Thoughts concerning Edward Weston, "magic bullets" and saxophones

[John Kasaian]

I was reading about how Edward Weston at one point had expressed a strong desire for a better lens than his Turner Riech and a better camera (Century Universal IIRC) and I thought "Wow, Edward Weston was a magic bullet chaser, too!" but most of his more famous photographs were taken with the Turner Reich and his old camera, so EW didn't need new gear to make photographs, but rather desired new gear not for taking photos, but because, I'm guessing, he thought a better lens or a more solid or perhaps lighter wieght) camera might make his work easier. But not "better."

On a saxophone site I sometimes surf, the topic is "What saxophone or mouthpiece will make me sound like Paul Desmond, or John Coultrane, or Dave Koz and the answer is almost universally that whichever set up you play, you're going to sound like yourself. Some old time jazz musicians traded horns yet always sounded like "themselves" irrespective of which horn/mouthpiece they were playing.

I'm wondering if that is also the situation with photo gear. Someone might buy a Ansco (or Hassy) because Ansel Adams shot an Ansco (or Hassy) and might even hike up to the "diving board" or drive out to Hernandez, NM to photograph the church, but the resulting photos won't be Ansel Adams simply because Ansel Adams hadn't a hand in the photographic process other than to inspire a later 'tog to go do it ( OK, maybe they've got an Adams filter in photoshop now---I wouldn't know about that) I'm thinking that Edward Weston's worlkwould look very much like it looks today if he'd shot an Ebony and the latest from Schnieder just as Ansel Adam's work wouldn't be much different even if he didn't trade in his Turner Riech for the Cooke. Anyway, thats my offering on this sleepless Sunday night. Perhaps we are as individual in our vision as horn players are in their music.

Your thoughts?

[Ole Tjugen]

I don't know about horns - I'm a singer, and rarely sound like anyone but myself. That much being said I alternate between basso profundo and light baritone, depending on what's needed in the choir in that piece...

But I've noticed a (sometimes depressing) similarity in everything I shoot, from macro to portraits to grand landscapes, whether I use 35mm, MF, LF or ULF.

[jetcode]

I was reading about how Edward Weston at one point had expressed a strong desire for a better lens than his Turner Riech and a better camera (Century Universal IIRC) and I thought "Wow, Edward Weston was a magic bullet chaser, too!" but most of his more famous photographs were taken with the Turner Reich and his old camera, so EW didn't need new gear to make photographs, but rather desired new gear not for taking photos, but because, I'm guessing, he thought a better lens or a more solid or perhaps lighter wieght) camera might make his work easier. But not "better."

On a saxophone site I sometimes surf, the topic is "What saxophone or mouthpiece will make me sound like Paul Desmond, or John Coultrane, or Dave Koz and the answer is almost universally that whichever set up you play, you're going to sound like yourself. Some old time jazz musicians traded horns yet always sounded like "themselves" irrespective of which horn/mouthpiece they were playing.

I'm wondering if that is also the situation with photo gear. Someone might buy a Ansco (or Hassy) because Ansel Adams shot an Ansco (or Hassy) and might even hike up to the "diving board" or drive out to Hernandez, NM to photograph the church, but the resulting photos won't be Ansel Adams simply because Ansel Adams hadn't a hand in the photographic process other than to inspire a later 'tog to go do it ( OK, maybe they've got an Adams filter in photoshop now---I wouldn't know about that) I'm thinking that Edward Weston's worlkwould look very much like it looks today if he'd shot an Ebony and the latest from Schnieder just as Ansel Adam's work wouldn't be much different even if he didn't trade in his Turner Riech for the Cooke. Anyway, thats my offering on this sleepless Sunday night. Perhaps we are as individual in our vision as horn players are in their music.

Your thoughts?



no guitar can make you play better, some guitars are easier to play
no camera can make you shoot better, some cameras are easier to shoot

[Geert]

On a saxophone site I sometimes surf, the topic is "What saxophone or mouthpiece will make me sound like Paul Desmond, or John Coultrane, or Dave Koz and the answer is almost universally that whichever set up you play, you're going to sound like yourself. Some old time jazz musicians traded horns yet always sounded like "themselves" irrespective of which horn/mouthpiece they were playing.

Being a professionally schooled flautist myself, I must second that, but there is more in the game than that: finding an instrument that matches you (in our case: the mouthpiece) is a difficult task that takes a long time. It is the player that makes the sound but the instrument can drive your qualities up or hold them back.
Meanwhile, it is better to accept playing the instrument you happen to possess and make the best of it.

A lot of this applies to photography, but you will not note an impressive increment in quality as it is possible with musical instruments.

G

[Turner Reich]

The Golden Gate before the bridge is as good as anything done after the bridge. A TR might not be as flashy as a Cooke but in the end it's the photographer and not the equipment alone that makes great photographs, even if some "bracketing" is necessary. The only magic bullet is hard work.

[j.e.simmons]

I think the comparison to sax set ups is apt. Even after sending my 1927 Martin soprano off to Sarge for a rebuild, the Babbitt mouthpiece just didn't work with my mouth - low notes wouldn't sound, high notes flat. I found that a cheap Rico mouthpiece with a clarinet reed work, for me, much better.

In photography, I've tried lots of cameras and find that my 8x10 C-1 and an RB67 fit my vision best. I see with longer lenses in 8x10 and slightly wide lens on the RB. It's all what works.

BTW, if you find a set up that makes my fingers move like Trane's, please PM me.
juan

[Dan Fromm]

John, for composition, exposure, and processing its nearly all the photographer, very little the equipment as long as the gear is in reasonable working order and can do what the photographer needs. In some situations, e.g., using a Speed Graphic when swing or tilt or much rise/shift is required, gear can be limiting.

Magic bullet lenses, as I've pursued, may give better image quality, but that's not often as important as we chasers of magic bullets tell ourselves. Again, there are exceptions.

As a string player, I don't like analogies between instruments and cameras. Lousy string instruments, as beginners start with, are just plain hard to play. Making a good instrument speak is much easier, and good ones produce a better sound than lousy ones. This isn't to say that a good violinist can't make good music with a lousy fiddle, rather that he/she/it will have a much easier time and will sound a little better with a good one. Bows, though, are another matter. A really bad bow, as beginners usually start with, can defeat everyone, guarantees poor articulation.

The rule with crappy cameras, bottom of the line 6x9 folders for example, seems to be that they can't do a lot but what they do they do well enough.

Cheers,

Dan

[Michael Graves]

no guitar can make you play better, some guitars are easier to play
no camera can make you shoot better, some cameras are easier to shoot

And some photographers are easier to shoot.

[Jim Jones]

Weston's search for better equipment may have been inspired more by a need to replace faulty equipment than lust for perfection. He complained about leaky cameras, and lenses that didn't seem to live up to their reputation. Yet, he was content to use an obsolete Rapid Rectilinear that did what he wanted.

[Bill_1856]

Weston's portraits degraded from extraordinary with his hand-held 3x4 Graflex, to ordinary pot-boilers (his description) when he changed to a 4x5 Graflex, (which he mostly used on a tripod).

[davidb]

I remember reading how Ansel Adams had sent him a few lenses to use because his were crap. I think it was in the daybooks.

[scott_6029]

The tools won't necessarily make you better, but they can make it much easier.

[Kevin M Bourque]

Once you've been doing something for a while, you start to get a feel for what you like and don't like. You also learn to get the most out of what you're got in your hands at the moment. A Strad would be a wasted on most first-year violin students, not because they "don't deserve the best" but because they don't have sufficient technique to exploit the good qualities of the instrument. In addition, older instruments are often have strong personalities (quirks) and you have to understand your OWN personality before you can decide if its good for you.

I don't know much about saxophones, I have fairly peculiar preferences for the way my electric bass sounds. Whenever I let someone else sit in, they usually play a few notes, make a funny face, and then reach over to the amp and start changing stuff. I like my sound both live and on recordings, so it clearly fits the way I play (also admittedly peculiar). No one else seems to like it!

A probably apocryphal story: After a Jimi Hendrix sound check, everyone left the venue, and a sound guy went to his rig and turned everything on, just like Hendrix had left it. ALL he could get it to do was feed back! No notes! Apparently you had to be Hendrix to get it to play nice. Not everything works for everybody. If the story isn't true, it should be.

There's a thread over on photo.net right now from a guy who isn't happy because his large format lenses aren't sharp enough. No knock on the poster; I'm sure his question arises out of a sincere desire to improve his pictures. But, having been down that road, I have to wonder what other things are possibly in the mix that contribute to his dissatisfaction, including the photographer. Besides, who knows what "sharpness" really means, anyway? :-) But I digress.

[Merg Ross]

John, although you are talking about Edward, let me mention his son Brett who I know a little bit about.

Brett moved from his old rickety wooden Ansco to a C1 to have a sturdier outfit. In looking at his work, there is no indication as to when that transition occured. Just a new piece of equipment with the same Brett Weston vision.

However, when he started using the Rollei 66, the look of his work changed. He often remarked how the "small" camera had made things possible that he could never have done with the 8x10. So, perhaps different equipment in the hands of a master might yield a different result. The important element, of course, being the eye behind the lens.

[Randy H]

The tools won't necessarily make you better, but they can make it much easier.

"The tool that fits you" can make it easier. Just as carpenters each have their preferences in hammer size and weight for the particular task they are working on, every tradesman has the basic "tools of his trade" that will be similar, but each has his own "preference". The one that suits his "style" as it were.

I have had several different cameras and lenses, but for what "suits" me, I keep coming back to my old Conley with a versar lens. Not the most desireable pieces in either, but it is what "suits" me and my likings for final outcome. I had a Speed Graphic for a time, and personally did not care for it. I wanted an 8X10, but after obtaining one, did not really care for it either. Have a couple 4X5's and never use them. "HAD" an early Japanese 5X7 field, and miss it. Badly. Still shoot a lot with a 35mm. I like the relational size and the "comfort" I have in using it. Never have been able to get decent composition out of a 120mm. Good clear pics. Just not worth a damn to look at.

In musical endeavors, I played several different brass instruments, in particular trumpet and had a forever old mouthpiece that I kept and used from horn to horn. It was a "gimme" because the guy that had it, hated it. Did not fit his "style".

So, is a "bullet-chaser" looking for "better" or "better suited"?

By the way, I no longer have a horn, but after 30+ years, still have the mouthpiece.

[Blacky Dalton]

Think of this:

Make a really good print

Display this print to any number of people and inform them of the format used

Ask if anyone can tell you what brand of camera you used to make the image?

Try the same experiment with a quality recording of a saxophone

Listeners may identify the musician, but can they identify the manufacturer of the instrument?

Food for thought

B. Dalton

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I can't help but think that perhaps Weston would have taken more and better picstures if he had a camera he was comfortable with. I realize the camera does not take the picture but sometimes the ease (or difficutly for that matter) to use your equipment makes you want to take (or not take) pictures.

I think I am a perfect example of getting the wrong camera for the photographer. WHen I was looking at 8x10 cameras I could not afford the AS so I got a field camera. I absolutely hated this camera, it had too many knobs for me to loosen and tighten and as such many times I left shot that could have been very good simply because I did not feel like setting up the camera.

I don't think this is magic bullet chasing, but finding the right piece of equipment that fits your needs perfectly. I am sure it has happened to many here, that you find or buy a piece of equipment that right of the box it fits the way you work exactly as you wanted it to work and that you would not trade, sell or even update. I think this is what Weston was talking about, not getting a "prettier" camera, or a more modern camera but getting one that he did not feel it was a hassle to use where he had to worry about light leaks, loose parts etc. I can certainly understand where he was comming from.

[Kevin M Bourque]

Blacky -

That analogy might be a little strained. For instance, the neck pickup of a Stratocaster is instantly recognizable. It imparts easily perceived qualities to the sound (I call it the "rubber band' sound). So, even though I can't say "Fender Stratocaster" for sure, I can say "guitar that was built to sound like a Strat" with a high degree of certainty.

The qualities of a camera (large format in particular) don't imprint themselves on the final outcome quite as readily. The cameras personality manifests itself more with how easily and efficiently the operator can use it.

Lenses and film have more of a signature to them than does the camera.

[paulr]

i think it's a pretty good comparison. no one believes that musical instruments or photo gear are of no consequence, but beginners especially tend to put way too much emphasis on Stuff vs. what they do with it.

it's why sponsorship deals are so popular and effective in any field that requires you to buy stuff. people think that just maybe if they had hendrix's guitar, weston's camera, lance's bike, they could be a genius too.

[Jim Galli]

BALONEY.

Take it from a guy who plays a mean radio.

Last evening I made 5 shots (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/LillyBlackISusan/BIS.html) of a single black-eyed-susan with 5 different ecclectic lenses and the results are astonishingly different from each other. Each one pleases me! There isn't a winner or loser in the bunch, they're just different. None of 'em look like they were made with an ordinary plasmat. I'll post 'em in a bit.

[Blacky Dalton]

Kevin,

I absolutely agree that when it comes to guitars it is more obvious, but I was carrying on the analogy of the saxophone. I worked in the music business way back when I was a very young man and I swear I can’t remember any brand names of saxophones. Must be old age?

I feel you should own the best tools you can afford. And your tools should, as mentioned previously, fit your hand. When it comes to photography, certainly film and lenses influence the finished print, but the brand name on the camera has little to do with the image, especially when you are talking LF or ULF. I would still challenge anyone to look at any print and tell me what brand was on the nameplate of the camera.

I see so much discussion about camera brand. Everyone has their preference. What would happen if you ask what brand car you should buy in a crowded bar? I have been in some places where it wouldn’t be long before physical altercation would begin.

Years ago when I bought a new 35mm camera system, I made my final choice by holding each camera in my hand. One particular brand fit my had the best and that is the one I purchased.

Jim,

I can still play that radio also!

Your post is most relevant to my position. Now take the five prints you mentioned as each being “astonishingly different” and place them on the wall. Show them to some number of people. Then ask those people to identify which lens made each photo.

Interesting discussion,

B. Dalton

[Randy H]

And your tools should, as mentioned previously, fit your hand.

One particular brand fit my had the best and that is the one I purchased.

Jim,
Your post is most relevant to my position. Now take the five prints you mentioned as each being “astonishingly different” and place them on the wall. Show them to some number of people. Then ask those people to identify which lens made each photo.


1) Agree. Tool should have a comfortable fit and feel.
2) ibid
3) Beg to differ. While they may not be able to identify camera, there are those that would be able to identify lens. Each type and maker will tend to have its own "personality" that is inherently unique, in and of itself.

Just as some people prefer Chevy and some prefer Olds or Pontiac. All three being made by the same company, each has its own unique personality designed to attract a certain group of drivers. Same with cameras and lenses. They all take pictures, but each has its own feel and style.

[Vaughn]

...SNIP...The qualities of a camera (large format in particular) don't imprint themselves on the final outcome quite as readily. The cameras personality manifests itself more with how easily and efficiently the operator can use it.

Lenses and film have more of a signature to them than does the camera.

Format of the camera also plays an important role in determining the image...going from the square of the 6x6cm, to the rectangles and the panoramic formats.

Vaughn

[Blacky Dalton]

Not trying to start a war, but just trying to make the point that in photography the most important thing is the finished image. It is not about the process nor the hardware, it is the finished photo that really counts. As mentioned earlier two musicians can play the same instrument, but they can sound very different.

What is important for any artist using the medium of photography is to be able to create the finished product that says what you feel. It is up to you, the photographer/craftsman to choose the tools that allow you to express your feeling in the finished print. Those tools are of little interest to someone that is just a patron of the art itself. Those that buy paintings have no interest in what brand of brush or canvas was used.

We are a society that is constantly pounded by advertisers to be mindful of product manufacturers. Brand recognition is pounded at all of us every day, and I sometimes think we spend way too much time looking at the brand and not the finished product.

Just a few observations. And Jim I am jamming with that radio right now!

B. Dalton

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Not trying to start a war, but just trying to make the point that in photography the most important thing is the finished image. It is not about the process nor the hardware

Many of us disagree with you, the process and to a certain extent the hardware play an important part in the finished photograph, without them, and specially the process the finish photograph would not look the same.

If you hate using your hardware, then chances are making a photograph would feel like work rather than an enjoyable pursuit.

[Blacky Dalton]

Exactly Jorge, the artistically creative process is mainly a right brain function. The operation of the equipment is a left brain function. The two do not live well together at the same time. So, if your artistic functioning is continually interrupted by the left brain function trying to operate some contraption that does not work well for you, it is easy to become frustrated and just say to heck with it all.

By saying “It is not about the process nor the hardware” I mean that you should first find the processes and hardware that suits you, so that these things are no longer distractions to your right brain processes. Owning the finest equipment you can afford is not necessarily about the money, but is about what fits your hand.

Exactly as you said Jorge, “If you hate using your hardware, then chances are making a photograph would feel like work rather than an enjoyable pursuit.”. . . if the equipment is that much of a distraction, why bother. EW was an exception to this, even though he had a badly worn camera, leaky bellows and a less than optimum lens, he was driven to grit his teeth and just grin and bear it. Obviously he found a way to not allow the left brain distractions to affect him????

B. Dalton

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

EW was an exception to this, even though he had a badly worn camera, leaky bellows and a less than optimum lens, he was driven to grit his teeth and just grin and bear it. Obviously he found a way to not allow the left brain distractions to affect him????

Was he really an exception, or just a very talented photographer? I think most of us have at one time or another used cameras and equipment that was less than optimal and still managed to get some good shots.

IN the end I do agree with you that if you manage to get the craft end of photography ,in other words, the technical crap out of the way, you are then ready to beguin expressing yourself through your medium.

[Blacky Dalton]

I think it was Brooks Jensen in one of his podcasts where he tells the story of someone he knew that spent years honing his photographic skills. This person amassed the equipment and techniques required to make beautifully crafted prints. Then some years later when Books contacted this person he found that he had sold all of his equipment and dismantled is large darkroom. Seems that for this fellow, once he had mastered the process, he found he had nothing to say. Strange story?

As far as EW, an exception is not a good description. He was extremely talented and because of his extremely narrowly focused talent he was driven. He didn’t really care about the equipment. It was just the means to an end. He just plowed through the difficulties because he was driven to make the image. Again, the finished photograph. I truly wonder what it would be like to be able to focus at that intensity?

B. Dalton

[John Kasaian]

BALONEY.

Take it from a guy who plays a mean radio.

Last evening I made 5 shots (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/LillyBlackISusan/BIS.html) of a single black-eyed-susan with 5 different ecclectic lenses and the results are astonishingly different from each other. Each one pleases me! There isn't a winner or loser in the bunch, they're just different. None of 'em look like they were made with an ordinary plasmat. I'll post 'em in a bit.

Jim,
You can certainly give credit to your optics, but c'mon---you take some really fine photographs with those funky old lenses. Someone who dosen't have your artistic eye for photography could take photos with equally funky old lenses and the results might well be anything but astonishing.

Most beginning music students spend a lot of time with Rubanks Method books---dull and boring stuff but it is valuable for learing a lot of fine points---the stuff that seperates the amatuer from the pro.

Most of use could quickly learn to give a shot, stitch a laceration, splint a fracture or even amputate a limb, but who'd want to vsit a "doctor" with only rudimentary skills?

Art students I've been told spend hours in museums sketching away at old paintings, not to learn how to make fogeries but rather to learn the techniques used by the masters.

Worn photo gear is always an issue--especially when starting out. I can't see anything good comoing out of a camera with leaky bellows or that can't lock down. Such will only needlessly frustrate a student but a pro at least knows what is going on and can make the determination that it is his equipment---new people don't yet have that ability (usually.) But I think a good photograph still depends ore on the photographer than the gear.

In a autumn of 84 I was recovering from eye surgery and in the winter of 84 I was ordered to temporary active duty in the reserves so I wasn't able to ski until I was mustered out in the spring. It so happened that there was a summer ski racing camp in Switzerland and while not a racer, I went along just for the fun of it. One of our coaches was a swell guy who didn't make it to the Swiss national team. He kept a rusty old pair of skis stashed behind the timing hut. The campers OTOH were mainly New Englands from a private school in Vermont who all had aspirations to make the US national team. The were young, fit and had the latest racing gear. Our swiss coach was much older and had a love for sausages and beer.

Our coach could ski circles around any of the campers and he set the pace on the race course. In two weeks not a single camper ever came close to this guy's times (My times OTOH, were said to need a calender rather than a chronograph!)
It was great fun, but it taught me that knowlege would beat out equipment---at least in ski racing, certainly in music (one of the signatures on the sax website is "You can play a shoelace if you're sincere enough" attributed to John Coultrane) Maybe in photography, too?

BTW I'm going back to playing the radio one day---if I can ever find the short that keeps blowing the fuse in that old ex-forestry truck of mine!;) Darn those marmots!

[Jim Galli]

John, you're a wonderful sport. I agree totally about the newbie thing. I always reccomend a late copal shutter and something very forgiving like a Symmar 210. Starting out with at least those 2 areas covered narrows down the problem solving. ;)

[John Z.]

I believe this is an appropriate place to insert my current favorite Edward Weston quote; taken from Popular Photography, June of 1938: 'Master of Simplicity'

"I have worked 35 years, yet this year I feel I have made definite progress"

Just kind of puts things in perspective, and gives my hope for my own abilities some day...

[Christopher D. Keth]

While it's not exactly a magic bullet for the work, I do find that certain pieces of equipment just feel good and inspire you a bit. That's nice.

[Robert Skeoch]

Myself I don't think the end product, in this case a photograph, matters as much as the process of shooting.

Yes I like to print, yes I like to end up with a nice photo in the end, but I find a nice shot more of a bonus. For me the joy of photography comes in the shooting. I just love to shoot. I can't wait to shoot, whether it's a portrait, a rock or a flower, I just love to shoot.

The photos themselves don't really matter, no one cares if I ever print my stuff... so I get the joy out of the shooting... and if you're going to enjoy the shoot it's nice to have a camera that you enjoy using... I don't want to fight my gear when I'm trying to have fun with it.

One thing I have found over the last couple years is how much less gear I have than in the past. I'm down to two lens for the 8x10, and am thinking of switching back to a Rollei twin lens with it's lack of a system for 120.

Just my two cents worth while I'm killing time on the night shift.

-Rob Skeoch

[paulr]

i think it's amazing (and inspiring) how much great work has been done by photographers and artists in other media with minimally adequate gear.

i don't think anyone would dispute that it's wonderful to work with first rate equipment. but it seems that people like weston, who are driven to do their work, will somehow get it done no matter what kinds of personal, financial, or technical obstacles challenge them.

[claudiocambon]

i think it's amazing (and inspiring) how much great work has been done by photographers and artists in other media with minimally adequate gear.

i don't think anyone would dispute that it's wonderful to work with first rate equipment. but it seems that people like weston, who are driven to do their work, will somehow get it done no matter what kinds of personal, financial, or technical obstacles challenge them.

Even better, there is a letter from Stieglitz to Weston congratulating him on getting the Guggenheim, and all the while complaining about his camera and darkroom set-up, sagging bellows held up by a string tied to the camera stand and the like. Somewhere between funny and inspiring.

[Ben R]

Had a woman come round to me today to ask me to look at her photos and recommend how she could get better results.

I had to tell her that for all her DSLR and lenses, they were all snapshots. Getting different equipment would not make any difference, there is no magic setting. Told her to go out and take some photography courses then decide what she wants to say with her photography. Once she has an idea of what she wants to accomplish, and the technical skills to start realising her goal, only then can she start to 'make' photographs rather than just 'take' photographs.

There used to be a truism that amatuers talk about cameras and lenses, professionals talk about easy to set up tripods and convenient bags. A professional knows what equipment they need to achieve what he has in mind, from then on all the bells and whistles are just to make their life easier. A professional usually has to get the job done whatever the constraints and that makes them very happy to have the job made easier by equipment. I have a totally different list of needs for my hobby landscape work than for my pro wedding work. I can and often do shoot landscapes with manual everything, I shoot weddings with modern DSLR's - when I need to get it right first time every time, I don't have the patience or the time for equipment that makes life hard for me in the field from cameras to bags to assistants!

[Captain_joe6]

Just to clarify a few things aboust Weston:

He replaced his camera, what I believe was an 8x10 Seneca, with an 8x10 Century Universal because the Seneca's bellows had become riddled with pinholes and were ruining a large number of negatives, and because as he put it, the Universal was "the finest made." (Daybooks, Book II, pg. 255)

With him to Mexico he brought a 14in. f/3.8 Graf Variable Anastigmat (with which he had flare problems), a 14.5in. f/4 Wollensak Verito (which he also had flare problems with). Also included was 'an expensive anastigmat' that he doesn't say anything more about. This from Beaumont Newhall's excellent article at the end of the Daybooks 2-in-1 edition.

In Mexico he bought a 210mm f/4.5 Zeiss Tessar in an antique shop for 80 pesos. (Daybooks, Book I, pg. 157) This lens he used on the 3.25x4.25 Graflex, and also for closeup work on the 8x10. The Rapid Rectilinear, a Rochester Optical Co. 'Rapid Universal' (marked as a 'three-focus') he picked up in a shop somewhere in early 1927 for $5. He later inscribed it and gave it to Brett. (Focus Magazine, I forget which issue, but its the one with Pepper No. 30 on the cover)

The Gundlach Turner-Reich 12-21-28 is the lens that he used on the Guggenheim trips. He liked the 12" and 28" lengths, but had trouble focusing the 21" cell. He attributed this problem to a poorly aligned element in that cell, so he bought a Turner-Reich 19" cell to use instead. (The 19", by the way, is part of the 12-19-25 set). The poor lens didn't jade him, however, because he still seemed to think highly of the Gundlach Manhattan Optical Co. All this info is at the end of 'California and The West,' which is some of the best travel writing I've ever encountered. It's a tru shame that it isn't in print any more.

He also makes very brief mention in the Daybooks of a 5.5in. Cooke lens that he uses for some closeup work.

His dark cloth was constructed from 2 layers for black velveteen and one of white. (Thats also from California and the West, in about Chapter 3)

He used a Ries tripod, probably not exclusively, though.

My reading of all this is that he didn't particularly care what he used, so long as it was reliable and did what he needed it to. Weston wasn't a 'magic-bullet chaser,' just a highly-focused artist who didn't like to be interrupted by equipment failures, and, lets face it, more expensive equipment tends to be of higher, more reliable (when treated properly) quality than less-expensive items.

If you want to know more, check out the 'Daybooks,' 'California and the West,' 'Darkroom 2' which has Cole talking about Edward's darkroom methods, and Ansel Adam's 'The Print' which mentions Edward's formula for spotting ink.

Also, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and add to this information. The stuff won't make you better, but the time will.