There's also the simple fact that some people have expendable income and some don't. I'm a big believer in doing the best you can at whatever level you can afford.
and some will never come to that decision, whether young or old or new or experienced - sometimes being "cheap" is part of the fun ...
Originally Posted by markbarendt
^Some people have fun buying things at flea markets, others enjoy Harrods....some both...
Does it matter if the one who only knows flea markets (Minox, Polaroid, Lomo, plastic, toy, etc), never knows of how great it can be to shop at Harrods (ie 8x10)....
Most of the time I think it is mostly a failure of perspective.
As an example, I would refer to the myriad of threads about X-Tol.
People seem willing to go through all sorts of contortions to deal with the fact that Kodak recommends discarding X-Tol stock after six months, and many people have difficulty using 5 litres of X-Tol in six months.
X-Tol around here is just under $16.00 for the 5 litre package. If I use it at 1 + 1, I'll be able to develop somewhere between 20 and 40 rolls with that package. If I use X-Tol replenished, I'll be able to develop about 50 rolls from the first package, and about 70 rolls from subsequent packages, if I'm not required to discard it due to lack of use.
If my volumes are too low, and I waste a third of a package, it still means wasting just around $5.00 worth in six months, or $10.00 per year. That is the perspective that is often missed.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Desertratt - Well put
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I made a distinction between being frugal and just being cheap in the belief that you are getting away with something. A perfect example is people who try to extend the number of films or prints put through a fixing bath. This can be either ignoring the manufacturers directions or using a weaker bath than recommended. That they have compromised their pictures does no seem to bother them. Their gratification seems to come from acting contrarian. In a way it goes back to an older post about people who confuse the verbs can and should.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 06-15-2013 at 05:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
hey .. i resemble that remark !
i only shoot expired film for the most part
and i have a burgeoning collection of what most people
might consider junk-cameras.
old folders, box cameras crapp lenses
( they used to be crap when i bought them years ago
but now they seem to be sought after ! )
i use crappy coffee based developer over and over again
i used expired paper, and expired liquid emulsion too ...
but i always use GOOD FIXER ..
im totally bored with a lot of what photography tends to be.
i am completely bored with "perfect imagery", you know pretty-as-a-post-card kinds of photos ..
not that i can't take a perfectly exposed photograph, perfectly developed and perfectly printed
i send that stuff to clients when they pop up and not that i can't appreciate a well made
( i don't like the word crafted sorry ) photo ..
but for me, id rather have a good time life's too short for me to give a crap about
that stuff, besides im not sure why it matters anyways ...
Last edited by jnanian; 06-15-2013 at 06:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
artwork often times sold for charity
PM me for details
I like some cheap cameras so I don't have to worry about expensive damage if they get a little wet once in a while or it wouldn't be the end of the world if it got stolen or accidentally damaged. I'm talking $150 speed graphics when I could be using a $3000 canham if I weren't into DSLRs also. The graflex is what people used 80 years ago with great success and still works fine. Cheap lenses are just as good as expensive lenses if it does exactly what you want, and are better for portraits sometimes. A beat up good camera is like a rat rod that won't win car shows but provides a ton of fun.
I'm halfway tightwad when it comes to chemicals. I've learned a taste of pyrocat-hd which is cheaper than normal developers and lets me skip stop bath. I don't use it because it's cheap, but because it does what I want and it's not high in cost. There's usually more than one developer that will do what you want. No harm in evaluating your options. If I were cheap, I'd mix it myself, but that takes time and mess.
One area I don't skimp is film. Inevitably, the cheap film pinhole or defect will be in your sitter's eyelash or someplace you can't retouch. Kodak/Ilford/Fuji is where it's at. Enjoy it while it's available.
It is better to have an affordable camera than to have no camera.
Originally Posted by jnanian
One of the things I find fun about LF photography is the ability to distort, rather than correct.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin