Are you and your photography stuck in the past?

So what is modern? Or rather, where does modernity in the tool choice affect the output?

Early in photography there had been a few photographic currents and fashions tied to particular camera technologies for feasibility reasons (that moment photography thing of Muybridge etc. for example wasn't possible until plates and shutters had gained speed) - but there hasn't really been a new, enabling technology ever since Polaroid and 5+ fps winders. AF and digital so far are pretty boringly convenience, and rather far from bringing us any fundamentally new way of photographic expression.

If any, we might perhaps be at the threshold of a new generation of ultra-low-light photography with the latest generation of pro DSLRs. But whether that will define a new genre remains to be seen - I suspect that "darkness" as a subject will always be better represented the old way using artificial lighting than with cameras reducing it to a normally lit situation...
 
It's a combination of past and present for me - a contemporary Zeiss lens on an M3. A photo taken on a modern emulsion (Tmax say) developed in an old formula (D76 or Rodinal). Then scanned using modern technology and manipulated in Photoshop.

I think that's pretty current rather than stuck in the past.

I would like to do some pinhole photography with wet plates at some stage though - would that count?
 
I think everything about me is stuck in the past. I still prefer opening a book to a kindle, vinyl records to CD's, analog to digital. Heck I even married an older woman who is old fashioned. :D
 
The best tools for what I need to do (and can afford), are what drive my choices in photography. For example, I began to shoot Leica M's, because I could not find a compact digital camera with manual controls. They simply did not exist, although now they do, so I shall reconsider what I shoot with, as my budget for a new camera revives itself.

Same with my attitude towards post-processing, I do not focus a lot of time on it, because I do not feel I am at the point where I am happy with what I shoot in the first place, so instead I place greater priority on trying to get the images I want, rather than manage to take one good image and spend all my time working on it in photoshop.

Because of both of my above preferences, I could be judged to be 'stuck in the past', so I guess my real issue is the stigma attached to those who work with methods outside the common norm. This modern condition of ours no longer seems able to appreciate diversity, or be willing to explore that what someone does differently may have some merit in it. Thus we are left with phrases like 'stuck in the past' for the masses to comfortably categorise and disregard those who may have adopted to take a different approach..
 
I have no issue with digital, I just prefer the film 'look', Foveon is an exception, but that's a different conversation.
I also like the process of film, developing etc..., it gives every frame a value, which I like, although my photos are admittedly crap, the flim ones tend to be better than the digital stuff.

I certainly don't worship HCB, in fact, I think his work is thoroughly overrated.
 
Yes, but unintentionally.

I'm not a devotee of "old" photography or photographers. Have only a passing interest in, say, Adams or Bresson.

But, most of the things it occurs to me to try, I then discover have been done long ago (most often 30s and 40s--which interestingly is also the period of literature that I concentrated on for my undergrad degree--maybe I just have an innate affinity for the zeitgeist of that period).

It bothers me. I'd rather be doing something that wasn't exhausted a century ago.
 
I like digital for some things, film for others--they're both just tools. My personal aesthetic is a bit stuck in the past, but I'm exploring moving beyond that. I find a lot of modern photography cold and slick, but that doesn't mean I have to do that to find my future.

I think this is a very healthy community. I just jumped ship on one forum where the management is implementing a filter to reject posts containing "scanner". To my mind, that's a cult, and an unhealthy place. Here I see people who just want to do what looks good to them, no matter how that is accomplished.
 
Am I stuck in the past? Dunno. How far in the past is an M9?

Most of us use the kit we're happy with, and can afford. With older film gear so extraordinarily cheap, we can afford more and better of it than we can digital. We can also get different results with film than with digital. that's why I use both. For colour, mostly digital. For B+W, mostly film. Is someone who paints with oils 'stuck in the past'? Or (thinking of another photo forum of my acquaintance), is being able to read, write and spell being 'stuck in the past'?

I'm absolutely with Damien on this: "This modern condition of ours no longer seems able to appreciate diversity, or be willing to explore that what someone does differently may have some merit in it. Thus we are left with phrases like 'stuck in the past' for the masses to comfortably categorise and disregard those who may . . . take a different approach."

Cheers,

R.
 
I am a retro guy who only shoots B&W film. No scanning for me. One of the reasons I resist the new is that my brain (hard drive) is already full, another is that I find deep comfort in the familiar old gear that is simpler, yet another is that all my career I've dealt with complexity working in physics labs.

Just call me laid back and a lazy slacker.

Cal
 
i like it all but i love rangefinders.
my images are what they are...i shoot what i like with the gear i prefer.
i will never shoot film again...been there done that, end of story.
superior inferior is all bull **** to me...photography is what it is all about and for me i love to show my work to others and see the response...though my own reaction is the key one for me.
 
For me is very simple, I love darkroom work, so I use film, and the corresponding cameras...
This is a hobby for me, I don't have to produce photographs on demand, there is no hurry, no pressure, no efficiency involved.

If I were a pro, then I would use digital for sure.
If I were an "artist" (whatever that means), then I'm not sure...

Thanks God, I'm just an old time dilettante
 
When I can pick up a medium format camera equivalent (same field of view, same iso and tone performance as shooting with Acros in sunny days or P3200 at night on 120 film) that also folds up and fits in my pocket for $100, let me know. :)

There are two parts to me; the process and the resulting image. I started out shooting film, shot digital for about 4 years and then landed back with film.

I wasn't good at staying disciplined when shooting digital. I'd routinely come back from a shoot with 200 images only 5 of which were were sharing with anyone. I'd miss shots because I was so busy shooting. Now I come back with 18-48 shots on an average day and have just about as many keepers. I may miss shots because I'm not fast enough (I've been shooting primarily cameras without AE, AF, etc) but I feel more aware while shooting which I value.

On the image quality side, both digital and film can look wonderful. While not a grain fanatic, I prefer the look of the film images I shoot. Maybe a better film camera would have turned the tide for me as I was using a Nikon D70s. My acceptable resolution with the camera was close to what I was getting from 35mm film.

I prefer small cameras with manual control (digital or film). In the past there just wasn't much on digital side which hit what I wanted. This has been changing over the last few years but I haven't investigated the newer options out there myself yet.

Edit: That said, part of the appeal of film recently has been the low prices of cameras and lenses I found interesting. At the rate they are going up, digital will start looking like a cheaper option soon. ;)
 
jsrockit said:
Disclaimer: There is nothing wrong with being stuck in the past. Do whatever works for you. :)

I'm just wondering people's take on this subject. Many at RFF are stuck in the past just by using rangefinders in general. However, a good portion of the site is big on using older (50s, 60s, prior) film cameras, B&W film only, practice HCB hero worship, and avoiding digital.

Now, I don't want this to be another film vs. digital debate (though it's propbably inevitible). My question is what drives you (us/them) to ignore modern photography, modern cameras, modern technology?

Me, I'm mostly digital, but still choose to use a digital rangefinder (modern primitive) as my camera... even paying way too much for the pleasure to do so. I'd also admit to my photography being influenced mostly by 1930s to 1970s photography (and rarely by current work with a few exceptions). Rangefinder cameras? It's a comfort thing to me. If I feel good with the camera in my hands, I can concentrate on photography better.
Click to expand...

Using old technology doesn´t always result in not-up-date art. Take Josef Sudek as an example - he used extremely old camera while his photography wasn´t "retro" or outdated, it was innovative at his time.

On the other hand I think most of us use old cameras as we like these little gems :).
 
Bob Michaels said:
Does any of this make any difference if you define photography as about photographs and not cameras?
Click to expand...

Yes. Sometimes choice in equipment seems to be decided based on tried and true ways from 50-60s years ago... and to me that is, in part, done in an effort to try to get that vintage look to photos. So, if you are going after a look from the past by using tools of that era, I'd say it does make a difference. While it is fashionable to say equipment doesn't matter, we all know it does... or we'd all be using the exact same equipment. Of course, a great photo can be made with anything. However, it is better to have the camera you are comfortable with and know well...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Am I stuck in the past? Dunno. How far in the past is an M9?

Most of us use the kit we're happy with, and can afford. With older film gear so extraordinarily cheap, we can afford more and better of it than we can digital. We can also get different results with film than with digital. that's why I use both. For colour, mostly digital. For B+W, mostly film. Is someone who paints with oils 'stuck in the past'? Or (thinking of another photo forum of my acquaintance), is being able to read, write and spell being 'stuck in the past'?

I'm absolutely with Damien on this: "This modern condition of ours no longer seems able to appreciate diversity, or be willing to explore that what someone does differently may have some merit in it. Thus we are left with phrases like 'stuck in the past' for the masses to comfortably categorise and disregard those who may . . . take a different approach."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not trying to be offensive because I see nothing wrong with being stuck in the past. There is nothing dismissive in my tone in this thread. Everyone here is in the same boat somewhat... we are all stuck in the past one way or another.

The M9 is certainly stuck in the past... and I'm glad it is.
 
nemo2 said:
Using old technology doesn´t always result in not-up-date art. Take Josef Sudek as an example - he used extremely old camera while his photography wasn´t "retro" or outdated, it was innovative at his time.
Click to expand...

I never said it did...
 
I think Bob Michaels makes a strong point. I think the art of photography is the image, or print...not the camera.

Older cameras appeal to the gear fetishist in me, but also in the romantic notion of capturing a moment on a physical, lasting medium. I get weepy about handling film and slides.

That being said, I worked in mini-labs during college, and shot film while in high school and college. I enjoyed the photography just as much, but the time saved and quality enhancement of the digital workflow is like a drug. In a busy life...raising kids, working, trying to enjoy a hobby that doesn't involve skirts, gasoline, or drinking...digital is a tradeoff I'm willing to accept.

My photos end up predominantly b&w, because I like the aesthetic, and I'm a bit of a romantic at heart. I can do that with digital, and when it's printed and on the wall, looks great. No, it doesn't feel or smell the same...but I think people who make a point of the details of a print are missing the image...an analogue version of pixel peeping.

A rangefinder-type body travels easily and is light and doesn't scream "photographer" when you're making candids. That being said, traveling with a dSLR and a variety of lenses allows me to make images that aren't possible with a rangefinder.

The answer? Justification for more tools :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom