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...
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.
-Chris
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
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.Originally Posted by paulr
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!
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks