Wembly Sport again

<a

href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/wembly/newwembly05/index.htm">

I dragged out the bakelite monstrosity again today.</a> It seemed like

a good idea.

Gene, I often wondered how many of your classics were "one-roll-wonders". Nice to see some get a second or even third chance at use.

Just to play devil's advocate here: How would you distinguish these images and the shots from the Bedfordflex thread from "grabbed photos that are of little interest to the rest of the world?" To quote from a recent thread: " As a photographer you must continually examine your own work. Are you improving? Are you becoming more interesting? Is your 'style' merely stagnancy ? Do your photographs do what you intended ? Are you making up their meaning after you see the print?" Are you attributing special qualities to images just because of how they were made? Are you confusing the joy you felt in making the image with the quality of the image itself?

Mike, it is good to play the "devil's advocate" at certain times. but surely you realize that this forum is for people who LOVE old, old cameras and whose first priority is, to quote you...<i><b> the joy you felt in making the image</i></b><p>

Gene has put up some nice websites devoted to cameras and the images that can still be made from them. It is helpful to those of us who collect cameras. I would say that your questions are good, but if you look at the title of this forum you will see it is not dedicated to "photography" and "photographers" but to "Classic Cameras."

I think that there's a divide between photographers who enjoy taking pictures and those who feel there's some 'art' involved in it.

 

This seems to have been the case from long before I was born, there are certainly old magazines with letter pages full of debate about whether the magazine should 'waste' space on articles aimed at snapshotters.

 

I believe that Gene's web page offerings, while not my cup of tea, are fully in the spirit of this forum and should be encouraged, not denigrated.

Perhaps a bit of attribution is in order to counter those who think I'm being unfair to Gene. Here is a more complete version of the material quoted above:<P>

<i>I've been a photographer for over thirty years so I think I know a thing or two about the subject. They say "No one likes to be criticized." Well, I do. Criticism is food for the hungry mind. The criticism I've received on this board has helped me tremendously. Posting photos here has refueled my fires.<P>

 

Many new photographers are so enthused about the miracle of photography that they simply turn out snapshots. Grabbed photos that are of little interest to the rest of the world. It's the duty of the more experienced to assist the rookie in his growth.<P>

Using a classic camera can produce the same feeling of freedom. It's an ancient piece of equipment so simply using it is marvelous. There's the danger. The guidelines of photography still apply whether, it's a Diana or a Leica. The photograph must be interesting, and interesting immediately !<P>

 

As a photographer you must continually examine your own work. Are you improving ? Are you becoming more interesting ? Is your "style" merely stagnancy ? Do your photographs do what you intended ? Are you making up their meaning after you see the print ?<P>

--<b>Gene M, jul 27, 2005; 09:58 a.m.</b></i><P>

I strongly agree with what Gene has said in that quote, and I greatly respect his views on the value of criticism. Because of that, I was struck by the seeming complacency evident in the images in the links mentioned. I applaud his effort to get people to evaluate what they're shooting and why.

Oh boy.<p> I spend time composing what I think will be a photograph that will be interesting to someone other than me. I think that is what keeps the photos in question from being snapshots. If they fail to be interesting than I've either composed poorly or the viewer simply doesn't see as I do.<p>I think my photographs are interesting, if not for the composition or mood, than at least for the character the camera lends them. I feel no conceit about my photos or cameras. I'm surprised at the reactions my few critiques have sparked here.

Interesting shots again Gene.

 

While you're more known here for your crap camera shots :-) and rescued film, I know you also do more "serious" stuff. Keep 'em coming!

 

Mike, while there is nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate, I think we dealt with issue a few threads ago. It serves no-one to keep going back over old ground, and can only lead to more ill tempered exchanges.

 

Can we please leave the real photo critiques and criticisms to the other forums, unless the poster has specifically requested it, and get back to the normal friendly service? If you don't like a particular genre, it's perhaps best not to comment - we all like different things, which is what makes this forum interesting.

 

If you are new or are a lurker on this forum, try and join in the atmosphere of this forum too. Keep any criticsm constructive, and leave personal attacks out.

 

Paul

Great work Gene! I still remember enjoying your first work with this bakelite beauty.

 

By the way, I think Paul is spot on in what he just said. I could not agree more.

Gene - Comparing the photos from your earlier presentations with these, as there was more light this time, the lens on this bakelite monstrosity seems to sharpen up dramatically when stopped down - thank's for revisiting this one.

It would seem there are no bad cameras.

In defense of Gene he has taken the time to take pictures with "Crappy Cameras" and shown us the results. Not all cameras lend themselves to expanding our creativity or improving on our photography skills for that we use more sophisticated cameras. In defense of others some shoot and scoot pictures are ok too. Some of the reasons of showing "Crappy Camera" pictures is just to show that they can take pictures and show the feel or the mood from it. I would like to see more comparison shots ie. f/4.5 next to a f/22, slow shutter fast shutter (I will make it a point to do this myself). Along with how to, what film, which developer type information also show me a picture of the camera. I for one don't expend a lot of time waiting for the perfect light or the three planets to come in line to test my "Crappy Cameras". The older 6x9's are hard to compose with and I find it is easier to repair any bad composing in the dark room. If while testing a camera I forget to wind the film and I double expose it, you don't need to see it same with the shot of the inside of my camera bag. On this forum as in any type of art we have people that have different taste and ideas. We need to be more respectful of what we post and our replies. Email / web writing is very impersonal and cold and is easily mistaken usually in the negative manner. I find it best to just "Click" over something I do not like than to start something. If you feel the need to tear into someone keep it off the "Forum" send them a personal email which will keep a two way dialog with out the rest of the "Forum" getting in the way and off track.

I find the original Wembly Sport photos more interesting (at least a few of them) and the softness and distortion adds to the effect.

Gene, continue posting the pictures taken with your "a dime a dozen cameras". Very interesting and should I say...inspirational. The found film series should be published as a book.

"The found film series should be published as a book."

 

Couldn't agree more.