New article: Confessions of a recovering magic bullet chaser [Archive]

Jim Galli

11-Dec-2003, 07:45

Excellently said. In my case, I have an incredibly short attention span, the revolving door of lenses and cameras and equipment have at least led to a rather high volume of prints making their way to the dumpster. Somewhere in that volume I've made the incremental gains that I would have anyway with 3 boring lenses and 1 boring camera. I keep telling myself I'm building the "system" that I will use for the remainder of my life. I also have to note that some of the magic bullet lenses that are the most costly, in particular I'm thinking of a 14" Kern Gold Dot Dagor are that popular for a good reason. There may be a kernal of truth to some of the hype. Or not. Let's see, I think I have a half a dozen lenses laying around in the garage that I've NEVER made a picture with. Maybe this weekend.

Mark_3632

11-Dec-2003, 07:57

Hello my name is Mark H. and I have chased magic bullets. It has been at least a week since I searched google for "photography+magic+bullet-effort"

Good essay

Paul Kierstead

11-Dec-2003, 08:27

Great article. It is kind of funny, but I am not sure that LF is really where it belongs. I play in the digital & 35mm (Canon gear in my case) too and frequent a few forums. There, I think magic bullets are even more common although I would have to admit the hype (no insult intended) surrounding pyro and AZO get close. In the 35mm/digital world, it is about lenses and bodies. "Oh, I got a 1D and the pictures are fab!". Pretty soon there are a flood of people looking for 1D's. Or 1Ds' for those who can afford it. Lenses go in waves too; a while back there was an absolute craze for Canon 85/1.2. A bunch of people went nuts for the 50/1.0. It is quite evident from a very large number of posts that many believe that equipment will indeed make them much better. Often you hear people saying "Oh, the non-IS version is sharper so I bought that one". Of course, the difference in sharpness would require a loupe on a 30x40 print.

At one level, I disagree with the article. Most prints are not bad because of non-parallel lens boards, or light-leaks or any other technical reason. The are bad because of a lack of vision and understanding. One of my favorite examples is sharpness: So many strive for ultimate sharpness, but don't understand apparent is different then actual sharpness. These are the people who won't shoot a lens like the 50/1.4 wide open (or even at F/2) because it is soft; the same people are bowled over when the see a "sharp" shot from said lens and think theirs are defective. Of course they fail to realize that the "sharp" photograph appears so because the photographer use a highly out of focus background to make emphasize his foreground. Most poor photographs happen because people don't select the right light, framing or depth of field (among other things).

A while back I lucked into sufficient means to be able to purchase some of the best glass that Canon has to offer. Once I owned that and have full control of my process, I came realize that I no longer had anything to blame for my poor results; I had all the best and my shots still sucked. I now had only myself to blame. Part of my move to LF was because of that; for me it was not another silver bullet but a way to reduce the technology and focus on the process. My photography has improved greatly since. I wish many of the people who are chasing things could have my opportunity to own some of the best and realize that it is themselves that need work, not their equipment.

OK, this has gotten long and a bit of a rant and is mostly non-LF but I think the short story is: Substitute some of the terminology and you can apply it to any photographic equipment genre. And even then, it is still the equipment behind the camera that is largely at fault.

John Kasaian

11-Dec-2003, 09:29

Would this mean that those of us who are manic obsessive over 19th & early 20th century lenses and processes are searching for a "magic artifact?"....sounds kind of Indiana Jones (I think I'm going to try a "magic fedora" for a lens shade!)...hmmm...then again, most of large format IS an artifact from the past! Perhaps the "magic obsidian arrowhead" is what I've been looking for?

Ryan M

11-Dec-2003, 10:37

The beauty of largeformat is the ability to do contact printing with minimal equipment, and if, if you are good and have vision, can get darn good results. There still exists plenty of "magic bullets" in large format though. Take the 110xl schneider lens. Its a great lens, one that I used for about a year, until I realized that I really really hated the focal length. I bought it because of the hype, which is true for the most part, but I sold it and now I only have 1 lens for my 4x5 gear. I find I can do most things I want in 4x5 with that lens.

I also shoot 35 with pentax gear, which in and of itself is dangereous when it comes to internet forums. I don't know how many times I hear that "pentax sucks because it doesn't have professional level cameras" coming from people with canon or nikon gear strapped around them with the largest damned "is that a tree stump in your pants or are you just happy to see me?" glass I have ever seen, and there still in college. No pentax doens't make an F5 camera, but they do make capable cameras.

In general, I think it is more important to look at images, study light, composition, design and have people critique your shots. This is something that I really need to work on to become a better photographer.

Jon_2416

11-Dec-2003, 11:09

I enjoyed this when it was originally posted on photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0036Gn

Great article...

Gene M

11-Dec-2003, 11:24

Serious amateur photogs obsess over equipment and I'm no different. Your article did inspire me to critique my photos again and see what I can do to make them better.

I don't recall who said it but the quote goes something like this..." When painters get together there is no discussion about what brushes are best."

Something like that.

Paul Metcalf

11-Dec-2003, 12:36

I wonder if Pyro works as well as Drano to open drain clogs? (PS - you have to read the article, which is outstanding and "spot on").

Dan Fromm

11-Dec-2003, 13:16

There may be no magic bullets that will enable a mediocre photographer to take good pictures consistently, but using equipment that's up to the job can make a difference. Here are two examples.

Years ago I got a 65/6.8 Raptar and a Century Graphic to use it on. I never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with that lens. Other lenses on the Century gave more satisfactory results. I can't blame that Raptar for focusing, composition, or exposure blunders, but I blame the prevailing fuzziness on it. Yes, the lack of sharpness may be my fault since I can't force myself to shoot below f/22. The 65/8 Ilex that replaced it gives results at f/11 and f/16 that are sharp enough to stop my griping about fuzziness. The better lens didn't make me a better photographer, but it makes better pictures.

A couple of years ago I went crazy about macro and tried out a pile of macro lenses, most with ok or better reputations. I found some of them completely unusable. I also found that at magnifications below 1:1 there wasn't a lot of reason for an obsessive search for the absolutely best lens. Several of the lenses I tried gave results between 1:8 and 1:1 on the emulsions I use and at the apertures I thought appropriate that were nearly indistinguishable. Things were different above roughly 2:1, but even there the differences between good enough and best weren't overwhelming. Testing weeded out the bad ones, though. There may be no magic bullets among lenses designed for working closeup, but there are certainly some anti-magic ones. The lenses that work well enough don't make me a better photographer, but they do let me meet the minimum standards.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, its the photographer, not the machinery. But this presupposes machinery that's at least minimally capable.

Cheers,

Dan

MIke Sherck

11-Dec-2003, 13:33

(From the Preaching to the Choir department. Yes, I know that nothing hereunder is new to most of us. Nevertheless, there are quite a few folks who are new to LF, and perhaps this will be of assistance to them.)

I don't believe that there are any real magic bullets, but there are a few things which can masquerade as them:

#1 is to look at a lot of prints. After you've looked at a bunch of good prints and bad prints and prints in between you eventually learn the difference between them. That doesn't tell you how, but it gives you an idea of what the goal should be. Museums and shows are great resources but with the tremendous improvements in printing technology over the past decade, well printed books and magazines can often be good enough.

#2 is to take the time to learn how to use the equipment. I'd rather have one camera and one lens that I can operate blindfolded than three cameras and a bag full of lenses that I have to puzzle over every time I want to open the shutter to compose and focus.

#3 is to have something to say. If this is confusing then you need to stop and think about what photography is to you and why you're doing it. A little introspection, repeated every once in a while, can go a long way.

#4 is to practice regularly; i.e., take a lot of pictures. Most (maybe all, in my case,) are destined for the circular file, but one thing is for sure: if you don't take many photographs the ones you do take aren't likely to be much of an improvement. There's a darned good reason why you don't see very much of the great photographers' early work.

A while back in a magazine (vague memory says it was Lenswork, but I could be vastly mistaken,) it was pointed out that you wouldn't expect to become a concert musician by practicing for a couple of hours a week. Why do so many people expect to become good photographers when they take photographs once or twice a month, and have to force themselves into the darkroom? Yes, we have families and jobs and all of the other imperatives of modern life -- but if that's so and if we feel that we must yield to all of the other demands on our time, aren't we maybe asking too much from an activity to which we can only devote the occasional attention? The editor's column in the current Lenswork points out that it's easy to get a decent B&W print with very little effort from a modern darkroom. Perhaps that fools us into thinking that the next stage, getting a great print, should be easy, too. It isn't, but the search for shortcuts is what gives rise to the quest for the next magic bullet.

On the other hand, keeping in mind all of the above, I'd still love to have a new, lightweight field camera with a few spiffy modern lenses. And develop in pyro and contact print in Azo and platinum... Knowing that there are no magic bullets is no guarantee that we'll stop lusting after the latest widget! :)

Mike

Note: Sorry that I don't have better references to the magazine articles I mentioned, but I'm at work, procrastinating over an unpleasant task, and I don't have them to hand. I believe that the concepts mentioned were printed in Lenswork magazine earlier this year, but I could be mistaken. If so, I apologize.

Jim_3565

11-Dec-2003, 15:06

I'm exposing and developing my negatives for a lot more density lately, in an effort to make them magic-bulletproof.

tim o'brien

11-Dec-2003, 21:54

Great post. Great article. I was bitten by the magic bullet when I was in Photography School, playing with film every day for 8-12 hours a day. I was using a cheap Minolta 35mm to do my assignments with a 50/2.0 or so lens on it. Realizing that what was sharp in the viewfinder wasn't being translated onto my film, I coughed up the bucks and bought a Nikon FM2 with 105 lens. What a damned difference. So... I bought a 35 lens. Not so much of a difference, but still sharper than the Minolta.

I confess... it made me think that equipment could solve issues. The fact that I liked my equipment now, made me a better photographer. It did. But...

After graduating, I lusted after a Mamiya C220. Finally, using leftover per diem money on a business trip to Japan, I got my C220. Pretty reasonable. Found a lens from some guy in New Jersey, a 65mm semi wide angle. Now here's the kicker, bigger negative, excellent quality glass, yet, I don't like shooting TLRs. The prints leave me puzzled all the time. I like 6x6, my everyday shooter is a Zeiss Nettar zone focusing 6x6 folder. Huh? I leave the Nikon home (I still have it and it still takes great photos), I leave the Mamiya home. I leave the Yashica 635 home. I shoot with what makes me comfortable, what works for me. I have become pretty good at judging distances and at f11 the lens on these things are pretty sharp. I feel comfortable with this camera. And I never have with a TLR.

I haven't gotten on the 'need the next 600 dollar APO LF lens' kick yet. I shoot with the same 150 Fujinon 150 W lens I was forced to buy in photo school, I still use the same Speed I picked up in the late 80's. But... I don't feel with this camera. It's nice for all day walks up into the hills. It takes wonderful photos, I am amazed at the technical quality I can produce. But my photography in LF is not better overall than the stuff I shoot with my 35 dollar 1950's folder. It's sharper, it has ten times the detail, but it hasn't got heart nor soul.

Films... love the films. I have been bitten by the better film developer bug. I take my time, I shoot a lot of film over the period of weeks and months and I keep good notes. But my love for process will never let me get cured of the bigger better brighter film/developer bug.

Darkroom. Got the Schneider 150, got the DII, got a cute little B22, got the negative holders, the three types of light sources, yet. what I need is about a year back in the darkroom 8-12 hours a day.

anyhow, enough rambling.

Thanks for allowing me to see a bit more of myself.

Off to dinner and then perhaps to the darkroom. Practice practice practice.

tim in san jose

Ken Lee

12-Dec-2003, 05:28

It’s an insidious addiction...

...Far better that you should refine your vision and printing skills

...And you have to learn to SEE

Perhaps it's not an either/or thing: There is a genuine attraction in all these gadgets, not only in the kind of images they make. Otherwise, many of us would be sketching or painting. For many of us, it's not only about the end result (a wonderful image), but about the joys of getting there.

I doubt that any of us seriously believe that the next "magic bullet" will bring us a great leap forward, but sometimes, even that 3% improvement you mentioned, is a welcome event. It helps keep our interest in the art. It's fun.

Gary Meader

12-Dec-2003, 08:55

Kevin- Great article. And it's true, we are bitten by the bug. But there's nothing like a workshop with a photographer you respect to bring you back home 3 or 4 feet off the ground. The ones I've done have helped me more than I can say. I recommend it to every photographer trying to improve his /her images. Luckily, here in the northwest, not only are there frequent workshops available, some truly high-powered photographers live here. For now, I'm off to a sales workshop: I'm trying to unload 10 gallons of D41 Micro-Goop. Cheap.

Michael J. Kravit

12-Dec-2003, 16:25

Tried Pyro, gave it up! Buy a Holga and enjoy.

David Karp

12-Dec-2003, 16:34

Very enjoyable article, very true as well. It seems we have all been there.

Interesting, I find that my desire for the equipment goodies increases during times when other committments (family, work) combine to reduce my photography time close to zero. The closer to zero it gets, the more I start day dreaming about a new lens (gotta love that glass), some other piece of equipment, or whether a different developer might wring something interesting out of the silver halides that my present developer cannot. The more time I spend photographing or in the darkroom, the less those thoughts enter my mind!

William Blunt

13-Dec-2003, 15:27

Years ago I read an article by I believe the late Fred Picker which goes right along with this thinking. No matter what combination of camera, lens, film, dev. paper, etc. that you are using somewhere out there are people using the exact same materials and producing work that would knock your socks off.

bill everett

14-Dec-2003, 14:04

I'm new to large format. I'm a proffessional musician, and I really appreciated this article. There are magic bullets in music, too, as I'm sure there are in all art forms. I tend to call the chasers of these bullets equipment geeks.

I think it boils down to one thing: technique is supposed to serve the artistic vision. Technique is important. We need technique to achieve the artistic vision we have in our head. But when the technique has become more important than the vision itself, that's when a line has been crossed.

Graeme Hird

14-Dec-2003, 23:41

I was considering this article while I was out walking between shots over the weekend. It struck me that everything I'm using now would have fallen into the "magic bullet" category ten years ago. A tripod, a large format camera, a spot/incedent meter, several lenses, Velvia film and scanner were all magic bullets when I bought them, though I now consider them to be integral to the way I work.

When does the "magic bullet" become the "indispensable tool"? I suppose when it really does improve the images we end up with.

Cheers, Graeme

Steve Singleton

16-Dec-2003, 10:15

Wish I had a dollar for every time someone asks, "Does that camera take good pictures?" I usually respond, "Depends where I'm pointing it," or, if the person asking is a friend, "Does your computer write good reports?" Never hurts to remind ourselves that we photographers often have feet of clay too. Great essay.

Edward (Halifax,NS)

18-Feb-2004, 10:53

I would be a magic bullet chaser if I had enough money. I would gladly have the latest wonder lens over my $40 Ebay special. That said, I agree that having someone show you how to make a good/great image with your equipment would help alot. That would eliminate much second guessing. Adams and Weston didn't have near the quality equipment that most of the posters here have. What they did have was that dumpster with tens of thousands of prints in it. I have maybe taken a thousand lousy pictures and only 30 or so have been with LF equipment. I have a long way to go.

otzi

20-Feb-2004, 00:20

Reminds me a bit of the time when as a 4 Wheel Drive instructor I was constantly asked 'what are the best tyes to get?' They would notice my car, a 110 Landrover, with road tyres and wonder. My reply that tyres were a lot less important that driving skill didn't always gell. I would ask if their car came with tyres and the affirmative reply let me to suggest that they be the tyres they continue to use untill experience itself would indicate a suitable replacement. Further doubt led me to offer a challenge that if they were to get stuck before me on the practical training day, they may wish to buy me the supper grippers. A challenge that was never taken on. The practical day soon proved the issue and there was invariably a noticable cessation of tyre talk.

I wonder if the same holds true here. Oh boy, I'm tempted at times but again experience, this time against myself proves invariably the wisdomlessness of impetuous decisions.

David Brommer

7-Apr-2004, 09:49

Wonderfull article. For ages I have sold gear from the worst (olden camera) to the best (B&H) camera stores across the states. Many a customer was shot by the Magic Bullet from my sales pad. Yes, I too fell just as prey when behind me was all the various calibres the bullet is made of. Such a delightfull firing squad to be facing, M6's to Horseman to Blad-o-matics to Minox to screw mount to RF to Zeiss and to the everpresent "used" cabinets promissing instant execution of wallet and heart.

The bullet of lens and darkroom are present, but what of the bullet of studio light technique? Pyro becomes simple chemistry when compared to designing a lighting set.

We as photographers must learn to sometimes take the bullet for sake of learning its message of passage.

Againe, wonderfull article.

Steve Arnott

13-Apr-2004, 11:13

I've just rekindled my interest in photography after being away from it for about twenty years. What's all this hype about pyro??? Ain't that the stuff that turns your fingernails brown?

I agree with most of the points in the article, but the biggest waste of time is spending countless hours printing and reprinting a piece of junk negative that never should have made it past the contact sheet. Many people become enamored of the tools and the process, but sadly, have nothing to say, and therefore, nothing worth printing.

I read the other day of the passing of Fred Picker, just over two years ago. Sad news, indeed. Picker's approach to photography was a good approach to life in general. I've thought of him often over the years that I didn't touch a camera. I'm saddened to think he's no longer with us.

Donal Taylor

13-Apr-2004, 11:28

"I agree with most of the points in the article, but the biggest waste of time is spending countless hours printing and reprinting a piece of junk negative that never should have made it past the contact sheet. Many people become enamored of the tools and the process, but sadly, have nothing to say, and therefore, nothing worth printing."

Couldn't agree with you more Steve - I'm suprised the pyromaniacs have any time left to take photographs at all what with all the time mixing, playing with the densitometers, arguing about how bad TMax 100 is - it doesn't work, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does.... - perhaps most just work with one negative?

All we need now is a nice long thread on the Zone System and N- development and what zone to place my black and white cat in....

And I think you're right - most of the good/great/fantastic pictures that have something to say never seem to use either pyro or the zone system! :-)

Francis Abad

13-Apr-2004, 13:30

I have never tried D76, Acufine, Xtol, and more. Because I have not tried them I cannot say anything bad or good about them. I just do not say anything at all in fact and I do not make fun of those who use them. When someone pokes fun at Pyromaniacs because they sound too technical or have brown fingernails (which I am sure most do not, as do I) I question whether they have spent at least a year using Pyro and thus criticise from experience. I use Pyrocat HD exclusively the last year or so (around 300 sheets of 8x10 film). It is way better for me (partnered with AZO and Efke PL100) than when I used Tmax 100 and RS 1:9. I have no experience enlarging my Pyrocat negatives (I only contact print) and thus I do not have any comments regarding its superiority over other developers when it comes to enlargements. In addition, I do not own a densitometer and I will reckon that most who use Pyrocat do not own one either. Heck, I do not even own a proper darkroom (you cannot fog in a normally darkened room if you tried). I expose 25 sheets of 8x10 almost every month (not my occupation but my passion) because I know my materials so well and because the results are predictable each time. It is that easy for me when I use Pyrocat. I most certainly spend most of my photography time outdoors rather than indoors.

Steve Arnott

13-Apr-2004, 13:58

Hi Donal (Donald?),

Actually, I've been known to place a few shadows, so I'm not knocking those who take the tech side of photography seriously. I just think most people who despair of ever producing a "fine print" don't realize that it's their vision that is lacking, moreso than their technical ability. After all, how can you make a great print, when you don't even know what you want it to look like? And if the negative sucks, fuhgeddaboudit, you ain't gonna make a great steak from a lump of ground chuck!

Francis, I'm not knocking pyro. How could I, I've never even tried it. I'm just shocked, shocked I say!, to find that it's now the rage, when twenty years ago, you would have been considered quite daft if you admitted to even thinking about using pyro. I think it's great that old materials and processes are constantly being rediscovered!

Me, I'll start out again the way I ended, with HC110, or maybe Rodinal. Can you still get Rodinal? I used to love that stuff...

Ken Lee

13-Apr-2004, 14:38

Once we step beyond the well-worn path of "sending your pictures to be developed", anyone can find amusement in what we do. Tripods, light meters, filters, darkrooms...it doesn't matter: to someone else, it may seem obsessive, but to us, it's just an essential part of the craft.

It's good to have a sense of humor about it, and at the same time, it's good to respect the efforts of others.

Nghi Hoang

15-Apr-2004, 19:50

This article and the comments are valuable to me and humourous as well. I'm new to LF. To avoid the equipment acquisition syndrome, I am limiting myself to a Shenhao 4x5 and one lens for the next three years. In all likelihood, the three years might extend to a much longer length of time.

Matthias Schulze

21-Apr-2004, 05:51

If a sinner wants to cleanse himself of too much decent LF glass, let me know ;-)

Matthias

P.S.: Couldn't stop laughing, yes, the article shows some truths and was well written.... but then a picture done with a katadioptric (don't know the word in english, maybe 'mirror lens'?) 600mm f11 looks way different than a 600mm f2.8. Gadget ain't all and "last years equipment is last years photographer" is definitely untrue. But a discussion about what to buy when for what ocassion is nonetheless important. As somebody already put it: If the technology overshadows the art, you've crossed the line - But if your technology compromises your vision, make the step ahead. Knowing the difference is the hard part I guess.

Brian Ellis

12-Dec-2004, 12:20

Golfers don't wear plaid pants any more.

Robertx

8-Feb-2005, 06:23

Great article - I remember when I was 14 and thinking about buying a lens (a SOLIGOR big zoom thing) and I asked my history teacher who was a bit of a photographer whether he thought it was a good lens.

He said:

"It's not the car that kills, Rob, it's the driver."

Christopher Schwer

1-Mar-2005, 06:47

What a wondeful article! I have been a photographer and a professional printer for 25 years and I still learned something> I have always found that most people wanting to improve There pictures and prints had never actually seen a really good print before. Many people simply have no access to the archive of a great museum. It has always been my advice to seek out great photography shows at galleries and museums. Look at how pictures are taken and printed. In your own darkroom keep in mind that all photography is based on consistant repeatable results. You would not expect to be Rembrant with a brush and canvas overnight. So it is with the traditional darkroom. Printing is exactly like painting once you get control of the materials. Did I mention consistant and repeatable results? Learn to analyse your reults before starting again. The most impotant rule is to have fun. Don't take yourself to seriously and the prints will find thier way to the paper!!

Tony_5130

1-Mar-2005, 09:15

Sadly I am a magic bullet chaser.

It's a problem with being an amateur (and I'm not a very good one at that). Asides my beloved MPP which I will probably be burried with, in the past 10 months I have owned and sold, 4 Hasselblads, 3 Canons, 3 Nikons, 2 Rollieflex's, 1 Bronica, 3 Enlargers and a plethora of lenses. The good news is, as far as I am concerned, it's all part of the fun of amateur photography.

Long live amateur Photographers.

Christopher Schwer

1-Mar-2005, 10:46

Tony, After spending 25 years in the darkroom printing work of my own as well as hundreds of others I can tell by the character of the image on the paper which kind of camera and lens combination was used to make the picture. I can spot the difference between nikon, cannon, pentax and leica. I can tell the difference between the character of hasselblad, rollei and mamiya. All of this has led to thee purchase of many cameras and lenses to get a look in my pictures that can only be described as charachter. One is as sharp as the next but still the balance between sharpness and contrast contained within the negative is elusive. You must however admit that all of this has been a great deal of fun! At least I think so. At this point I have run out of new camera lens combinations to try. In all this time I have had a Mamiya 6 camera with a wide angle lens and it is the one camera and lens I would never part with. The pictures I have made with this camera still take my breath away! Have fun with this. Reemember you are in the toy store of life.

Tony_5130

1-Mar-2005, 22:12

Yep! that's my point nearly exactly.
No disrespect aimed at those making a living from photography but:

Being free from commercial time constraints and edicts on how I produce my images means I can swap and change my equipment as regular as my socks.
It's all part of the fun for me.

I have owned and used in my lefetime nearly all desirable cameras 6x7 cm and under, and three large format cameras. With the price of film cameras falling (really fast) I can now afford some of the truly sexy lenses I used to dream of.
My love of photography starts way before the final image, (I know I am bordering on the lines of consumerism here) in fact, right to the point of un-packing a new bit of kit and looking through the viewfinder.

Ed K.

6-Mar-2005, 01:15

Great article!
If everyone could buy the magic bullet for a reasonable price, then who would need photographers?

Seems as though a bit of the bullet is still left though -while contemplating ways to improve a print, you said "Does
it need to be darker or lighter? More or less contrast? Can I burn or dodge something? What does this print need,
and how do I get there?"

Would it be more in the spirit of your article to ask "What can be done with this print
to bring out the subject better, or make more of a statement?", or "Is there something that might set the
mood better or make the scene more compelling?"

Sometimes the journey is better than the end, and it's great to have company along the way. Good job!

robert_4927

8-Mar-2005, 14:16

I have found the magic bullet...Choose one camera, one lens, one film, one developer. Use only these no matter the situation. Give your other lenses to someone to lock up from you, somewhere you can get to them. Try this for one year and you'll be surprised how much you composition improves, your vision, your ability to see light and the absence of light, lines, form,and function all will start becoming part of your composition and thought process and not..."what lens should I use"..Yes the magic bullet is simple.....less is better

Clay Turtle

5-Mar-2006, 09:53

Quite an article, & yes I know what ya mean but I see it a little differently.
I was in the service when I got the bug. We were in Japan, when I met a photo bug. He showed me how to use a match needle Minolta and loaded the camera with B&W and left me on my own.
That night I walked the streets of the city, snapping away at the local scenes. When I got the film process & printed, I was hooked.
But I found that LF is something that takes time & forethought.
For me snapping pictures gave some positive results with a lot of mediocre. I shoot a 4x5 format but experience taught me to still carry the 35mm. I was in the everglades, setting up to shoot an otter as he made along the stream when an owl flew into the tree next to me. I had the film holder in camera, what a dilemma & I missed both shots! Like film, formats have their own particulars which achieve best results.

E. von Hoegh

6-Mar-2006, 00:43

Magic bullets are a real danger in more areas than photography- I"ve personally seen them in several hardware related enthusiasms, the fundamental fallacy is the same. I am starting to use my LF gear again after a hiatus of some years and recently discovered this forum; good to see that we are all human. Robert pretty much said it all up above, however those of us who are card carrying members of the Tinkerers & Gadgeteers Society [Ihad mine tatooed] will always enjoy a new lens, film, developer etc. We must remember that using equipment and making photographs is not always the same thing.

Michael Newberry

19-Jul-2006, 11:38

Kevin,

I just ran across this... Thanks! You so clearly articulate something I've ranted about for years! Unfortunately, if it weren't for the alure of the "magic bullet", there wouldn't be enough aspiring photographers around to create the market size that we all benefit from. Since most workers in this--or any other endeavor--are near the beginning level, pretty much all serial publications (e.g., "magazines") depend critically on the alure of "the next great thing" in order to stay in publication. And those avertisers and vendors depend upon our own visions of what we can be in order to provide us the quality tools we need. As for our participation in this cycle, it behooves us to mature creatively and technically beyond the point where we feel our work can benefit from the next great thing to come along.

Great article.

Michael

mdd99

22-Jul-2006, 05:15

For me, the journey (the process) is the point. How I get there (the equipment) is incidental.

John Flavell

22-Jul-2006, 06:00

What kind of computer does he use to write his articles? I'm sure I could write better if I have what he has.

JW Dewdney

22-Jul-2006, 06:09

mikez

30-Dec-2007, 20:54

Awesome article. I know its a few years old, but I admit that sometimes I get a little too excited by technical things like films, papers, film/paper developers, lenses, etc... While all important, I'm trying to focus more on aesthetics while staying consistent (not trying to do anything crazy, just what I know works) in the technical area.

However all the experimenting I have done with various paper developers (not so much film developers yet), toners, lenses, etc... has helped me plan out how I want to photograph something. Basically I'll visualize a print and think, "What can I do to achieve this" and using my knowledge will help me, but not be the end all. I still have to make a correct exposure, develop correctly, and print with the right amount of Magenta (I use a color head to print B/W)

In my humble opinion the best way to go about experimenting is to go about your business photographing/developing/printing as you "normally" would, but change one variable and work with that, carefully documenting along the way. For example I used a red filter on my Grandagon-N 90mm for the first time last week, I wrote down all of the corrected exposures. I also made an exposure without the lens for each negative so I could literally see the effects it had. For some this may be a waste of time, but for me it helps. Like the article said, it's one thing to know how a house is made, but completely different to do it yourself.