Re: Multiple bodies

[ted grant <75501.3002@CompuServe.COM>]

Adi wrote:

<However, my question arose from the school of thought, that said simplification
and less superfluous excess will enable us photogs to get to the heart and soul
of the subject.>>>>>>

Hi Adi,
Usually what dictates the number of bodies I carry is the assignment I'm working
on and how quickly things happen.

Lets say if I'm shooting an open heart operation and the surgeon is fixing
things quickly as some do, there isn't any time to fiddle changing lenses and
unfortunately you can't say to him, "Excuse me could you hold it for a minute
while I change lenses?  Or would you mind doing that again just one more time?"
:)

On other assignments I use only one camera, one lens and the assignment again
dictates which one, M or R and shoot the whole time with just that one camera. A
few occasions of working four or five days on a shoot with just that one camera
and lens.

<<less superfluous excess will enable us photogs to get to the heart and soul of
the subject.>>>>>

Not so! If you are working on a subject and carry everything you own for no
other reason than carrying it, the "superfluous excess" is correct.  Some
photographers believe they need that great big camera bag and all it holds
(sometimes to equate to "Hey look at me I'm a pro I've got this big bag of
stuff!"  when if they thought about what the assignment was before hand, they
would know to take one camera with the one lens.

Whereas the very experienced photographer can assess a situation and know just
what is needed to shoot the project, therefore knows he's going to need 5
cameras and different lenses on each and all hanging right there for quick and
immediate use, while another project may dictate he carry only one and a half
dozen rolls of film in his pocket!

<<Flowery as this may be, in essence you approach your subject, or
the person as another human being who just happens to have a camera in hand.
This approach is less intrusive than have multiple cameras dangling all
over>>>>>>

You may be referring to walking down the street and shooting happy snaps of
people, rather than knowing exactly what you are after while using many cameras.
And if you are doing "street pictures" obviously the one camera approach is
best, less gear less obvious! 

The other item to help "on the street" picture taking is for you to work from
the shadows, as subjects outside the shadows do not notice things within the
shade, as quickly as you the photographer being in the same light level.

<<M camera supports this kind of non excess, which is what, as a long ago post
has written said that NG's David Alan Harvey shoots whole essays with one Leica
M and one lens. May I add also, to this simplifying, the use of one type of film
only.>>>

You are again in the "one film only" comment referring to doing something as a
personal project and not necessarily the demands of a "working photojournalist"
whose choice of film quite often is dictated by the assignments we work on.

Obviously working with one film is preferred, but isn't always possible and you
learn to roll with it and try to use the same ASA film rating for both films.

<<NG's David Alan Harvey shoots whole essays with one Leica M and one lens. >>>

He isn't alone, as many do this including myself as I stated above. But it is
only certain assignments that you can get away with it and still come back with
a totally clear mind, that you have captured everything possible to tell the
story.

Mu back and neck feels much better when I use only one camera, one lens! :)
However sometimes I'd rather have the sore back and know I have a fully covered
assignment, than come back frustrated knowing I missed some great images because
I didn't have a 280 R7 and motor hanging on my shoulder.

ted
Victoria, Canada
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant