Jump to content

Forward or backward, the choice is yours.


Recommended Posts

In the last years I used a lot of old camera's (1950's and older) while I once started out with digital. One

question regularly pop up in my mind. Why does one species of camera people grabs anything new (digital) from the

shelf while others try to grab anything as old as possible from the shelf?? Seems that we have 2 different

streams of photographers. But why?? why are one of the streams always looking and longing for the latest new

gizmo and others longing for antiques?? Has it to do with the feel or the picture or just as a kind of fashion

statement?? For me myself I confined myself that it's the search for less perfectness and simplicity of the

camera, no computer calculated lenses, no tack sharp images and no trillion buttons and sub-menus to plow trough.

Just the romantic feel of hand calculated lens designs and the idea that someone so many years back put this

machine together by hand.

 

What are your thoughts on this??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"seems that we have 2 different streams of photographers."</i><p>

 

I think there are many more than 2 streams beyond your definition. There are many photographers (vs. camera

buffs) who simply want to use the best tool (for them) to create compelling images, and who could give a rat's

arse about distinguishing between the latest gizmo vs. some collectible antique.<p>

 

Case in point- my mother shoots thousands of images every year, still using a DSLR from 2001. Just yesterday I

told her that there are many people who would consider her camera "obsolete", to which she replied (as I

expected) "I don't care". Then she resumed shooting. I feel the same way- my digicam is a 2005 model ("old"?!?)

and does everything I need and then some. Rather than think about how/why to upgrade, I prefer to think about how

to improve my images, how to develop ideas etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are on the right track. I use both digital and film. I reach for my Canon F-1 largely because I like the feel of it. A heavy, beautiful, precision machine. I like that it's a non electric(except the meter which I don't use) and needs no power to drive it other than my thumb. The manual focus and exposure means I slow down a bit while shooting thinking about the shot more. Yes, the simplicity has an appeal. The FD lenses are as good as any ever made for any camera and are made with the same pro feel of quality. Ok, Ok so it looks cool too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Asher . has a point - there are more than two camps here. I've seen people move through a progression of idea revolving around equipment, and while there is a pattern that many people follow in general, no two people ever seem to follow exactly the same path. Personally, I use old cameras because a) I can easily afford them, b) they do everything that I need them to do, c) they are a joy to use, and d) there is no reason to replace them with something newer when the tools I have already still work just fine.

 

Not everyone follows my example though; some people really do need more modern equipment to address their requirements, some people just like to play with the latest gear, some people prefer the simplicity of old cameras, some people don't see any need to change, some people just like to collect things, some people think that different gear will solve all of their problems, some people like to follow trends, some people use their possessions as status symbols, some people try to make a statement with their choices, and some people only do what others are doing because they cannot form their own opinions. The only wrong choice is letting someone else do your thinking for you, at least in my opinion.

 

- Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most newcomers see ads in the newspapers and photo magazines and pick what they like (and can afford). If they are happy with their choice they hang on to it but remain in touch with later products and improvements even though they also come to realize that the photographer is more important than the equipment. When their first camera falters and needs replacement they are very familiar with the market since their first purchas and may have developed a hankering for a model that was produced in the interim, not necessarily the latest. If famous photographer XYZ used a product they may want it even if it is not currently manufactured. With a wide choice on Ebay of inexpensive cameras from all eras almost anything is possible. I started getting interested in photography in the 50's and have bid on various cameras made since then but have no longing for cameras made before the 50's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it all depend on having a clearly articulated vision of what your photography is all about? Once you know what you want to accomplish, then the choice of equipment follows pretty naturally. <p>I shoot professional boxing for clients who typically don't pay a whole lot, so I know I will want to use a good-performing digital SLR with a lens of a certain speed and length. If I think that I will also take shots to use in a portfolio for a gallery show, I may also pack a film-based camera with a certain kind of high-speed film that is hard to replicate in digital, and if the occasion is right, I may snap off a roll or two of images diffferent from those I shoot for a client to put on a website. So there, the equipment choice is driven entirely by the end result. <p>If I were shooting close-quarter people , like street photography or a certain kind of photo essay, I would decide whether I needed high ISO capability, then use my Nikon D300, or whether I wanted the look that film gets me in an emulsion that looks best at ISO400. If I was going to be out carrying a camera around all day and thought I'd just be looking for an interesting snapshot, why not carry an old film SLR with a small prime lens and a spare roll of film? <p>The simple truth to me is that the basics of photography-- what aperture to use, what to expose for, what shutter speed to use, are fairly simple. You can pretty easily get a perfectly focused and perfectly exposed frame any time you want from a 1950's Leica M, 1960's Nikon F, or a 2008 D300. Old film cameras and their lenses with the exception of Leicas are now amazingly cheap. If the end result you're looking for is such that the quality satisfies you, why not use them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife loves brand spanking new cars with every single gizmo known to man built in to them. I long for a 1969 Corvette Stringray with triple webber carbs on it. To each his own.

 

I love the feeling of something older. Older isn't always better, but sometimes older construction techinques necesitate a more 'solid' feeling build. I like the fact that my Oly OM-1n is a manual camera. I also don't earn a living by my camera and that is the deciding thing for me. I get pleasure out of using it and it is solely for my enjoyment and to catalouge experiences in my life. I prefer using the method that I most enjoy to do that, which is my older camera. If I had to earn a living on my photography I probably wouldn't use my old Olympus for the job, I'd probably have a brand new camera with all of the fun bells and whistles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you replicate the look of b/w film exposed in a Rollie TLR? Let alone the disarming nature of the camera (looking down into a chest-level viewfinder is less off-putting to a subject than sighting directly through an eye-level finder) Or how can you duplicate the tonal range of fast b/w film developed in a compensating bath for extra shadow detail?

 

Or, why isn't there a compact digital sensitive to 1600 EI or higher with an f/2 or 1.4 lens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncle Goose, you bring up a point that has me wondering about my peculiar shooting lately.I bought a D100 near the end of its reign and quickly replaced it with a D200 which I have used exclusively until recently when I bought a 50mm 1.8 and stuck it on the D100. Now the D100 goes everywhere with me and the D200 is on the shelf with more expensive glass than I care to admit to. While not regressing to film I certainly have taken a step back and I'm enjoying it. Perhaps (real guess here) the lack of great expectations with the older gear allows me to have more fun without having the burden of creating that "perfect" shot that no one else thinks is perfect anyway. And my foot zoom skills are getting better. Go figger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the fact that I don't have to care about batteries, have a large/bright viewfinder, not a load of accesories, not having to scroll through menus to find something that might help but really is there just to avoid having to think, small pieces you can loose, dependence on computers (that are anything but reliable) etc etc.

 

And the reaction from elder people "now that's a camera" is priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mr. Goose! Interesting question, but is it over simplified?

 

Maybe it's a generational thing?

 

One thing that may influence the migration to digital is everyone is brought up with a computer these days, so

the lab is now at home instead of around the corner.

 

As vibrant as some are on the classic page, how many are young people?

 

Mechanical cameras are really cool, a challenge to get the photo. Who in their right mind shoots hummingbirds

with a Leica? Or rodeo with a Contax IIIa RF?

 

For me, the machine and the challenge are fun, I don't want a computer with a lens stuffed in the front. Layers

of menus? Great image taking devices, but instead of going back or into the future, I'll just live in my crazy

little world where I don't have a metered camera. Well, not quite, I have a MF Contax SLR and a Contax G2 along

side a 500cm, IIIA and Leica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there are some of us who like state of the art digitals AND old fashioned cameras. I shoot with a 5D and mostly L glass when I am working and/or trying to do serious photography, because that is the equipment I feel is most competent for the job. But I also have a rather large collection of antique cameras, and I love each and every one. I love their peculiarities, their history, their feel, their smell. I love to imagine where they've been and what they've seen. I enjoy working on them and sometimes (rarely) modifying them for experiments. I don't actually have to use these cameras to enjoy them. (Indeed, they're not all 100% functional!). But sometimes I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm simplifying things to much, indeed there are people who enjoy both or combine old lenses with new

camera's but while I have a digital I rarely use it, I tend to grab back towards TLR and older stuff. I too have

all the gizmo's but rarely use them because they don't give me the feel and looks I want. Sometimes I find the

new lenses to sharp, when does perfection makes a photograph bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johan, I know where you are with the comments. I get quite a few comments from friends/family/strangers when using my old Olympus gear. Generally positive, sometimes questioning (why are you using that old thing? I got rid of mine 10 years ago when digital came out and got this little pocket camera.) sorts of things
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent most of the last 15 years shooting with Rolleiflex TLRs, Speed Graphics, and 6x6 folders, but now I mostly use DSLRs. They are all just hammers to me. The most important aspects to my photography occur outside the camera. I agree that there is a certain pleasure to using a simplified camera, but I've found I can achieve the same with my DSLRs by reading the manual and learning about all the features I can turn off, set up to work like film, or just ignore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dug out some 120 Velvia I shot in Russia in 1992, 93 and 94 with a Bronica. The color is wonderful. the sharpness is great. Although I converted fully to digital in 2002, I now have pangs about getting rid of all my medium format stuff. I made some scanned prints from those transparencies and frankly they look damn good. In my digital printing tonight I had to make sure my ACR was set to 16 bits, my color space was set properly in a couple of places, that I soft proofed before I printed, and adjusted the white balance, exposure, fill, saturation, vibrance, curves, levels, on and on ad nauseum. Frankly I longed for the time when all this was done by a good E6 processor and I picked up my film or my proof prints if it were NPH. Now I do my own large prints which gives me more control and I can produce them with a lot less darkroom sweat and stink. There are two valid sides to this question. I have gone so far as to occasionally search for some bargains in the way of used Bronica equipment inasmuch as I am quite familiar with it. Incidentally I was a lot more confident in the output from my Vivitar 283s as I understand how to make consistent and simple adjustments to get fill. Now my Canon does it for me but on a far less consistent and comprehensible basis. I probably will not go back because you can't really ever go back but I think about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick, you're not alone in that. I'm a 35mm guy, never needed the size of medium format, who started digital in about 2004, and

got into it seriously in 2005. A few months ago I decided if I wanted my files to look like film, I would...shoot film. That's being a

bit facetious, but it is true that a scanned Portra negative often needs... nothing. It just looks good. Yes of course it's all slower,

but I am lucky I have a good lab a few minutes away that charges $2.70/roll for developing, and I bought a nice scanner

several years ago that works fine. Digital output is wonderful and I would never go back to optical printing. Still, the files are

different. With the right amount of tweaking I can get an image that looks like it came from a color negative film, or from E-6.

But not always.<div>00Q16Q-53351584.jpg.8282282cf5126181876d873275dbb0f0.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sometimes I find the new lenses to sharp, when does perfection makes a photograph bad?"

 

When it becomes the purpose of the effort rather than the results, at least as I see it. I really enjoy the cameras that I have - I've tried a number of them and have settled down with the three that I regularly use because they do everything that I need them to do and they have the added bonus of being fun to use. I have no ambition to be famous (infamous perhaps, but not famous) but I would not use a camera that did not do what I needed it to do no matter how much fun it might be to use. When the gear becomes the purpose then, I believe, you are off the path. At the risk of being accused of being an Adams disciple, this quote of his expresses my thoughts on your question rather well...

 

""There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams

 

- Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about cameras are just tools to get to the final image? I don't care about the experience of using a camera any more than I care about the experience of using a Snap-On socket set...

 

You choose the correct tool for the images being made. Digital or film - make the choice as dictated by the subject matter.

 

I have 13 film cameras and one digital camera. I shoot mostly with the digital camera, but when I see something that needs the 6x12 with a 40mm lens for a 110-degree angle of view, or when I need the look of an Imagon I get out the Hasselblad, or if I need super detail I get out the 4x5...tools...the cameras are just a means to the final image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but why use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Workflow is also a very big issue with me in selecting the proper tools for the job. My earlier point was with transparencies my workflow was taken care of by a commercial processor. It is now taken care of by me out of choice in a computer. Sometimes that extra work is worth it, sometimes not it as when I had a darkroom instead of a computer to make prints. I agree that I wish I had MF capability today in certain circumstances as I loved the effect that I got from Velvia, Portra etc. The output from that media is still a reference quality standard for me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...