There are Still New Film Converts!!

<p>I recently read the thread about the topics here getting a bit thin. This is a bit sad for me since I really only discovered the joy of rangefinders and Leica lenses a scant month and a half ago when I broke down and bought a Bessa R2M and a 50 Elmar-M. I have since tracked down and bought a 35mm Lux Pre-ASPH at the Tokyo Used Camera Show just this past Friday.</p>

<p>So, as a new fan of the Leica lens and rangefinders and film (though I also just got an M Mount Adaptor for my GF1), here is a photo I took this weekend on the now discontinued Fuji Superia Reala 100 film with the 35 Lux wide open to show that "glow" in full effect. You can go <a href="http://www.timarai.com/blog/2010/06/08/photo-a-day-2010-06082010/">here</a> to see the other examples and larger versions of the photos.</p>

<p>I hope more people discover the joy of shooting with these cameras and lenses. With the popularity of DSLR exploding like never before, I'm thinking the few people that really take this new hobby to the next level will end up, like me, falling back to film where it's both far more simple than the latest button overload that is a DSLR yet at the same time far more complex and thought intensive than just point - click - check screen - point - click - and repeat.</p>

<p>Here's to film and the joy of shooting film for a long long time to come!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking the few people that really take this new hobby to the next level will end up, like me, falling back to film where it's both far more simple than the latest button overload that is a DSLR yet at the same time far more complex and thought intensive than just point - click - check screen - point - click - and repeat.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Congrat on your RF! But do realize it is just a camera. There are crappy digital users as well as crappy film users. The tool doesn't matter all that much in general photographic crappiness. Moreover, I find shooting film RF much less thought intensive and complex than a DSLR or digital P&S...that's all subjective, of course. Love that "glow" or lens flare:))))</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>. . . "glow" in full effect. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Flare, <em>non?</em></p>

<p>Oh yeah. Major flare. It's a signature of the 35 lux though huh?. And yes I know it's a "flaw". But it's certainly what drew me to that lens. Besides, calling it a "glow" sounds better no? :) Heh heh heh.</p>

<p>And yeah...in the end, the camera is just a dark box with a shutter. And a pricey lens does not make one an amazing photographer. I always hope though that if someone spends that much money on gear they will use it to it's fullest. ...though I also know people who bought a Canon 1D MkIII and use it like a point and shoot :( Ah well.</p>

<p>I do love shooting film RF though. It's kind of liberating in it's simplicity. But I guess I'm always aware in the back of my mind to "make it count...make it count...you only have 24/36 shots!!". Need to shut that voice up in my head I think! Especially since I'm not getting a M8 or an M9 anytime soon!!</p>

 

<p>Film users never use automation and DSLR users are knuckledragging automatons. Thanks for the tip.</p>

<p>Who said that? I shoot both soooooooo I'm a knuckle dragging automaton that never use automation...which means I must really hate myself...</p>

<p>Ah well.</p>

<p>Oh wait...but I do use automation. My R2M has a very nice exposure meter! :) </p>

<p>I have the pre-asph 'lux and I loved it but for its speed and small size rather than "glow"... </p>

<p>Congrat! and happy film shooting:)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who said that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>"like me, falling back to film where it's both far more simple than the latest button overload that is a DSLR yet at the same time far more complex and thought intensive than just point - click - check screen - point - click - and repeat."</em></p>

<p>Hmmm. I suppose you can read it that way. Though I didn't say all DSLR shooters were knuckle dragging automatons either. And calling shooting film simple is a far far cry from saying the shooters don't use automation... Eh. Whatever. I can only assume most people will know what I mean.</p>

<p>OMG, not another one of these threads!<br>

Arrivistes become tiresome when they grow sanctimonious over the purity and "simplicity" (???) of film.</p>

<p>Congrats on your purchase, Tim. Film photography and rangefinders aren't going anywhere, though, as Josh pointed out, the numbers are in decline.<br>

If I may forward an opinion, what would help this forum out is more photography, more results, more passion about the images the cameras/lenses produce and less about the hardware. And more enthusiastic support and encouragement for those who do regardless of the type of rangefinder they use. There will always be a need for technical and historical discussions, but for photographers, it's visual content that brings interest and inspiration. That's why the W/NW threads here are interesting to me. IMHO, it's the transition from "film equipment" forums to "film photography" forums (using specific types of equipment of course) that will be needed to excite future interest and increase participation. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Arrivistes become tiresome when they grow sanctimonious over the purity and "simplicity" (???) of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't have said it better. If you like film, then shoot film - just don't sell yourself as superior to digital photographers then. There are certainly different levels of photographers - but the hierarchy isn't tied in with the medium they use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO, it's the transition from "film equipment" forums to "film photography" forums (using specific types of equipment of course) that will be needed to excite future interest and increase participation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice, it would be a good move....</p>

<p>Well, smokers that stop smoking are similar. Don`t shot them, just gave them a <em>welcome to purity!</em> :)<br /> <br /> <em>"... Film photography and rangefinders aren't going anywhere, though, as Josh pointed out, the numbers are in decline... "</em><br /> My favourite laser printing lab has just closed down. After several attemps with other labs, with awful and expensive results (inkjet printing) I`m tempted again to stop shooting color (mainly digital) and to come back to my b&w homemade wet prints.<br /> <br /> I also like that glow. I`m thinking about using it in some portraits; I`d like to check how it works on white skin faces.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Arrivistes become tiresome when they grow sanctimonious over the purity and "simplicity" (???) of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just don't see what is tiresome or sanctimonious about a newbie flush with discovering the joy of shooting with a simple mechanical rangefinder camera and film. It is one of the appealing aspects of these cameras. As related to my post above, we should encourage, support and nurture those new to the joys of rangefinder photography. Let's embrace and make welcome all newcomers.</p>

<p>Louis,<br>

No one argues with the enthusiasm over film, but so few of the nouveaus seem able to avoid the little digs and slurs on those who have not found the true path. That is tiresome and not to be encouraged.</p>

<p>It's one thing to cherish film and RF and another to put down digital users...it ain't rocket science, just common courteous...</p>

<p>Here's some "real" Leica glow, not lens flare, by the way. On my incredibly rare Swedish Army Gold Leica. :)</p><div></div>

<i>. . . I'm thinking the few people that really take this new hobby to the next level will end up, like me, falling back to film . . .</i><P>

 

And when you take it up a few more levels, you'll understand that it's not your camera or your capture medium that determines whether you engage in intensive or complex thought about your photos.<P>

 

; )

<p>So where's this "flare" you're talking about? Or is it a characteristic of said lens in certain situations?</p>

<p>Jody, it happens when shooting wide open to bright subjects with certain fast lenses. <br /> Check <a href="http://www.timarai.com/images/pad2010/l/20100608-01.jpg">this image from the link provided by Tim</a>, at full size you`ll see how the flowers show a huge ammount of that "glare" (in this sample it is certainly impressive... ).</p>

<p>It's called personal experience. He shot digital before and he sees the merits of using film NOW that he is actually using it for himself. Maybe his opinion should not be discounted so offhandedly?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>He shot digital before and he sees the merits of using film NOW that he is actually using it for himself. Maybe his opinion should not be discounted so offhandedly?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that were the actual nature of the opinion we were given, then, yes. We were offered something much different however.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=937861">John Henneberger</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 08, 2010; 10:46 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Film users never use automation and DSLR users are knuckledragging automatons. Thanks for the tip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow...someone needs to learn how to read and get that chip off their shoulder.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>learn how to read</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed.<em> http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/sarcasm<br /></em></p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>