Classic Camera Shooters

How about adding a forum where people would be encouraged to display

photos shot with classic cameras similar to what is done in

the "Leica Photography" forum? I'm doing most of my shooting these

days with '40s and '50s era Zeiss and Retina cameras. I would really

like to see what others are doing with the great old manual cameras.

You can tell from the equipment-centric discussions that people are

acquiring the old cameras for use, but few seem to want to post

examples of their efforts. On a similar note, it is always

disappointing to me to visit the "Brownie Cameras" forum and find no

pictures; few of the posters even have public folders of their work.

I would be interested in viewing and contributing to such a forum on a regular basis. My classic gear includes cameras like: Leica IIIf, Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, Voigtlander Bessamatic, Agfa Record III Billy (6x9 folder), Rolleiocord V and Yashica D (6x6).

great idea. I have a Kodak Bantam special (828 film) and a 616 Art Deco Kodak I like shooting with.

Though they can do it, the forums aren't really designed for displaying pictures. That's really what the gallery section is for.

 

Of course there currently isn't any mechanism there for doing what you suggest in the gallery!

 

I've never quite understood why people want to see 600x400 digital scans of images taken with particular cameras. At that size and on a video screen, you couldn't tell whether an image was shot with a $200 digital P&S, an 8x10, a brownie, a Leica M6 or a Pentax 67.

This is a great idea. I use Argus cameras with great results, a Kodak Retina IIa, and

others, including some mediun-format folders. My web pages (http://

insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/~mfobrien/photography.html) feature some of my

classic cameras and photos taken with them.

 

For the past 3 years, there has been an "Argus Day" this year it was Argust 3rd. 24

people submitted photos taken on that day with ARgus cameras.

 

I also have a couple of folders on my photo.net portfolio devoted to older cameras.

 

Mark<div></div>

"...I've never quite understood why people want to see 600x400 digital scans of images taken with particular cameras. At that size and on a video screen, you couldn't tell whether an image was shot with a $200 digital P&S, an 8x10, a brownie, a Leica M6 or a Pentax 67."

<br><br>

Hey Bob,

<br>

Thanks for pitching in on the forum suggestion. I share your evident frustration with display of on-line photos. I think a lot of folks in the "Leica Photography" forum would take you to task though. And, if you follow that forum, I think you will have to agree that the pictures posted there, usually with a common theme for each thread, do have a unique quality which is not seen elsewhere. I think that quality level is due in equal parts to superior equipment, experience, and dedication to perfection. My thesis is that similar high quality work is being done today with classic cameras by people who also have unique technical and esthetic approaches to their craft. Pictures posted in such forums will seldom fit the mold which propels them into the top-rated category, but I think they often have extraordinary artistic merit. It seems to me that this forum possibility therefore represents an opportunity for photo.net to broaden its umbrella a bit to everyone's benefit.<br>

    I also have a slightly heretical corollary to the above which is that there are times when you cannot distinguish whether a <i>print</i> is from Leica, a Zeiss Ikon, or even (gasp) a Hawkeye. So, it seems to me this is a path worth exploring.

Mike - good idea for such a forum.

 

As for looking at 600x400 photos, I think we look not specifically at the technical quality but rather at the overall result and occasionally how we're inspired to take the mundane with a camera dismissed as "antique."

 

Still using my Zeiss-Ikon cameras.

I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone that the aesthetic quality of an image is pretty much totally unrelated to the equipment used to take it.

 

People really WANT to show images though, and I accept that (but don't totally understand it). I suppose some people are either shocked or impressed that a 50year old camera is capable of taking excellent images. I'm not, but that's just me.

 

What we'd really want I guess is a sort of "open gallery" space, where users could post images from classic cameras. You'd get a sheet of thumbnails of the most recent submissions along with captions giving the make and model of camera used to take them. I don't think we have that structure available. I don't know if it's something Brian has considered.

Excelent idea. I shoot with a Graflex RB Series B and would like to show others that it's a really cool camera tht actually can take photographs.

I have a Graflex RB Series D -- an amazing camera. Luckily, I

have a 6x9 rollfilm back for it, since it's a 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 camera. It

isn't the quickest camera to use, but I have gotten some great

esults with it. The nice thing is having that view that is not upside

down.

 

Mark

I think this is a long overdue forum. Just classic cameras in general. Information on classic cameras can be found in the other forums but it seem to be all over the place and can be a little hard to find. If you go to any local camera show it becomes very clear that there are a lot of classic shooters out there. My family thinks I'm nuts, but if I can take only one camera with me, it's not my new Canon G3, but my Ansco Super Speedex. http://www.photo.net/photo/1633050

If there were a forum or a gallery, just how would you define a "classic" camera?

 

Perhaps one that was last produced before 1960? Some other date?

 

Is classic simply a matter of age?

yes, Bob, the same question popped into my empty head, not to say your head is empty.

 

How to draw the line.

 

Is it date, my model of Contaflex was made in the early 1960s. Is 1960 the line? Or is it without automation in exposure? Pentax Spotmatic but not the ES version? Manual focus only? Interesting question to find an answer that fits.

I know exactly what a classic camera is. Ummm well at least I thought I did. Now that you make me think about it I realize I have no idea. Maybe some true collectors out there would have a decent definition.

Mike I think this is a great idea. Now I wish I hadn't given that Super Ikonta back to my brother. I think I'll start looking around for another.

Seems like there are enough people here right now to sustain a fun forum on classic cameras and I'm sure many more would join in.

<br>

    For me the "Classic Camera" category would include any of the pre-'60s manual cameras that featured quality materials and craftsmanship along with superior glass like Tessar, Color Skopar and Schneider-Kreuznach (and, of course, the old Leica stuff).

<br>

   

I emphasized photo sharing in my original post for several reasons. I think an emphasis on words can often lead to endless nitpicking and ego stoking. Pictures cut right to the chase. I also think that using the old machines can produce unique results which are not likely to be duplicated by users of modern, automated cameras. It is interesting that the one picture posted here so far featured a subject and a style that is more or less contemporaneous with the camera used; that is something I often do also. Possibly just an old fogey's approach, but I do get weary of endless displays of garish calendar art.

<br>

   

We can probably talk this idea to death, but it seems like it would be more fun to just let it rip and see what happens.

Hey Mike,

<br>

I've wondered for a long time why you only had posted that one fine portrait done with the Super Ikonta. Now I know!

<br>

Haven't done much with mine, either, but it is in the queue.

Well if you can't define a classic camera it's not going to be easy.

 

So it had to be last produced prior to 1960 and it had to be totally mechanical (no electronics at all, not even a built in lightmeter)?

 

You're going to have a very difficult time nailing down "quality" though. Box Brownies, Argos and about 1000 different fixed focus, single menisus lens cameras would all seem to qualify just as much as the Leicas (but they have their own forum).

 

BTW this is not a promise to create a forum. If it's mainly for image display it should be part of the gallery in some way.

Steve,<br>

That picture in your "Single Photos" folder of the old wagon done with your Speedex, really illustrates what I have been trying to get at. Of course, your superior skills are primarily responsible for such fine results, but it does seem to me that just handling those old cameras will help stimulate anyone's appreciation for craftsmanship and lead to better picture making.

Hello again Bob,

<br>

I don't see a large problem with definitions; it seems like something that people will mostly figure out in the process, and some flexibility is going to be helpful. I certainly wouldn't argue that the Retina IIIC or the Zeiss Contessa are not classics because they had light meters. What they did not do, of course, was to leave nothing for the user to do other than depressing the shutter release.

<br>   

I like the possibility of initially looking at thumbnail images offered in the gallery displays since I live in the sticks and can't pump anything faster than about 26k. I suggested the creation of a forum allowing or emphasizing pictures because it seems to work for the Leica crowd, and it would not require any major re-engineering by the system administrators to get things started. If the idea does not really develop in the forum format, nobody is really out anything other than some temporary disk space.

You have to have a definition or sooner or later someone will get into a "it doesn't belong here" fight.

 

What's the purpose of the forum/gallery? What makes a "classic" camera any different from any other camera? What makes it "classic". Is it old, is it mechanical, is it cheap, is it expensive, is it covered in weasel fur? Is a Pentax Spotmatic a "classic"? Is a Pentax K1000? Is a Holga? Is a Lomo? Is a Leica M3 (1954-1966) - or does it have to be one of the ones made before 1960? Or the M2 (1958-1967)? If a 1967 M2 is OK, why not other 1967 cameras? Or does it have to have been INTRODUCED before a certain year - and if so how many modifications are allowed? And how about SLRs? Are they excluded since the first ones appeared in around 1959 and model of the original models extended past 1960?

 

 

I'm not trying to be picky (well, maybe I am), it's just that not everybody knows what a "classic" is, or rather everyone does, but everyone has their own definition! Should it be "Fully mechanical cameras made before 1960" rather than "Classic cameras"? Or "Fully mechnical cameras last produced in a year before 1960"?

Bob,<br><br>

Those are good questions, and I sympathize with the idea of trying to avoid creating a magnet for nitpicking controversy. I think it is not possible to totally avoid arbitrary boundaries, but whatever ones are chosen, they should be defensible.

<br>   

The purpose of a forum/gallery as I see it would be to create a venue for a large group of photographers who shoot with old cameras and who do not presently have such a place to share ideas and pictures interactively at photo.net or elsewhere.

<br>   

Two possibilities occur to me for creating a useful demarcation of the territory of the forum/gallery. The most easily defended would be to specify a time span which encompasses the classic period. I would suggest 1925 to 1955 (or 1960 if someone needs a little wiggle room). The first date marks the introduction of the Barnack Leica. The other end represents the point at which camera manufacturers like Zeiss and Voigtlander, along with car manufacturers, turned to clunky chrome and plastic designs. This period, btw, does not exclude slr cameras; there was the Exacta in 35mm and quite a few MF slr cameras in that time period. Camera design rebounded afterward and some new, great cameras were produced like the Spotmatic, but they are really a different breed.

<br>   

The other thing that can help to define the forum/gallery focus would be to post a FAQ with a little history and some good links to existing sites for collectors and enthusiasts. One excellent site of this type is Mike Elek's at http://www.host.fptoday.com/melek/. There are a number of other well known sites that also provide good information on collecting, repairing and using the old cameras. Some of those sites feature pictures by the site owner's, but none have the capability of photo.net for letting large numbers of people show their work and talk about it.

I'd say 1945 and prior. By the 1950's cameras were pretty darn sophisticated and light weight, and the way you shoot with one, in most cases, is pretty much the way you shoot today.

 

However, shooting with cameras prior to common built in light meters, having to compensate for shutters that tend to drag and uncoated lenses (for color) is a different shooting process, albeit slight...

 

Also, although it likely is not feasable for the sake of simplicity, it would be nice that classic optics must be used. A Zeiss Jena is an entirely different beast than a T* Tele-Sonnar.

anno,<br><br>

Thanks for chipping in on the discussion. I don't make any claim to expertise beyond that of an enthusiast, so it is nice to see some thoughts by others on this topic.

<br><br>

<b>You said:</b><br> "<i>I'd say 1945 and prior. By the 1950's cameras were pretty darn sophisticated and light weight, and the way you shoot with one, in most cases, is pretty much the way you shoot today.</i>"

<br><br>

My take on photography today is that most people are shooting computers with lenses attached. That is quite a distance from anything I can recall from the early '50s. If you could provide some examples of what you have in mind, that would be helpful to me to see the distinction you are making.

<br>   

German camera makers through the early '50s were still using pre-war designs and the same designers were producing them. The Japanese makers like Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Mamiya and Yashica were turning out faithful copies of the German cameras. There were certainly some design improvements going on, but the fundamentals don't look that different to me between the pre-war and post-war Ikontas, for example.

<br>   

I'm not denying that a case could be made for drawing the line 10 years one way or the other. For the purpose of getting a classic shooters forum/gallery under way, however, it seems to me to make sense to err on the side of inclusiveness. Something that will come into play -- like it or not -- is participant self-inclusion and self-exclusion. To take the latter first, I would guess classic Leica users will mostly stick with the "Leica Photography" forum. Likewise, as Bob mentioned, the Brownie/box camera folks already have their own forum.

<br>   

On the other hand, people will want to include themselves if they have a 50-year-old camera that takes pictures. For me, that seems like a perfectly ok criterium. It seems like any camera that still functions after that period of time deserves the "classic" title regardless of make or particulars. I also think it will turn out that most will be those that started out with superior materials and workmanship.

<br>   

Another slant: the classic shooters forum/gallery could be subtitled "not-leica". Not to cast any aspersions in the direction of the Leica lovers, of course. But, I think there are a lot of people out there that enjoy shooting fine old cameras but are not willing to hock the family jewels for the privilege. One of the not-so-secrets discovered by anyone who gets into the classics is that you can still get great old shooters for $50-$100 that produce pictures just as sharp and contrasty as any of the brand-A kind. (I also see a number of Medium Format people smirking in the background).

So, that is my take on the forum/gallery idea. Will look forward to more thoughts from you and others.

Not wanting to start a verbal fight Mike, but there are cameras around, used by a number of people, which don't fall into the catagory of "computers with lenses attached" but also don't fit to the proposed definition of Classic cameras as being pre-1960 (or pre-1945). Examples would be the Olympus OM-1 (OK, I'm biased: when I'm not shooting with my 10D computer with a lens attached, I like to take my old OM-1n out. Now, this model (OM-1n) came out in 1979 I believe, so... can it be called a classic camera? I think it can, but I'm just biased, as I said. I'm no expert, but I expect that there will also be a number of models of Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc that fit nicely into the definition of "Classic camera" even though they may have been introduced post-1970. Personally, I'd call cameras that are pre-1945 Vintage cameras. This doesn't mean that they are useless, and certainly I would allow that some models could be both Vintage and Classic... Anyway, I'm happy to wait to see what others think about all this!