The Columnist Manifesto

[JDMvW]

<p>Recently on several different threads there has been "artistic" criticism of the crappy pictures posted by those of us actually using crappy old cameras, which we love, by the way.<br /> Shortly after reading those comments, I received my very own copy of <em> </em><br /> <em>Glass, Brass, & Chrome: The American 35mm Miniature Camera</em> by K.C. Lahue and J.A. Bailey. University of Oklahoma Press. 1972 [paperback 2002].</p>

<p>As I read the preface to the volume, I was struck by the (1972) comment of the authors on their purpose in writing that book:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is something about a group of fine mechanical parts assembled into pleasing shapes with skillful craftsmanship that creates a desire for ownership and a pride of possession, whether it be an automobile, a mobile sculpture, or a camera. Not that all American 35mm cameras were works of art; indeed, many models were quite the opposite. It is significant, however, that those cameras which became popular had an appeal to their buyers in terms other than their function of taking pictures. During our research for this volume, we had frequent debates with photographic historians on whether our work would be complete if it accented the hardware and simply assumed that the camera purchasers achieved, at least to their own satisfaction, artistically pleasing results. Since the choice was ours, we allowed our side to win. Photography as an art form has been evaluated by those better qualified and, in truth, more interested in art than we are. Our attempt is a history of American 35mm hardware, its evolution from a German idea, and the role it played in making photography America's number-one hobby today. (pp. vii-viii)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would not say that anyone should not take the best pictures they are capable of taking, but there are forums dedicated to displaying and critiquing beautiful and meaningful photos. Here we are by the very terms of the forum itself dedicated as much to the hardware. Our pictures, banal as they may be, are documents of how the combination of lens, film, and camera work together.<br /> Frankly I don't agree with the assessment of banality of the pictures displayed here. I think a great many of them are as good as those displayed anywhere else on Photo.net. Surely there is a bent here toward the documentary photo, as opposed to the "arty" ones. I think that's as it should be.</p>

<p>I propose that Lahue and Baileys' statement is a kind of manifesto for Classic Manual Cameras (and for Modern Film Cameras, for that matter), minus the specific references to 35mm, of course.</p>

<p>In that line, I suggest that we all strive to make our Marks, and look at everything from all Angles. Marks and Angles, that's our guide.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What that man said!<br><br>(So now back to the important business of moaning about the faux Classic quality of those banal old cameras. ;-) )

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks, QG. ;)</p>

[starvy]

<p>Agreed. Here we celebrate the mechanical device. The performance is a bonus to me personally.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>To the barricades! :D I couldn't agree more, JDM</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Pretty much what I've been saying all along; this Forum is about cameras, and the pictures, whether pretty, boring, banal, pathetic, brilliant or otherwise, are a bonus. Particularly if they don't contain too much banal space. Mind you, we all like a bonus and, as several of us have stated or hinted, obvious effort or thought in capture or presentation doesn't go unnoticed or unappreciated. Nice pertinent quote, <strong>JDM</strong>, regarding our crappy cameras, old or otherwise.</p>

[timwitt]

<p>That explains why I pick up my new Aires 35-III L everytime I walk by it and admire, caress, stroke, etc. I even took it with me to work the first day I had it.</p>

<p>Photo of the pretty camera coming soon, along with "customary" pics from the machine. </p>

[craigd]

<p>Interesting camera history is what we're here for. Good pictures are a strong plus but not absolutely essential. I do my best and I generally trust that everyone else makes some effort as well.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>I often pick up my Nikon D200 to take the odd photo. I often pick up my old "Classics" just to work the mechanisms and generally admire. I never do that with the D200.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>I don't even have access or affordability to most cameras, films or even developer chemicals. I make do with the available resources, enjoy my effort at making old cameras and junk come alive, modifying available chemicals to make a home brew and share the results with the forum friends. My pictures may be drab and dull, but many have also drawn some interesting comments and conversation, not just about the picture frame but more about its social content. I enjoy this forum and the posts by the members for the way each one shares his/her own unique approach to the various aspects. I have learned a lot in the past 3 years and am still learning many things anew. Long ago in a similar post someone observed that we like this forum because it has the attitude " hey folks! we are having cook out...come and share...BYOB if you like...!" To me that is overriding!. Thank you <strong>JDM </strong>for the "manifesto", cheers, sp.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>New cars are pretty well made. They handle ok. They are efficient, and some are relatively comfortable. ...and not one of them will get noticed if it is parked next to a '53 Cadillac or a '32 Ford.</p>

<p>Take a Sharpie and color in the white logo letters on any DSLR. Then put them in a pile and pick the best looking one. You can do that blindfolded, because one's as good as another.</p>

<p>Mechanical refinement is a thing of beauty unto itself, a device worthy of slow appreciation for no other reason than the thing itself. When a $2000 DSLR body can go unnoticed sitting beside a functionally pedestrian camera, only one explanation will do: Only one of them is dripping with CLASS. The other one makes good files.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Subbarayan - you're a very modest person, but - aside from being bang on with your assessments - I assure you (and have a feeling most of us share this sentiment) that your pictures are a treat we all look forward to, and I learn something new from each one of your posts in a way that I could never possibly from the media, or even if I visited in person, unless you were my tour guide (which I think would be awesome, but I digress). </p>

<p>This is a cook out, and its BYOB and BYOC(amera) :)</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>What <strong>Peter</strong> said, <strong>SP</strong>: your skills, ingenuity and eye for a good picture, plus your interesting commentaries, make your posts a highlight of the forum, the only problem being that at times your triumphs make me feel that my own reconstructive attempts are totally inadequate!</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>SP,<br>

Yes!</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Amen brother, keep preaching!</p>

<p>As I've often said; they are pretty, make nice sounds, and the operating instructions could be printed on a 3X5 card.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I have plenty of modern cameras, yet I always come back home to the Classic Manual camera for its simplicity, its beautiful design and precise Swiss watch-like qualities. They feel good in your hands. I enjoy seeing the results, whatever they may be, but the results are only part of the whole experience. The tactile pleasures of using a fine camera are almost sensual in nature. <br>

Aside from the pure historian, technician or collector, many folks using classic cameras want to achieve some measure of pleasing results (whatever that means to them). Other than test images, I always tell students to have fun, shoot what visually interests or excites you and do the best you can. Your best, whatever it is at that point in time, is <strong>OK</strong>. It's not a competition or a race, nor should it be judged like one. Good picture making isn't a destination as much as it's an unfolding journey. </p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>I love the quote. But I'll be the odd man out here, and admit that I really like the quality of work, and the variety of gear, seen in the CMC forum. Interestingly, the quality of the work seems independent of the age of the camera(s) used. This forum seems to prove the saying that it's the photographer, not the camera, that takes good photos.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Although I'm a complete interloper here, I consider this to be by far the the best forum on photo.net.</p>

<p>And I think this has as much to do with the civility and mutual respectfulness of JDM, Rick, Louis, and the other regular contributors as it does with their obvious experience, skill, and erudition. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It goes without saying, but I should have made it clear earlier, that posts like SP's are a treat for us. They are gems of social documentation, and -- as said -- we all look forward to them. I was thinking especially of SP's posts (and not only him) when I said that many pictures here are as good as any on this website.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry, I forgot to mention Subbarayan, and I agree with JDM's assessment of his work.</p>

[the celt 2]

<p>Amen to all. People often ask me why I insist on using such old "clunky" cameras. That usually ends as soon as I hnd it to them to hold, and pehaps hear the sound of a precision mechanical shutter. Plus, it's what I grew up with. </p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Related to the above, a recent issue of the Harley Owners Group magazine (HOG) has an article titled "Reflections of our fathers' America." In the article, a man duplicates a trip that his father took as a young man. The father rode a well-worn 1930 Harley, the son duplicating the trip rode a restored 1932 Harley of the same model. His father did the trip on a shoestring, and left his Kodak Bantam at home, due to no money for film. The son took the father's Kodak Bantam along as he retraced the route - also, he took along a Leica IIIf and a Graflex Century Graphic.</p>

<p><EDIT>: the son used Kodachrome, Tri-X, and Plus-X films.<END EDIT></p>

<p>I tried to find the article online, but failed. The photos are good, with the vintage "look" you get with old cameras and film. A book is supposed to be coming out, titled "We are the Dreamers: Reflections of Our Fathers' America", later this year.</p>

<p>Could be good. Riding the 1932 Harley on the retracing trip, with its relatively low speed, would keep the son on roads similar to what the father took.</p>

<p>If I'd been able to find the article somewhere online, I'd have posted this by itself here in CMC. The author, Jack Newkirk, seems like one of us. If not, he'd fit right in.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Doug, funny you should mention that. I spent a few days with Jack Newkirk in August 2010 in northern California, in the area around Point Reyes and Petaluma. We were both participating in a photography tour organized by <a href="http://www.davewyman.net/iqtours.html">Dave Wyman</a> and <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com">Ken Rockwell</a>. I had sort of half-expected to be the only film shooter on the trip (and if not that, certainly the only medium-format shooter), but although most people were shooting DSLRs, there was Jack with his Leica and Century Graphic, and Ken was shooting a Nikon F5, and another guy had an F4. Jack is a really decent guy and he had some fun stories to tell about writing his book. His publisher, Nelson, mostly publishes Christian material, so they had a little trouble with Jack's reproductions of WW2 sailor talk. They wanted to take the rough edges off of the language, so he had to tell them, "No, we can't have American sailors in WW2 saying, 'Oh, my dear, those dreadful Japanese!' Nobody would believe that!"</p>

<p>You can see photos by Jack, myself, and other tour participants <a href="http://www.slickpic.com/group/pointreyesphotographytour">here</a>.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Craig, I'm into whitewater, motorcycles, and photography equally. So a friend with a Harley sent me the HOG magazine issue, with Jack's article in it. I liked it. But then, look at the forum I'm posting in - I was probably predisposed to like it. :)</p>

<p>I looked at yours, Jack's, and Sori's. Nice work, all. One of Sori's, "Lighthouse Guts", looks very much like the mechanical bits of a Cirkut camera:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slickpic.com/u/imagesbysori/PHOTOTOURPOINTREYES/photo#17573">http://www.slickpic.com/u/imagesbysori/PHOTOTOURPOINTREYES/photo#17573</a></p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Awesome post. Maybe this explains why most of my friends at work have seen most of my cameras... at work. :-)</p>