... reasonably recognizable images, an ability to record a scene, an ability to use the camera to do so, how much does the brand, the model, or the ease of use (even) really count? I'm not making any judgments, just asking for thoughts. Do the cameras matter so much, or does the vision, the subject matter, the content, the archival value? I see so many who are blinded by brand name or type (or hype). What does it really matter? Sure we want the best we can have, but is it so stringent of a requirement? To have perfection in a camera? or a lens? Thoughts.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
Brains and courage are still more important than cameras. Talent too, but it is thinly spread
As for cameras owned HCB and Capa had Leicas, as most Magnum photographers, altthough one at least used Rollei 6x6. Alex Majoli used 2 Olympus compacts in the African wars (8080?).
I'll let others chime in about the American photographers' cameras.
Capa first may have used Leica, but mostly Contax and Nikon ( he was killed with both, on loaded with color film, the other black and white). The only reason I know this is because I'd just looked it up out of curiosity before posting
Majoli used the 5050 at least at first, then the 8080 also. He used two 5050's around his neck, they were not imposing...and of course had a great DOF (I think maybe set on manual focus). It's amazing how fast either of these P&S cameras are when set up like that..very, very little lag (I was inspired to try that style of shooting with both - in a much less dangerous environment)...and of course the good Oly colors (although he shot a lot in BW which they are very good at too, with very film like grain)
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
I've raised this once or twice. I was looking at an old Life magazine a couple of weeks ago (1970s vintage) and a Rolling Stone from that era too, and it's amazing how poor the IQ was by today's standards.
If someone turned up on these forums with the kind of IQ of some of those pix published in those leading journals, they would be howled out of the ether!
Of course a lot of their work looks cliched now but it didn't then because it wasn't! What's happened is that they plowed a fresh furrow and every wannabe has copied them since.
I was selling pix back then (60s and 70s), first using 6x6 (Mamiyas, Rollei) and then 35mm (Olympus OM1s). yes, when you started to blow up your 35mm Tri-X neg, you could run out of rez really quickly. And that was only 400 ASA. I laugh hysterically when I see the rubbish written here with people complaining they can't get a decent pic at 1200 ISO. Come off the grass!
Brains and courage are still more important than cameras. Talent too, but it is thinly spread
As for cameras owned HCB and Capa had Leicas, as most Magnum photographers, altthough one at least used Rollei 6x6. Alex Majoli used 2 Olympus compacts in the African wars (8080?).
He used Olympus C-5050's and C-5060's in Iraq. Had several at a time ready to shoot so that when one hit the buffers he could quickly use another one. Other photographers using big DSLR's thought him a bit mad but he made it work and proved the point that you don't need the best gear to get compelling shots. However you could argue that he did use the best gear, for him anyway.
I'll let others chime in about the American photographers' cameras.
--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
It goes back further than the 1970s
I've raised this once or twice. I was looking at an old Life magazine a couple of weeks ago (1970s vintage) and a Rolling Stone from that era too, and it's amazing how poor the IQ was by today's standards.
If someone turned up on these forums with the kind of IQ of some of those pix published in those leading journals, they would be howled out of the ether!
Of course a lot of their work looks cliched now but it didn't then because it wasn't! What's happened is that they plowed a fresh furrow and every wannabe has copied them since.
Like you, probably, I was taking photographs in the 1970s using film SLR cameras. I scrimped and saved for the best lenses I could buy and inevitably ended up doing a lot of zooming with my feet. However, the IQ as the only determinant of photographic value goes back way earlier than this decade. The advent of negative/positive film photography was in 1841 when William Henry Fox Talbot invented and patented his Calotype/Talbotype process.
Calotype negatives were actually made of paper rather than film, but that is hardly relevant. The cameras available in the middle of the 19th century did not lack resolution thanks to their large film/paper negative size, but some of the lenses available to photographers then were hardly stellar in quality compared to what we can buy relatively cheaply today.
This did not stop photographers like Julia Margaret Cameron producing outstanding portraits. Her vision was more important than her equipment.
Fox Talbot was a pioneer inventor but a lousy businessman. He demanded such high royalties on his Calotype process that very few photographers adopted it. Then in the1850s he was persuaded to abandon royalties in favour of simply selling his materials to amateur photographers. My great grandfather was one such amateur who bought a view camera and started to produce landscape and architectural images. I have now digitised all his surviving paper negatives and when I look at the image quality in the corners particularly it can be dire. Yet these images retain great architectural and historical value. He photographed in Amsterdam when on holiday/vacation, and I have views of parts of that city that I am in the process of communicating to archives in The Netherlands, who value them despite the softness in the corners..
Without looking, out of memory .. and not sure that everything is right (I hope that you'll give the correct answer later) :
OK. I know some can do this. But bet most can't.
Off the tops of your heads (quick - no looking up))
What were the favorite cameras of:
A view camera ? or a medium format camera at least
I'd have said a Leica M too, but I've just read a Post saying he was using contax and Nikons
A big viewcamera, probably of the 10x18 format
MM that is interesting, I have no idea.. may be a Speedgraphic for her work in the thirties and later may be a Rollei too.
And I bet very few, would know the lenses every one of them used.
I'd say Cartier Bresson a normal 55mm lens. Kapa who wanted to go nearer may be a somewhat wider lens, but probably severals depending on the working conditions.
Avedon .. well a portrait lens for medium format or view camera.
Dorothea Lange near a normal lens.
Vivian Maier normal to wide, I'd say.
The only reason I've posted this, is because how much..once the basics are met... reasonably recognizable images, an ability to record a scene, an ability to use the camera to do so, how much does the brand, the model, or the ease of use (even) really count? I'm not making any judgments, just asking for thoughts. Do the cameras matter so much, or does the vision, the subject matter, the content, the archival value? I see so many who are blinded by brand name or type (or hype). What does it really matter? Sure we want the best we can have, but is it so stringent of a requirement? To have perfection in a camera? or a lens?
I'd say that the tool you choose has an influence on your output. Depending on the results you want, you have many options to choose from. Once you have chosen, the tools growths on you and there is an interaction between the pictures you are able to achieve and the tool you have chosen. So I'd say that the tool matters, but even more the interaction between the tools and the photographer.
--
rrr_hhh
I've raised this once or twice. I was looking at an old Life magazine a couple of weeks ago (1970s vintage) and a Rolling Stone from that era too, and it's amazing how poor the IQ was by today's standards.
In the seventies you were already able to produce very sharp pictures, but you had to use the gear adapted : large or medium format camera and low ISO. Leica camera despite using 35mm film had set a new standard for this format and after the war, the IQ produced by Leica or Nikon cameras was aready very high, provided you were looking at the real prints and the print was made with care.
On the other hand, the newspapers and magazines printing technique were not as good as now, so my take on this is that the poor IQ you are seeing is due more to the printing technique used in newspapers and magazines of that time than to the cameras' poor IQ.
In all fairness, they probably used about the very best equipement and techniques available to them at the time. It's truly naive to think that most artists throughout history would be "gear luddites".
Now, I agree with your major point: a good photographer is a good photographer regardless of equipment. A bad photrographer will be a bad photographer regardless of equipment, too. That is true.
But rest assured that Ansel Adams - a notorious pixel-peeper before pixels existed - would be Photoshopping the crap out of his great pictures if he had a chance.
Tools DO matter and the RIGHT way to compare is not by comparing Ansel Adams with a rich guy who can't take pictures. That's an apples-to-oranges situation.
The right comparison is: what would Ansel Adams (or any of the great photographers you mention) do with the best technology availabler today? I'm pretty sure he would produce much better pictures. It's the only rational assumption.
I'd say that the tool you choose has an influence on your output. Depending on the results you want, you have many options to choose from. Once you have chosen, the tools growths on you and there is an interaction between the pictures you are able to achieve and the tool you have chosen. So I'd say that the tool matters, but even more the interaction between the tools and the photographer.
This is a clever answer, and I hinted the same by saying that I wished m4/3 introduced at least one camera that a photographer can make his/her own, meaning for many years. Like a Leica or a Canon 5d.
The potential is there since quite a few photographers already use them as 'art cameras' (Kirk Tuck) and surely they are not out of place in PJ, especially now they have blazing fast AF.
Comparison with A. Adams or D. Lange are fatally flawed since they used large format cameras - so the OP should have restricted the range of comparison.
One ph. I would include is Steve McCurry. He uses Nikon and was clearly embedded in the Irak and AFPAK wars. But he used colour in many environmental portraits, and I think that m4/3 is ideally suited for that. Remember the defaced AF girl on Time magazine.
He was not allowed to shoot the wars, but he showed the results with terrible beauty.
(to discuss photographers instead of gear can be very refreshing)
Page 1 of 5 (posts 1-10 of 45 in thread) Next
© 1998 - 2021 Digital Photography Review

Похоже, что вы злоупотребляли этой функцией. Она для вас теперь временно заблокирована.

Если вы считаете, что эти материалы не нарушают наши Нормы сообщества, сообщите нам об этом.

Shota Mom Incest
Crazy Son Moms
Mature Having Fun
Granny Young Strapon
Coed Cherry Nude
Taboo on a camera forum?: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum ...
Forum-FL-Taboo - Photos | Facebook
Yandex
TABOO-INCEST - IMDb
satinfuntaboo (@satinfuntaboo) | Twitter
Pretty Baby - Brooke Shields Photo (843048) - Fanpop
Biker Party U.S.A. | Photo.net
Yandex.Images: search for images online or search by image
Taboo 1 - video Dailymotion
Taboo Photo Forum