(rant)I dont know about you but I..

"Please don't tell me fairy tales about crappy old gear requiring skill or knowledge to use."

 

Push on what...... I said to myself when asked to open a Speed Graphic once upon a time.

 

You do what next....... when told how to advance film, remove the slide and cock the shutter on an RB67.

 

You mean the aperture and shutter speed change at the same time on an Iskra?

 

Extinction meter.......? What... the........?

 

Goodnight all. Peace.<div></div>

Um, John, you're batting 1 for 3. Speed Graphics and RB67s don't qualify for the designation "crappy old camera," no matter how battered they are. In their time, they were first-rate professional cameras. Not at all in the same class as my little plastic Hawkeye or even a Canonet QL-III. The Iskra you mentioned is also a very serious camera handicapped by poor QC. FYI, I shoot Graphics.

I think it's time for me and my Retina to go sit in a dark place somewhere and just talk to each other....

Hi Dan, Ok, now I see, it's just one's with plastic that are "crappy".

My three Iskra 2's are happy to hear that because after "tough" lives they didn't want to start "fussing" again, and my infant RB67 isn't old enough to understand yet.

 

We should start a list of "crappy" cameras to avoid confusion in the future.

Graham, its ok. We're having a friendly discussion about what we mean. Its likely outcome is that we'll find agree much more than we thought we did.

 

Cheers,

"We should start a list of "crappy" cameras to avoid confusion in the future."

 

Great idea! Once the list is finalized, they should be relegated to Brownie Cameras and Alternate Camera forums!

First on my list of "crappy" cameras would be anything digital. Why...? They are plastic, expensive, require batteries and have limited information capture/storage capabilities, compared to film.

 

Off to work now. Regards.

Can I come out now...?

Youse kids bettah settle down - doan go makin me come in heah tah bang heads!<p>

:)<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3355269-lg.jpg">

Hey CE, where did you get that photo of my mother-in-law?

John, I'm sorry but as a non-, not an anti-digital, photographer I'm not really qualified to discriminate among the many digital cameras around. And I don't think it is appropriate to wrangle about film vs. digital, especially since some digital cameras appear to be very useful tools. My biggest objection in the neighborhood of digital cameras isn't to them, but to the mindless shooting that their very low incremental cost per shot encourages.

 

Among film cameras, I don't regard box cameras, including the ones with big finders that masquerade as TLRs, as particularly good tools. I respect very few pocketable folders, no matter what format, and very few fixed lens cameras.

 

Among 35 mm SLRs, I respect but don't like Exaktas; in their time they were the best 35 mm system, but Nikon dethroned Exakta. I don't really respect many of the Spotmatic clones, but then I've never loved Spotmatics.

 

Please understand that I'm very aware that in skilled hands nearly any camera can capture fine images. Within their limits, many crappy old cameras can be very useful. And these points have been made many times by the pictures that have been posted here by, e.g., gene m. It doesn't take a good camera to take a good picture, it takes a good photographer.

 

Cheers,

<i>Among film cameras, I don't regard box cameras, including the ones with big finders that masquerade as TLRs, as particularly good tools. I respect very few pocketable folders, no matter what format, and very few fixed lens cameras.</i>

 

I wasn't aware anyone did regard box cameras as good tools. They're fun to use to point and pray, as a nostalgia trip or what not but I wasn't aware that they were considered by anyone to be high quality tools.

<i>My biggest objection in the neighborhood of digital cameras isn't to them, but to the mindless shooting that their very low incremental cost per shot encourages</i><p>

 

Why would anyone care how someone else uses their camera? Given that you can shoot any way you want, what's your beef? It seems like there's a lot of people here more concerned with what other people are doing than with their own photos.

Fair question, Jeff. Live and let live, my motto.

 

That said, mindless snap snap snap doesn't seem the best way to collect strong images. But when I encounter people with digital cameras doing exactly that, I don't bother them about being more thoughtful. I leave them alone. I let them go on doing what pleases them. What more do you want? What more can they want?

So, all this talk about "classic camera"folks being not anti photography (by excluding digital) does not hold water, does it?

 

Michael Ivnitsky's rant is fully justified.

'So, all this talk about "classic camera"folks being not anti photography (by excluding digital) does not hold water, does it?'..............................I assume you meant 'anti digital', and yes it does hold water, but then again this goes back to the uselessness of making these 'grand carnards' on forums like this, incidently I've heavily manipulated images w/Photoshop, in addition to the straigt images I decide to do w/my Autocord.

 

You may like some particular food that I think tastes like shit, it tastes delicious to you, now I don't really care what you eat, so I just don't say anything, that's the live and let live attitude, you do your own thing, you like this particular food, so end of story.

 

Now if I happen to have friends over my house who happen to love the same cuisine, and we decide to cook a dinner for everybody consisting of the same thing to celebrate our common interests, that's our doing our 'thing', and doesn't devote one nanosecond of thought about what you eat.

 

Now if you're a neighbor who happens to stop by my house to say hello, and you decide to voice your opinion about what we're eating and that foods particular merits in relation to what you prefer, so be it, but for you to belabor that point at my house where I'm having folks over for dinner who are eating whatever they want, is silly, because the point of the dinner is not to exercise opposition to what you eat, nobodies thinking about what you eat because they're too busy enjoying what they happen to like/prefer.

 

My wife is into holistic health, but when me and my buddies are sitting down to a ballgame w/beer and burgers, she doesn't engage in sanctimony while we're trying to enjoy the game, that's silly.

 

Now when folks make these statements to get all this stuff started, of course folks voice their opinions/feelings on the subject, their reasons for why they don't prefer something, but that's understood when you see the name of the forum, to come in here and start a rant like this is just an attempt to stir up acrimony where there is none, the celebration of a common interest has nothing to do being anti-anything.

"..stir up acrimony where there is none.."

 

Is that so? Anti digital folks using a scanner to digitize images captured on plastic backed film of current technology- you consider that harmonius? Posting images from plstic toy cameras with comments like, "hey Let us see if the Leica folks can come close to this..", "I saw everyone else taking pictures with a DSLR connected to laptop while I used this plastic camera"- do you consider that harmonius? Many images posted here are not even from cameras that belong to the general classification of this forum.

 

Regardless of if anyone uses a novelty camera or a professional view camera, as long as they post images here, it is digital since it is digitized by their scanner. If those folks choose to bash digital cameras and Leica cameras that is not anti digital, it is anti photography.

 

As one old saying goes, "It is not what you eat but what comes out of your mouth (mind you, no references to the other orifices here!) that is more important".

'Is that so? Anti digital folks using a scanner to digitize images captured on plastic backed film of current technology- you consider that harmonius? Posting images from plstic toy cameras with comments like, "hey Let us see if the Leica folks can come close to this..", "I saw everyone else taking pictures with a DSLR connected to laptop while I used this plastic camera"- do you consider that harmonius?'.......

...................................................Yes it is, do I consider harmonius? Yes I do, I don't sweat the small stuff, anything is harmonius that let's all of us coexist while we do our particular thing,...............there are of course some folks w/too much time on their hands and/or who take all this too seriously, which is why they want to argue endlessly about this, this issue has no point, or no resolution, no end, it only produces boredom interlaced w/flames and insults.

 

'Anti digital folks'............you inject this caustic into the fray, entrenching yourself on one side, and whoever you consider to be in the other group in that particular bag,.....................I just don't think it's a matter of film versus digital, or folks being anti-digital when they agree/disagree on various aspects of differing technologies, as I've said early on, I use photoshop to at times heavily manipulate an image if that's what I want to do.

 

I have also have a scanner, a computer, the aspect of digital that does not interest me is the purchase of a $30K digital back, some of it I like, some it I can't use, does that make me anti-digital, of course not,.............so as opposed to setting fire to 'Straw Men' you created, I suggest a great many folks aren't in any sense of the word anti-digital, they just happen to disagree on the utilization of digital and just how much they want to use at any particular time.

 

The acrimony/any lack of harmony/silliness isn't from using anything in particular, use whatever you want,...........it's from these rants that are introduced to try to force folks to argue about this useless and pointless issue, while folks entrench and polarize by labeling themselves and their perceived adversaries/the anti-digital who happen to be none of that, just people excercising their right to disagree.

 

Now I happen to think what just came out my mouth was pretty reasonable, if you don't fine, then we'll just agree to disengage now because I have better things to do.

Dan,<br><br>What do you mean by talking about "people who use mediocre old cameras", "gear snobs", and "beter photographers"?<br>It isn;t abut that, is it? (The digital "Classic" Canon 300D/Digital Rebel is a mediocre camera (if that), is thoroughly enjoyed by many people, who are not gear snobs, and many of whom do create excellent photography, no doubt.)<br><br>Michael strirred the pot by saying that these old cameras are a dead end, and do not have a future. Like saying the Pope is catholic, isn't it?<br>So he enjoys "modern", and digital cameras too, because their modern features compensate for poor craftsmanship. Good.<br>Quite frankly, i don't see the point of his rant. If he does like modern things better, what's stopping him using those? The sentiments of the true Classic Camera Forum poster? Certainly not.<br><br>Then, through the "convenience" thingy, the discussion turned towards digital cameras and the question whether digital cameras could one day become "classics".<br>At which point someone pointed out the rather strange redefinition of the word "classic" in this Forum's "rules and instructions", someone else equated being "classic" with a feeling you get when handling an old camera (of the beautifully crafted sort). -- There, Dan, you will find your "gear snob". -- And yet another person suggested that still being able to use a thing in X-years time was an essential part of being a "classic" ("Classic cameras are cameras that you use [...]").<br><br>High time, i thought, to mention (again) that we were far removed (and still going in the wrong direction) from what "classic" means.<br>Nothing to do at all with quality of the photo's people make, the quality of a camera, nor equipment snobbery.

I fail to see any merit whatsoever in your "rant" since it really sounds more like a tantrum.

 

Equipment in and of itself has nothing to do with image making. If you understood that, you wouldn't be making such ludicrous assertions.

 

I'd suggest you try a Holga for awhile. When you've thoroughly mastered that - get back to us with the results.

<i>I'd suggest you try a Holga for awhile. When you've thoroughly mastered that - get back to us with the results.</i>

<p>

Ya know, I actually do reccomend classics like a fully manual TLR and toys like the Holga to people starting in photography as it is a good disiplinary school to get into.

</p><p>

For example I've been trying to disipline myself by limiting myself to only using my Argoflex EF and my Yashica 44 (though i tend to use the latter more sparingly due to the much higher cost of 127 film).

</p><p>

Oh, and someone mentioned earlier about how they thought it was a bad thing for someone to say that they were using a classic camera when everyone else had DSLRs hooked to laptops. Personally I don't see anything wrong with someone being happy in the fact that they are using a way that is different from what most people seem to see is the only way to go.

</p><p>

A good analogy is like if everyone in town owns a little reliable Japanese car with all sorts of new gadgets and what not. All the cars are genereally the same and are pretty borring. Now once I was admiring a 1970(I think) Oldsmobile Cutlass convertable in mint condition and mentioned it to a friend. His responce, "Yeah and it'd be so hard to drive and getting parts would be a pain and blah blah blah." Now he's perfectly happy with his little Nissan and more power to him, but sometimes being different and using a classic is just more fun for some of us. </p>

"sometimes being different and using a classic is just more fun for some of us".

 

Total agreement .......... there is no replacement for displacement (or sensor/film square inches). My 75 Corvette loves to show off a little bit in front of the "ricers" as does my Iskra in front of the "digis". Grin.

 

Off to work. Regards.