The Online Photographer

Comments are up to date as of 10:27 p.m. Tuesday.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes when people are selling their fancy, expensive cameras online, the pictures of the item can be particularly crappy?

Make up your own joke.

I'd post the absurd example I ran across, in a auction for an OM-D E-M1 Mark II, but that would be mean. The illustrations seem to have been taken with a phone, remarkably incompetently.

I've always been of the opinion that a good photographic craftsperson can exercise deliberate control over any kind of camera. Is there any reason why pictures have to be sloppy because the photographer is using a phone? 

Of course there are two kinds of "deliberate control." One is technical, the other is artistic. Technical control implies that you can use good composition, framing, exposure, etc. even when you're using a smartphone or some kind of sub-optimal camera. More than half the skill of making beautiful technically competent shots doesn't reside in any camera.

Artistic control implies a different goal—that the photographer understands the inherent properties of the equipment and is deliberately exploiting those limitations to make characteristic-looking pictures. Why use a Diana toy camera to try to make the pictures look like they were taken with a TLR? Whatever we're using, we can choose to make it look characteristic of that kind of picture. And that can include deliberately giving up control.

As an example, take a look at some of the Holga wedding photography of Zoe Larkin. Now, before you get your umbrage all ruffled, she doesn't do weddings exclusively with the Holga—they're just a fun little extra. She says on Instagram, "I charge a tiny amount for this as an add-on, despite the high costs of both purchasing and developing film, because I genuinely love doing them...and the serendipity—one might even say oftentimes capriciousness—of lo-fi, point n’ shoot film…but that is what makes it so darling."

f minus, Girl in a whirl, 2007
(CC by 2.0), Holga 120CFN

There's a whole community of people out there who embrace that lo-fi capriciousness. Generically known as Lomography. I don't know much about that world, but here's how the ever-useful Wikipedia defines it:

"Lomography is a photographic style which involves taking spontaneous photographs with minimal attention to technical details. Lomographic images often exploit the unpredictable, non-standard optical traits of toy cameras (such as light leaks and irregular lens alignment), and non-standard film processing techniques for aesthetic effect. Similar-looking techniques with digital photography, often involving "lomo" image filters in post-processing, may also be considered Lomographic.

"While cheap plastic toy cameras using film were and are produced by multiple manufacturers, Lomography is named after the Soviet-era cameras produced by the Leningradskoye Optiko-Mekhanicheskoye Obyedinenie (LOMO)."

As regular readers know, one of my hundred favorite photobooks is Iowa by Nancy Rexroth.

Keep the goal in view
But if you're taking pictures of your Z7 or R6 to post it for sale on eBay, it's the opposite. The fact that you're using your smartphone is no excuse for not understanding flare, focal length choice, basic composition, and basic exposure. A good photographer can take competent product pictures with a phone. Consider that Tika Jabanashvili of Tbilisi, Georgia, photographs for Vogue and uses Apple and Huawei phones. Some of the best photographic technicians I know use Micro 4/3 cameras. And so on.

Okay, I'll say it—the joke is that it's no wonder that seller is offloading his OM-D E-M1 Mark II—doubtless it takes crappy pictures too. His for-sale illustrations make it seem that he doesn't have much skill with cameras or feel for the visual.

I could tell stories, but I don't want to be mean. I'll just say that cameras only intersect with skill and intention—they don't make up for those things when they're lacking.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Stephen S.: "Without an example posted, some readers may vastly underestimate how incredibly bad a photo taken to sell a camera can be. I came across a Facebook Marketplace listing for a camera where they didn't even get the entire camera in the shot. The top third of the camera was cut off in both the front and back photos. The camera occupied only the top half of the frame, and the bottom half of the frame was just the empty table surface the camera was set on. They had even failed to capture the manufacturer's name on the prism, a detail I think would be noticeable enough to warrant framing that would include it in the shot. Why someone would think that photos of an item you're selling that fail to show the entire item would be sufficient is truly beyond me."

Mike replies: Years ago there was an eBay seller who I was absolutely convinced displayed pictures taken with intentional camera shake to cover up minor problems, dirt, and small irregularities on the surface of the item. Although most likely fraudulent, he also had at least a small point, as anyone who has done closeup photographs of objects knows—a camera that looks clean to the eye in person will suddenly be covered with dust and fingerprints in a high-res, well-lit shot.

Ed Hawco (partial comment): "I understand and agree with your point, but I think maybe there’s something you’re missing. Namely, that the person selling the camera might not be the owner of the camera. It might be the offspring or spouse of the camera owner, who has died or maybe taken off on a bender or a wild fling with a tarty waitress and this is the spouse’s revenge. Or it might be what most of us are thinking: the camera is stolen!"

David Brown: "One of my best photographs ever was made with a Brownie Starflash."

James Weekes: "Addressing the Holga issue. First a bit of history. I started using Dianas in the '70s and progressed to Holga when Dianas disappeared. Along with two other photographers, we figured out how to tape them, inside and out, to eliminate light leaks, which were and are 5% serendipity and 95% ruined shots. When I moved to digital I really missed my toy shots. A friend pointed out that there were Holga lenses available for Canon, Nikon and Micro 4/3 cameras. I have amassed some of these and use them all the time. Gone are all possible light leaks, but that wonderful look remains. The color is just as odd but just as 1950s looking. With all the tools available in Photoshop and DxO (I recreate 120TX) and a good inkjet or commercial printer, one can open even larger horizons. Of course, I shoot square. And, you can sort of see your focus in the viewfinder."

Mike Plews: "First, Iowa is a gift. Every serious photographer should see it. I recently took on scanning 300 photos my now 104-year-old mother-in-law took on the family farm during the late 1940s and early 1950s. She used an Ansco 620 and shot Verichrome pan.They were processed at the local drug store. The pictures are enchanting, priceless family treasures. They may become a blurb book for family members. Something about the meniscus lens on the Ansco and Verichrome pan, dreamy images from a lifestyle that is about gone. If I can find the time I may even take a few down to the darkroom."

James: "Michael Kenna uses a Holga. This is a great book. You can read an interview here where he talks about using Holgas."

David Comdico: "I used to turn my nose up at toy cameras but I have come to love them. They break down the photographic process to the basics. Nailing focus with a Holga or capturing a good diptych in-camera with an H35 is a pure joy."