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

I dont know about you but I use classic cameras because they are fun

and most important CHEAP.I enjoy well made mechanical stuff but

digital slrs(mid range and up) make hugher quality pictures(with good

fixed lenses).I know that people who handle leicas,rolleis or even

spotmatics for 30 years knows every aspect and etc. but I,as a

photographer with limited experience(2 years) would shift to digital

for my SLR needs if I could afford it.Rangefinders and TLR's are great

but unfortunatley they are a dying breed with not much future since

their development came to a halt and they became eccentric toys or

collectors items in vacuum packages.Mind you I love film and I hate

plastic.

 

Sorry to be a killjoy and a traitor,I love and still use 3 slrs made

from 1961 to the early 1980 but sometimes matrix metering,anti shake,

autofcus,the ability to correct yourself by seeing the picture right

after it was taken,general faster operating speed would save pictures

that otherwise look bad(technicly not aestheticly).

I also have limited photographic experience (3 years of digital, 2 years of 35mm and 3 months of TLR). But I use classic cameras not because they are fun and cheap but they produce EXCELLENT photographs. Since I don't print much, I am essentially a digital photographer who only shoots film. Classic camera + scanner + Photoshop is my workflow. I can't imagine myself doing photography without digital.

 

Rangefinders and TLRs are a dying breed because professional photographers move on to more effiecient tools for their business and amateurs (always) chase the latest gadgets. Most of the classic cameras themselves were built as solid as a hammer, which do not need much development (like a hammer). This is proved by my 1932 Rolleiflex, which I shot with a few hours ago and now I am scanning the negatives ;-)

digital has no soul.

 

digital has no personality.

Film has no soul either. Only the mind behind the camera has soul and personality.

 

There is nothing wrong with digital camera, and there is nothing wrong with old film cameras either. If there is anything wrong, it is the people.

Constant argument about digital vs. film is a sign of a forum's deteriorating, if you don't believe me, simply look at the Leica Forum.

 

Let's move on and make more good photographs with whatever cameras we have in our hands.

"Film has no soul either. Only the mind behind the camera has soul and personality."

 

Well said, Sam!

Roger Rabbit said, "I can only do it if it's funny."

<p>

Digital has no humor.

What in the world are you folks talking about? ALL photographs displayed on the net are digitized one way or the other!

 

Regardless of whether you use a junk camera, classic camera, digicam or a scanner, every image HAS to be digitized in order to be displayed here!

Let us think of some analogies regarding music debates.

 

Some people endless argue about the different kind of musics' respective values. Contemporary "difficult" music is often told to be "high level minded" music. I'm sorry, most of what is written in that domain don't speak to me. There are some rare opus which do, though, like what Philippe Hersant or Henri Dutilleux or - let us mention some American componers too - Aaron Copland have composed.

 

On the other hand, there are some (many) now successful pieces composed during the "classic" era which are some crap. Vivaldi's "Four seasons" was the perfect commercial supermarket kind of music of its time. I don't like all what Mozart produced - some of his works sound "music for food" a lot.

Nor do I with Bach and Beethoven although I like their music very much. Even regarding one of my favorites, Gustav Mahler, there are some pieces I don't like as much as the others.

 

Novelty is never well accepted. When Ravel wrote his "Left hand piano concerto", some pianists wanted to play it with both hands - he threatened some to prosecute them in court if they did so.

 

50 years ago, when Pierre Boulez tried to convince the public he was composing something great and new although it was nothing else than dodecaphonic crap exercises, at the same time Duke Ellington produced some materworks which will stand in the music history forever. I bid that Pink Floyd's chef-d'oeuvre, "Dark Side of the Moon" will still be played on the air in 50 years, since some "difficult high-level music" pieces will have totally disappeared.

 

So - my opinion is that digital photography IS photography and that it HAS a soul as far as the photographer behind the camera has one himself.

 

In my own stocks, there are pictures shot with a digicam I like very much and that I intend to have printed and framed ; there are pictures shot with a classic I don't like well, and vice-versa !

 

The remanent digital vs film "debate" even ought not to be. Just let us go out, and take some photographs - or make some drawings. Don't forget that at the end of his life Cartier-Bresson despised photography and made some drawings only (not very good ones IMO).

"Digital has no humor."<div></div>

Every month I shoot thousands of digital pictures of broken automobile parts, nice clear, detailed shots that get uploaded that evening, not something that would be feasible with film. Because I do that I have enough money to buy old film cameras and enjoy the magic of squeezing photographs out of 70 year old mechanical devices. Different wrenches for different bolts.

My Minolta Maxxum 7D is, overall, no better a photographic tool than my Spotmatic.

Let us stop compare potatoes with onions !!!

 

Good night all.<div></div>

I use my tools to create images that speak to me and evoke emotions from others.

 

My satisfaction comes from the viewer of my product emoting in ways that they would not have otherwise.

 

--

 

My tool box contains tools that use batteries and computers. Some of my tools cost $5 some cost $5000. Some are 60 years old and some are bleeding edge.

Michael, I'm sorry but I don't understand why I should care about your excuses for doing whatever it is that you do. Why should they matter to me? You're the one who has to live with them. I'm offended by your forcing them on me.

 

How can you love film and hate plastic? What do you think film backing is?

 

How can you, with your limited experience, assert that "digital slrs(mid range and up) make hugher quality pictures(with good fixed lenses)"? Higher quality than what? The 35 mm crap you can afford but don't know how to use? 4x5 used by people who know how to use it well? Inquiring minds want clarification.

 

Not to be impolite, but I really don't like people to rant at me. I like it even less when they rant poorly. Please try to do better. You've annoyed me, and did a bad job of it. There's nothing to learn from in your rant, and not enough innocent amusement either. I hope that I've annoyed you worse, you've earned it.

 

One of this forum's strong points is tolerance for others' photographic practices. To the extent that there are rules here at all, that's rule one. You've broken it, and badly. I hope you're properly ashamed of yourself.

Nowadays, you can get an RB67 outfit for $300 complete with a lens and back. Many other professional grade Medium Format film cameras are now selling used for these kinds of crazy prices, which are an order of magnitude less than the new gear cost a decade ago. And these Medium Format cameras are capable of quality that blows away anything in Digital that can be had for less than $10K. Matrix Metering, Anti-shake technology, Autofocus, and Auto Exposure are all CONVENIENCE features, that can allow the photographer to work faster and take shortcuts, but they do not add to the inherent quality of the image that a good photographer, working carefully and with proper technique, could not otherwise achieve with basic manual focus gear. What the image requires, is a good lens, the film held flat in a black box, and the proper adjustments of aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Proper lighting of the subject is also important, as opposed to simply adjusting the camera for the existing lighting. Any good, knowledgeable photographer knows how to make these settings for the image effect that they are seeking. The fact that the camera can do some or all of these things automatically may add speed, but it does not inherently add quality to the image.

I still call for a change of name for this forum. "Old Cameras" is better.<br>The thing is, "Classic" cameras are that, not because they are old, but because they represent a step forward in photography.<br><br>That means two things for this digital-has-no-soul-film-has-no-soul-either type discussion.<br>1. Digital cameras can, and will become "Classics" too. (Sony Mavica, anyone?)<br>2. More importantly, the "soul" of a "Classic" is not in whether or not it exudes the aroma of better days gone by, or anything like that. Not in whether or not it is cheap. Not in whether or not it uses film. Only in what it has meant to photography. Only in how it helped bring today's photography (digital and film) where it is today.<br><br>Look at it this way: the Mercury space capsule is a true "Classic" for the role it played in the succes of any space project that followed. Who in their right mind would argue it is more of a "Classic" then that Apollo thing that came later, because that used (a bit) more advanced technology? Who would argue that the Apollo thing has more "soul" because putting down on the Moon is a greater accomplishment than circling the Earth?<br><br>Ah well... someone decided this forum should, despite the chosen name, be about Old cameras instead... The clash with things that came later, that have earned their place in photography in their own right too, is inevitable. Preprogrammed. We witness it right here and now. ;-)

Years ago my wife and I decided to delve into the world of portait photography, at the

time Hasselblad ruled the roost, so I bought one. The "H'blad" produced amazing

portraits, clients loved the results. A few years back I had decided to follow the wave

and bought a Fuji S2 DSLR, another amazing camera with outstanding results. Over

time I found myself not focusing on the lighting, pose, or subject matter but more on

the little screen in the back. My portraits started becoming static, somewhat lifeless

and dull. This is not the cameras fault but the operator, I knew I could fix some

problems in photoshop so I let them go.

I currently have returned to film, meduim format to be specific, and feel I'm back in

my element. While the S2 can produce nice 20x30 prints, the edge goes to the film

cameras for tonality and image quality.

In this digital world we live in, a DSLR may produce good results for the web, and

enlargements to a degree, but medium format still rulles the day (scans to 22 mp

beat the hell out of 12 mp interpolated).

SO, take the digital road for the convienence but you'll be back, and we'll still be here.

 

Todd

&*$#@!<br><br>The "it" mentioned as not being more or less "Classic" compared to the Apollo is the Mercury space capsule.<br>I'm 100% positive i typed that. Don't know how it got lost. Myself being "old" (rather than "classic") will have some part in it, i guess.

And now i'm sure i'm not just old...<br>My apologies.

What an odd rant.

 

IMHO:

 

The camera is simply a tool - regardless of the format. BUT you need to choose the right tool for the job. You want BIG, you need MF or LF. You want quick and small(i.e. e-bay ads) choose a digcam p/s. You want pretty good and have a wedding/portrait business choose DSLR.

 

DLSR will not take a better photo - a better photographer will.

I do not think any of the cameras shared on this forum are toys....

Also, a good photo does not equal a 'saved' bad photo.

Calm down guys, we are having a civilized discussion here.

 

Regardless language and over generalization, Cyan did raise another interesting

point here. It is automation vs manual control. This is a different issue than digital vs

film.

 

Having experience at both extreme ends from Olympus Stylus Epic in which the only

control is turning off the flash to pinhole camera which you have to calculate the

exposure yourself, I would say that both are very difficult. Automation makes routine

work much easier but become very challenging at some situations. Manual control

requires more thinking and experience and not always produces consistant good

results. Laziness is not a bad thing if we can avoid hard work and still produce good

result, that is how technology evolved. Without automation and mass production, we

might still making wet glass plates ;-)

 

Again, it is the mind behind the camera makes the difference.

I think we are talking about "non-professional" photography here. For the job, in

most area of photography, film is already killed by digital. That is an unavoidable

revolution. Just like typwriters are killed by computers. However, "non-professional"

photography is more like calligraphy, efficiency is not a main concern. It is the

process and the beautiful outcome, which is not driven by the market.<div></div>

I'd like to make a different point. Maybe one reason many people are persuaded that digital is technically "better" than film may be the end results (the print) they get, which depend on a lot more than the negative or digital image quality.

 

With film there are so many ways to go wrong for the average 1 hour lab - bad focus, cleanliness, color calibration, spent chemicals, dust, lack of care with the negative...On the other hand, with digital they just load the media and push the button.

 

I think digital is much less dependent on lab personnel skill and care than film. Anybody can load a CD and push a button. Therefore, I speculate that digital gives more reproducible results with less defects, which are attributed to the camera, which is the only element of the workflow that the amateur is really aware of.

 

I find people are speaking about cameras but they really mean print quality, IMHO.

 

I shoot mostly film but do not have darkroom facilities, except to develop my own BW film. Like S. Liu, I scan my negatives - this may be the only thing in which I come close to Sam, photographically speaking!

<p><em>I dont know about you but I use classic cameras because they are fun and most important CHEAP.</em></p><p>Nothing wrong with that.</p><p><em>I,as a photographer with limited experience(2 years) would shift to digital for my SLR needs if I could afford it.</em></p><p>Or with that.</p><p><em>Rangefinders and TLR's are great but unfortunatley they are a dying breed with not much future since their development came to a halt and they became eccentric toys or collectors items in vacuum packages.</em></p><p>Putting aside the possibly interesting question of how rangefinders and TLRs might be a "breed", you appear to be a bit out of <a href="http://www.cosina.co.jp/">touch</a> here.</p><p><em>Mind you I love film and I hate plastic.</em></p><p>As pointed out above, you here contradict yourself.</p><p><em>Sorry to be a killjoy and a traitor,I love and still use 3 slrs made from 1961 to the early 1980 but sometimes matrix metering,anti shake, autofcus,the ability to correct yourself by seeing the picture right after it was taken,general faster operating speed would save pictures that otherwise look bad(technicly not aestheticly).</em></p><p>You haven't killed my joy. And yes, there's probably some truth in what you say. But I imagine that this has occurred to most people here -- as have various near-reverses of what you say, e.g. that it may be easier to use a camera with straightforward controls than to have to dick around with "+" and "−" buttons while squinting into an LCD readout.</p><p>Different strokes/folks. Next question?</p>