Pscyhological Question

[james_noel4]

<p>Figured this was a good community to pose this question to...<br>

I own several Nikon SLR's (FE2, FA, F100, recently traded F3) and at the end of the day<br>

when I want to "play" with a camera ie practice seeing, metering etc I always choose<br>

the manual focus SLR. When I go out shooting same thing. It's like they have a<br>

magnetic pull or something. I have to also continually remind myself I don't need another<br>

one as well! I know that the F100 is likely to give me the greatest opportunity for the<br>

best exposure and I do like how the camera feels for some reason it isn't as inspiring.<br>

I feel the same about digital. I know I need to switch to digital but until I can afford one<br>

of the old slr inspired versions I just can't seem to do it. Anyone have similar experiences?<br>

Anyone care to explain why these old machines are so attractive?</p>

[jeff_schraeder1]

<p>The experience of looking through glass seems more immediate to me than looking at a screen so I find it more satisfying and I believe it helps creativity by being more engaging. My 2 digital cameras are a Leica M9 and a Fuji X-100, both have optical viewfinders.</p>

[james_noel4]

<p>Very good point. Taking pictures with digital display is very different and if I think about it I do find myself less engaged. Fuji is def. on my list of digital considerations.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The early classic cameras have a nice tactile feel and interchangeable focus screens/ finders that can be useful. I'm fond of using my <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00alE8">Nikon F</a> and<a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00U6uW"> F2</a> on occasion. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I know I need to switch to digital</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not as long as you can get film and process it and it fulfills your needs. Film or digital, classic camera or modern won't make a big difference in the quality of your picture making. The qualities that make interesting pictures exist outside the capture device. However some folks think camera A makes them better photographers than camera B. So be it. I think it's mostly psychological. </p>

 

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>First of all, they are beautifully made and finished. I have all my Nikons from F2 back to F Photomic FTN, with an ELW thrown in for good measure. I keep film available and use the cameras with some regularity. Not only are they old, familiar, and cherished tools that produced myriad great photos, memories are wrapped into the package as well. I made my digital transition with a Canon Digital Elph, I had a preceding Canon Elph APS as pocket camera, so everything was familiar. After that I needed a full size camera and got a D60 two lens refurb kit from Adorama. All through the time I still used some film & loved the cameras and lenses. Ah, the lenses! When the DF came out, expensive, I procrastinated for quite a while, bought it the summer of '14 for a family wedding (great rationale). It worked a treat. Feels like the old friends, simpler to operate than the used D 750 I bought last fall. Both will use any of the old F mount lenses going all the way back. Recently, scanning slides and negatives produced with my first two Nikons confirms the value and capability of the old cameras. Many, many photos shot right the first time -- other strings of the same image with three or four exposures a stop apart. Each system has its strong points. The digital is so convenient, the image quality is excellent, the printers, the scanners, editing software -- brilliant. At the bottom of it, going out with an old Nikon, 36, or 72 exposures if you carry an extra roll, and having to "get it right" the first time, well, it transports me back to younger days! Oh, and a while back, I bought a minty F3HP.</p>

[SCL]

<p>You don't NEED to switch to digital, but if you want to jump into the water, use it alongside the cameras you're familiar with. You'll eventually come to recognize the advantages of each, as well as the characteristics of the bodies, and can then decide if one or the other is preferable. FWIW - I love to use my manual rangefinder cameras from the 1950-60s as well as my SLRs..but in fact, I mostly use my digital bodies because the results are more readily available to me. Initially digital was quite frustrating to me (just like learning to use DOS commands with my first computer) - new terminology, new bodies, and different ways of dealing with the results, but at the end of the day....it was just a different arrow in the quiver.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone have similar experiences?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. Except when I see a Leica M rangefinder and marvel at its beauty - makes me want to grab it and use it - only when I do, I realize that they don't suit me as picture-making machines at all. Not for film and not for digital.</p>

<p>Have a F100 and F3HP sitting on the shelf for sentimental reasons - but no intention of ever using them again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film or digital, classic camera or modern won't make a big difference in the quality of your picture making.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does for me - digital allows me to create images I never thought possible when using film. But you are correct - it has little to do with the capture device and a lot with having control over the entire picture creation process.</p>

<p>Initially, I thought I could use film and digital alongside each other - even purchased an F5 after getting my first digital SLR (D70). Didn't work out as planned even though it took quite a while to get comfortable with the new medium...</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I'm of two minds on this. I still love the old F, and certainly there's nothing quite like a good mechanical camera made of metal, and that big bright finder. But a few years ago, needing something practical to travel with, I got a low end digital SLR, and it's been habit forming. You can't readily take an F4 and 100 rolls of film in your carry on luggage. It's undoubtedly true that the old film medium encourages more care and slower work, but when you're doing something that needs quickness and portability, digital has an advantage, and the ability to make and erase mistakes can encourage experimentation in a way that film makes difficult. Catching a fast moving bug, or a drip of water off an icicle, becomes something you can do cheaply.</p>

<p>I still have a closet full of manual Nikons, and still intend to go out from time to time with some film and keep them limber, but when I need to go get a picture, I'm more likely to reach for the digital. </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Matthew -- Interestingly enough, unless a full pro on assignment, I doubt most of us carried a dozen and a half 36x rolls on a major photo trip. Both film and slide processing were expensive. It was a question of choosing images to capture. Even now, I find at the end of a trip, my digital captures are usually inside what I would have had available with film, 500 plus or minus with no thought on my part. Up a bit since I carry two digitals as I used to carry two film cameras. There is a psychological quirk for you!</p>

[Two23]

<p>I began buying and using vintage camera gear around 2011. Between 2005 and 2011 I mostly only shot digital (and some 4x5.) I do love the feeling of solidity and permanence I get from the older cameras. My oldest "hand" camera is a 1914 Kodak No.2 folder and my newest is a 1983 Nikon F3/T. My favorite is either the 1937 Voigtlander Bessa or 1942 Leica IIIc. I've just finished repairing a 1925 Gundlach Korona 5x7. I shoot camera gear from every decade of photography, beginning with two lenses from the 1840s (not a typo.) From all this I've concluded that really, you can make interesting photos from ANY camera gear. The newer the camera the more convenient it is to use, but I can honestly say I have have just as much fun using my 1904 Kodak Brownie No.2 as I do my Nikon D800E. They produce images with a different feel, but in the end a camera is a camera. The important thing is the ability to previsualize and execute an image.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Ice fishing, <br>

Nikon F3/T, Nikon 28mm f2 AiS<br>

Ilford FP4</p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The technical revolution and evolution given us a better tools with shorter life time, driving us to disposable everything, training our mind to the same path, feel disposable of each others as well. We do advancing technically and devolving mentally. It is a joy picking up those old and still working cameras I haw, from Nikon S2 to the latest F5, but using them very rarely, less and less service/lab and film availability, ending up, walking out with the digital. You can't escape the tide, it catch you too. Fridge, full of exposed Velvia, nobody developing them anymore in Toronto. Still shooting B&W, contact print and sometime scanning some of them, mostly siting in the negative filling system. Value of every art is the time and hand ben involved to create them, and material, not plastic, so, photography is loosing those value, mots of the people never printing they images siting on the computer, lasting only a couple of years only. It is not art anymore. Except, if you print them. We my reaching the point to print everything, (3D print ) from the racket engine to the babies.(?). I love my film cameras, and when I get the film developed and look at the contact print, I haw a big happy smile on my face. Holding a Nikon S2, FM2 , etc., or Leica II, etc., in my hand is a joy to me, the feel of a real camera.</p>

[james_noel4]

<p>For me there is something special about my old nikon bodies, and I wholeheartedly agree on the MF lenses. They have such a great feel as well.. I have a couple of AF lenses and they e great images but they don't match the feel of the older MF lenses for me. Obviously any camera has the ability to take great pictures its up to the photographer at that point. My daughter who is a gifted artist has been taking amazing photos since she was very young starting with a hand held game and now primarily with her phone. She could not tell you an f-stop even had anything to do with a camera but she has great vision. For me though I feel more inspired with the older cameras and it does make me stop and take my time and be more thoughtful. Aside from Leica which thankfully I have never handled or I would likely have to sell my car to get one, the newer cameras just don't have the same build quality. Then again not much else does these days either. I know I don't have to switch to digital but feel the pull. One area for me that it would help with is it would cut down on the time for me to see the picture and learn what worked ad what didn't. I feel I have so much to learn still to improve and the immediacy of digital would help that. It could also paralyze you into taking the same photo over and over I suppose as well. I am not anti-digital, I use my phone quite often to take photos when out without my camera and I also use it when I do have my slr's to pre-visualize my B&W photos. But I have to admit I like the fact that when you create an image on film it exists on a negative not as a files with a bunch of zeros and ones...but take that from someone who is a great lover of the early 1960's. <br>

I am glad I asked this question. Everyone's responses are really great.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>You did say this was a psychological question, right James?<br>

Reluctance to accept change can be a traumatic experience - a bit like grieving - so to a lesser degree we go through the stages of denial, anger, bargaining and finally acceptance. That was certainly my reaction when the inception of digital rendered redundant over 40 years of experience, skill and knowledge. So it's natural to hang onto familiar and comforting objects, such as old cameras, in the denial to bargaining stages.</p>

<p>I worked through those early stages by easing myself into digital via the scanning route, which also forced me to learn digital image-manipulation skills. I found I quickly came to realise the advantages and new possibilities that a digital workflow opened up. To the extent that I've become a newborn digital zealot who now thinks 35mm film is/was a most limited and scabby medium for image capture.</p>

<p>Another psychological aspect is the ease of learning that goes with digital image capture. There's a widely accepted educational theory called "Kolb's Learning Cycle" that breaks down the learning process into four stages. It's like a feedback servo-loop, in that practical experience is fed back into an evaluation stage; then improvements or different approaches are formulated before applying those to further practical experimentation. The loop then repeats with (hopefully) an improvement in skill level with every iteration.<br>

Link to Kolb's cycle here: http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html</p>

<p>The point is, that if the practical experience and mental feedback/analysis stages are separated in time, then the whole process is weakened and made exponentially more lengthy. The fact that film requires processing (usually by a 3rd party) makes immediacy of feedback impossible. Hence my claim that digital with it's instant review is a much better learning tool. That's without the possibility of film processing adding an unknown variable between experience and review. Posing the question; "Was that <em>my</em> fault, or down to bad processing?"</p>

<p>To bring all this together. I think the supposed attractiveness of film cameras lies to a degree in mental conservatism, a reluctance to accept change, and a reluctance to acknowledge the "loss" of hard-won skills. As well as the easily understandable and almost tangible mechanical operation of film cameras. A lot like steam trains being more "attractive" than diesel or electric engines despite the latter being logically a superior solution and technology.</p>

<p>FWIW, I find the ergonomics of a DSLR perfectly comfortable these days - well mostly. There's a little too much menu digging required for some functions IMO. However there's the instant feedback of image review to offset all that. Plus such things as continuously variable White Balance and control of ISO speed that just weren't possible with film; adding their control to the complexity of camera operation.</p>

<p>All-in-all I would never want to go back to film, but curiously I still miss making real silver B&W prints in a darkroom.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The experience of looking through glass seems more immediate to me than looking at a screen so I find it more satisfying and I believe it helps creativity by being more engaging. My 2 digital cameras are a Leica M9 and a Fuji X-100, both have optical viewfinders.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Very good point. Taking pictures with digital display is very different and if I think about it I do find myself less engaged.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>All my DSLR Cameras have a viewfinder, similar to my SLR Cameras</p>

<p>None of my DSLR's force me to look at the screen prior to taking the image or after making the shot.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I also have a Fuji X100s and it has a screen which can be used in live view mode to frame shots prior to the shutter release - but again, the camera does not force me to use it in that manner.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the supposed attractiveness of film cameras lies to a degree in mental conservatism, a reluctance to accept change, and a reluctance to acknowledge the "loss" of hard-won skills. As well as the easily understandable and almost tangible mechanical operation of film cameras. A lot like steam trains being more "attractive" than diesel or electric engines despite the latter being logically a superior solution and technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that's likely true for some people but certainly not all. I effortlessly went from shooting film--three formats no less, to the Nikon D80. The skills I used with the D80 were pretty much the same as I used with the F100. My attraction to vintage film cameras comes more from my wish to make images that are a bit different from the rest of the herd. I've also found it intellectually stimulating to learn about lens and camera designs & designers like Josef Petzval, CC Harrison, and Oscar Barnack to name just a few. Many of the later crop of film shooters just the like challenge and historical aspects. There's also what I call the "cool" factor. A steam engine is way cooler than your ordinary EMD 70ACE diesel! Now, off to run a few sheets through my "new" Gundlach Korona 5x7 tonight.........</p>

<p>Kent in SD<br>

Do take a look at the attached photo to understand my point:</p><div></div>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Of course I'm exaggerating a little about the hundred rolls of film, but still, when I've gone to places like the Galapagos and Antarctica (you have to get some benefit from growing older!), I've been glad both to have the freedom of firing away wantonly and the convenience of not carrying film in my baggage. These are trips where sometimes time taken to decide if a picture is possible, or worth it, is a shot missed forever. </p>

<p>Love the film cameras though I do, I find myself more in agreement with Rodeo Joe than I'd like to be. </p>

<p>The one thing I, as an old film shooter, find utterly compelling about digital is the ability to change ISO with a switch! I used to carry a couple of cameras, one with slow slide film, and one with 400 speed print film, and sometimes a third one with black and white, and still wished sometimes for something else. What a luxury to be able to switch ISO on a single camera. The fact that I can get a decent picture at speeds unthinkable in the past, change color temperature and picture mode, is a lagniappe. I could give up the auto focus and the auto exposure (and do regularly with old lenses), and a bunch of other things. But that's one bit of new technology I'd hate to lose. </p>

<p>I do agree on one thing, though: I hate digital displays. I cannot hold a VF-less camera steady, and am hard put to compose with it. </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I believe old cameras have a tactile feel that makes them different. They engage more of your senses since they make sounds, you can feel levers working etc. And you feel more in control - because you are. The camera doesn't do anything you don't expect. So the camera becomes a more natural extension of yourself.</p>

<p>Imagine you would have a robotic leg with automatic balancing features. Sometimes when it would think that you are about to fall it would take a step all by itself and when you really are about to lose your balance in wont move because on the leg display it shows "Are you really sure? Yes or No". It would not feel like a natural part of your body.</p>

<p>In the end I don't think the actual technology makes any difference. I think it boils down to the feeling of direct control and engaging as many of your senses as possible.</p>

 

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I can understand the control issue, but it's optional, and it's not really a digital vs. film thing. There are plenty of film cameras you can't use with the lens shut or the battery dead or the film chamber empty. But you can operate any digital DSLR in completely manual mode, and it will shut up and let you take pictures of nothing but the body cap. With a little setting it will even take pictures without a memory card, and forget them instantly. You don't get much feel from the controls, but the shutter still clicks and the mirror still clunks, and you get exactly what you'd expect. </p>

<p> </p>

[chansonbleu]

<p>Whatever gets you out there enjoying yourself making images is what's important. The comment about the "mechanical simplicity"of film cameras came from someone who obviously never tried to repair a mechanical shutter.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>nice topic - I think from a psychological perspective we visually associate retro design cameras with their analogue precedents. We also mentally add in good solid old values, like well made, long lasting and trust worthy. Because cameras (and lenses) were completely mechanical we could quite clearly see exactly how they worked - which to me was always a source of comfort and joy, they were also, in the main, the definition of good design - yes.... all that form follows function stuff.</p>

<p>The definition of bad design is instructive, the washing basket is a good example, when plastics started replacing natural products, in this case woven cane used according to its natural abilities, the plastic versions replicated a <strong>mock</strong> woven appearance - so therefore bad design.</p>

<p>My favourite 35mm camera was a Rollei 3003 https://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm great design, beautifully made, modular and stunning set of lenses to go with it. But it was a failure in the market probably because people unthinkingly just saw it as a mini mock Hasselblad. </p>

<p>In reality "retro" design is most often bad design, false design and something designed to appeal to our attraction to nostalgia. To be honest I've been sucked in a few times, first digital camera Leica Digilux 3!and the Panasonic version of it - then more recently Fuji X100 - what you notice is that the very things that made the original cameras great are very things that are missing from the new ones. Take the Fuji for example, takes great pictures, looks great but when you pick it up its so light that its an emotional disappointment, a confirmation that it is in reality a design lie. </p>

<p>I too enjoy my manual focus lenses, Voigtlander 55/1.4, 45 PC-E and 75-100 but, and its a big but, I'd be foolish to claim that they're great for sporting events and similar.</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Pete. In what way does a film camera engage more senses than a digital one? Or give you any more control? They're both just a tool for making pictures. Some craftspeople prefer to work with hand tools, and others with electrically powered ones. </p>

<p>Agreed you're in control of the camera, but with film that's pretty much where your control ends. Even if you develop and print the film yourself, you're at the mercy of a chemist that's pre-programmed the film to some unalterable formula. Even worse if you shoot colour reversal film. You're at the mercy of a professional chemist <em>and</em> an amateur one at the processing house.<br>

One of the main reasons I prefer digital is that you're in total control of the colour and tone to a much greater degree than with film. That's unless you digitise the film - but what's the point of that when you can shoot digital directly and cut out at least one stage of degradation of the image?</p>

<p> </p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>I primarily shoot digital these days (with a Nikon D800e and a Sony A7R), but there are times when a manual focus body SLR or RF) just beckons, so I have held on to my FM2N and Zeiss ZI. One of my biggest regrets is selling my FM3A.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Rodeo Joe, reading your last post prompted another thought that may go to the heart of this topic. There are always many people who feel the need to make things themselves and keep traditions of craft alive even when there are all sorts of machines and technologies available that have to a large extent replaced them.</p>

<p>There is one thing that machines can never quite replicate and that is the human component involved in making things by "hand" - here we're talking about the photographic version of that concept.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>One of the things I find interesting in this discussion is what I think of as the "bondage and discipline" angle. </p>

<p>I, for example, very much like to shoot film and when doing so I very much like to use a 50 mm. prime lens, because I like what it does, and when I am using a zoom I tend to end up there anyway. My liking for a big hunk of brass and ball bearings and emulsions is irrational, aesthetic, and inconsistent. But there are many who would urge that you do this, not because you like to, but because you ought to. We must stay off the slippery slope to sloppy habits. </p>

<p>We see the same thing a bit in the digital versus film argument. You should shoot film not because you like it, but because it's good for your soul or maybe because it saves you from the temptation of calling up the digital genie. </p>

 

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Ah yes Matthew - the flagellation factor, no pain no gain, I can appreciate that, my day job is stone carving.</p>