Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It is true. I've shot with 24, 28, and 35mm SLR lenses on Olympus OM, Nikon AF-Nikkor systems and none had much of any light falloff near the edges. I've used 35mm CV (35/2.5 PII and 35/1.7 Ultron), Leica (35 Summicron IV), and Zeiss (35/2.8 C-Biogon) and ALL of the RF lenses, including the Leica, had significantly uneven illumination of the picture area. You don't see it on my shots with those lenses because I spent time in Photoshop dodging and burning to fix it. It looks godawful to me, because I do so much architectural photography.
So, why don't RF makers fix this by doing retrofocus designs? The RF lenses are sharper and have better bokeh in the non-retrofocus designs. Most people use them for street photography, photojournalism, and other candid work where the problem is less noticed.
aad
Not so new now.
Last week, I happened to have 2 cameras, my regular one with B&W and our Canon Rebel 2000 that had some slide film in it, just in case a decent autumn color shot came up in my travels.
As I prepared to visit a client, a rain squall came over and started to clear, showing an intense rainbow over the colorful foliage. grabbed the Canon, found a decent perspective and half-pressed...and listened to the high speed autofocus, "whir-whir-whir".
Shoulda had the Pentax MX.
As I prepared to visit a client, a rain squall came over and started to clear, showing an intense rainbow over the colorful foliage. grabbed the Canon, found a decent perspective and half-pressed...and listened to the high speed autofocus, "whir-whir-whir".
Shoulda had the Pentax MX.
Mcary
Well-known
Reason I prefer a rangefinder or and old Manual focus SLR over an AF SLR is simple I've never been able to find a small light weight AF SLR that felt comfortable in my hands. Yes I managed to get used to the feel of the Canon 20D and 5D but only after adding a battery back which hardly left me with a small light weight system.
In Fact to put it bluntly I hate how most AF SLRs feel in my hands!
At 49 I'm long past worrying about being hip or cool daddy'O
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Go to Arles and you'll see lots of Leicas. Same at photokina. Anywhere there are lots of photographers you'll see a fair number of Leicas, both film & digital, though not many other RFs.
Ebino's rant was weird. I doubt many Leica users give a toss about being 'cool', and maybe he's bored, but I'm not. Nor do I lose most of my film is lost to bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on. Again, speak for yourself, sunshine.
Cheers,
R.
Ebino's rant was weird. I doubt many Leica users give a toss about being 'cool', and maybe he's bored, but I'm not. Nor do I lose most of my film is lost to bad exposure, focusing mistakes and so on. Again, speak for yourself, sunshine.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
I disagree strongly with the above, I shoot film for a few reasons, mostly for the sheer simplicity of the cameras. I don't want the camera making decisions for me, I want exposure to be correct because I made it correct, not because the camera did.
I feel that with some cameras, you're taking a picture, with other, you're having the camera take a picture. An AF SLR will of course be more efficient in most people's hands, but it's more efficient to go to a supermarket to buy fish than catch it yourself, but lots of people enjoy fishing as a hobby.
sig
Well-known
To be fair, elbino never talked about Leica users (but people with mechanical film cameras), and I do not think it was much of a rant. Of course my English is bad and I could be wrong. However clearly there are some places it would be better to say that people who use mechanical film cameras do it to be cool...... seems like he hit a nerve?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's probably quite efficient to eat frozen hamburgers rather than cooking for yourself. I even knew someone who used to make stew from boiled, frozen hamburgers.
Personally, like you, I enjoy the process and the results more when I'm in control. But I think I'd look more favourably upon a DSLR that offered the same simple, familiar manual controls as my M9 than I would upon the current half-formed-turd, programmable-dial, LCD-readout versions. And of course I use film too. Leica MP, Nikon F, Alpa, Gandolfi, Linhof, Toho...
Cheers,
R.
Turtle
Veteran
This is total rubbish
I am in love with film and care very much about photography. I shoot film RF almost exclusively (Mamiya 7 and Leica M) with a film SLR only for my longer lenses (like 85mm). I suspect it would be futile to point out the many reasons why I shoot film RFs and yet aim for the 'highest quality' possible. Quality of the output (and this is subjective rather than technically measured) is ALL I care about. I bust my ass with development, problems, printing and logistics costs because I feel it is worth it. The people who see my prints seem to agree.
What other reasons might people shoot film RFs? Because, well, they are somehow more soulful as a result of less flashing lights and electronics involved in their operation. Perhaps thats the reason why WW2 planes are so evocative and F15s are not. They are somehow closer to being human than things with LCD displays. Older film SLRs are no different, only bigger and noisier.
A significant amount of the finest photography in the world is still shot on film, esp B&W.
You make the presumption that classic cameras (lets remember the OP mentioned Leica Ms) are inherently unreliable. I dont think so!
Whats this about scanning everything? Whats wrong with a darkroom?
PS I get better B&W exposure from my manual Ms than my EOS 3 or 1n. As for unprintable shots. I probably lose (beyond any ability to make a good print) about one frame in perhaps twenty or thirty rolls. I am sure there are plenty who do better than me.
I am in love with film and care very much about photography. I shoot film RF almost exclusively (Mamiya 7 and Leica M) with a film SLR only for my longer lenses (like 85mm). I suspect it would be futile to point out the many reasons why I shoot film RFs and yet aim for the 'highest quality' possible. Quality of the output (and this is subjective rather than technically measured) is ALL I care about. I bust my ass with development, problems, printing and logistics costs because I feel it is worth it. The people who see my prints seem to agree.
What other reasons might people shoot film RFs? Because, well, they are somehow more soulful as a result of less flashing lights and electronics involved in their operation. Perhaps thats the reason why WW2 planes are so evocative and F15s are not. They are somehow closer to being human than things with LCD displays. Older film SLRs are no different, only bigger and noisier.
A significant amount of the finest photography in the world is still shot on film, esp B&W.
You make the presumption that classic cameras (lets remember the OP mentioned Leica Ms) are inherently unreliable. I dont think so!
Whats this about scanning everything? Whats wrong with a darkroom?
PS I get better B&W exposure from my manual Ms than my EOS 3 or 1n. As for unprintable shots. I probably lose (beyond any ability to make a good print) about one frame in perhaps twenty or thirty rolls. I am sure there are plenty who do better than me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
kshapero
South Florida Man
I would not call an M6 a cheap and crappy camera. Maybe folks want to use these cameras for the same reason we use them.
wgerrard
Veteran
Is there, in fact, a "rush" for RF and other film cameras? I'm not sure I see the evidence.
I don't know about others, but when I returned to photography a few years ago I initially tried a DSLR. Didn't enjoy using it. Although the images were not bad, the process of getting them was pretty insipid. In addition, while the camera body was small-ish, the lenses were not.
So I decided I didn't want what the DSLR's were offering. I didn't want "landscape" or "portrait" mode. I wanted "my" mode. I.e., I wanted to control how the image looked. I didn't want a program burned into a chip that had been devised to satisfy most people most of the time to make that call for me. (Yes, manual mode was offered, but was a Rube Goldbergian affair that required standing on my head and having three thumbs.)
I felt I was learning how to use a DSLR, not learning how to do photography. I felt removed from the process of photography, as removed as the guy setting up an Excel spreadsheet is removed from the coding that created Excel.
RF's met my requirements. They are small, with smaller lenses. They are designed to be used manually. They are, in fact, easy to use. The fact that all but a few use film was incidental and not a reason for my choice. It was more along the lines of "You want an RF? You get film with that."
A crucial factor for me was the desire to control the results, i.e., to be on the hook for exposure and composition. I don't find determining exposure to be an arduous task, but it often provides an interesting and appealing challenge. It's part of the process that, for me, makes it worth my while. Examining the results of each effort is a new chance to learn more about photography, which is what I'm after.
An analogy might be to cooking. Cooking produces food we eat. Most of us, when we want a nice meal, just go out to a restaurant. The meal is delivered to our table, a bit like a DSLR delivers an image. Some of us, though, enjoy the process of cooking. The delivery of a successful meal tells us we got the process right. So, we keep sweating it out in hot, cramped kitchens, doing things the hard way.
Last edited:
Yes, we are photo crazy in this town. Plenty of student aged people with manual SLRs as well... and MF SLRs.
Turtle
Veteran
the form factor is a big deal. People want something small and handy, but with full control. With film, that tends to point you towards RF and not SLRs.
I also think that now that the obsession and novelty of spiralling megapixels has worn off (for many, not all), people are rightly returning to more subjective requirements when it comes to cameras and their outputs. Its a given that just about everything can produce stellar results of various degrees. Once again, that brings you back to handling and the subjective qualities of film. I think people are returning to 'photography' from 'camera.'
I also think that now that the obsession and novelty of spiralling megapixels has worn off (for many, not all), people are rightly returning to more subjective requirements when it comes to cameras and their outputs. Its a given that just about everything can produce stellar results of various degrees. Once again, that brings you back to handling and the subjective qualities of film. I think people are returning to 'photography' from 'camera.'
Last edited:
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Beautifully stated. Your experience matches mine so closely it is almost scary. Good to know I'm not the only one.
Fraser
Well-known
Film cameras are cheap if you only buy one roll of film a year.
Turtle
Veteran
A lots is about the up front cost. Here film cameras are cheap and even if a person spends more over a 5 year period, at least you are not plonking down thousands in the first instance. Cash flow...
ebino
Well-known
I offered a perspective on this new wave of primitiveism that is part genuine love and part fashion, all practiced under the guise of photography... But I do encourage it, because the more photographers out there the better.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
What's primitive about it? Am I primitive because I like to cook?
Highly automated cameras are wonderful tools. (We falsely equate digital with automated and film with manual.) That's especially true for someone who is only interested in the final product, the image. Someone who is more interested in how to take photos, rather than how to get good photos, will want a camera, film or digital, that allows the control an automated camera takes away. (I was just in Edinburgh and saw a place selling pro-quality tourist pics that put to shame what most of us can produce, especially given the quirks of the local weather. I thought: Why not just burn those images on cheap memory cards, so people can stick 'em on the USB port when they get home? After all, it isn't much of a leap from being the dumber component in the camera-human loop to just buying prepackaged cards.
)Neither is primitive. Neither is superior.
If, indeed, what you are talking about even exists.
NickTrop
Veteran
Yeesh - so judgemental to fellow film-o-philes. I don't think it has anything to do with "looking cool". I didn't think walking around with some giant (by modern standards) weird-looking old camara made me look cool at all. I think it makes me look conspicuous and am a little self-conscious of it. I kinda didn't like answering questions like "what kind of camera is that..." Could it be these people just like using them, even it they're trying them out - perhaps even developing their own? That digital makes things a bit too easy? That these cameras are fun, and very affordable now used - so why not? That they have a tactile pleasure not found with the digitals... Could it be they're (to quote a current notorious politican from DE in the US) "Just like you"? Nothing wrong with that...
emraphoto
Veteran
You didn't offer any perspective. In short you dismissed a whole group of people with an air of superiority. Normally I wouldn't concern myself with it but in this instance it must be challenged. Current and prospective participants in this forum deserve it.
I have long maintained a commitment of positive contribution to this forum and it's membership and this is entirely out of character but... The notion that 'different' somehow amounts to 'less legitimate' is childish.
I have long maintained a commitment of positive contribution to this forum and it's membership and this is entirely out of character but... The notion that 'different' somehow amounts to 'less legitimate' is childish.