Paul Luscher
Well-known
I wouldn't say I'm stuck in the past re equipment, but the photogs I admire and emulate are people like Eisenstadt, Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, and David Douglas Duncan, from that "Golden Age" of photography. (I'm a big proponent of he "available light" school. Hardly ever use flash.)
So my STYLE of shooting might seem stuck in the past--maybe even stodgy to the technogeek types.....
So my STYLE of shooting might seem stuck in the past--maybe even stodgy to the technogeek types.....
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Sometimes the art of photography is the process.
Cal
Cal
kingqueenknave
Well-known
I stopped shooting with M2s and started shooting with an MP and an M7. Not sure where that leaves me as far as being stuck in the past. I shoot 35mm film because it looks natural to my eyes.
I'd like to know where in my initial post I only spoke about cameras...
David_Manning
Well-known
jsrockit...I certainly didn't mean to offend. But you posed a question where two of the three parts involved cameras and technology. That particular quote from Bob covered the last part...the photography.
I tried to entertain all three parts of your question in my post. I have to think just by virtue of you and I, and everyone else being on this forum...it's about a METHOD of making pictures (it's not an art review or critique site).
I apologize if I offended you, but those are my opinions on your questions. I KNOW you're not offended, though
I tried to entertain all three parts of your question in my post. I have to think just by virtue of you and I, and everyone else being on this forum...it's about a METHOD of making pictures (it's not an art review or critique site).
I apologize if I offended you, but those are my opinions on your questions. I KNOW you're not offended, though
David,
No problem.
I just don't like people who assume I don't make photos and are only interested in the gear. I make a lot of photos but don't subscribe to the make it one day and post it the same day philosophy of the internet. I take my time editing and collecting. If I wasn't making photos, I wouldn't own cameras.
There is no way around it though. Gear is part of photography. What I wanted the jist of my OP to be was why do some use vintage gear and techniques while trying to emulate the work of past photographers instead of embracing the latest technology and trends in photography. It wasn't a judgement... we all do it here (including me) in some form or another.
No problem.
I just don't like people who assume I don't make photos and are only interested in the gear. I make a lot of photos but don't subscribe to the make it one day and post it the same day philosophy of the internet. I take my time editing and collecting. If I wasn't making photos, I wouldn't own cameras.
There is no way around it though. Gear is part of photography. What I wanted the jist of my OP to be was why do some use vintage gear and techniques while trying to emulate the work of past photographers instead of embracing the latest technology and trends in photography. It wasn't a judgement... we all do it here (including me) in some form or another.
Lss
Well-known
Ignore? I try everything I can get my hands on, new and old. It is this experimentation that put a rangefinder camera in my hands in the first place. I then keep on using whatever works the best.
timor
Well-known
Well, visit please Film and Darkroom User forum.
rsosa
Established
My job is filled with over-complicated latest high-end technology with all it's benefits and flaws so in my sparse free time I am more than happy to leave batteries and computer-screens aside and play with cameras made in the last century. It helps relaxing.
add film developing and print to that formula and is the exact reason why i jumped into this, i want to use my hands, call me caveman if you want
back alley
IMAGES
i'm retro in that i love the feel of old metal cameras.
i'm not retro in that i don't care for film any longer.
i love my drf and like my dslr...i love having a print made, framing it and then hanging it on my wall.
i'm not retro in that i don't care for film any longer.
i love my drf and like my dslr...i love having a print made, framing it and then hanging it on my wall.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I think, at its most basic level, irrespective of how new or old the gear one uses, photography is about the past; what ever latest cutting edge style/technique/subject one photographs, by the time anyone see the result, the image is of the past.
Not particularly your point, I think.
That said, while I do prefer the technology from my youth, I am not particularly trying to emulate an earlier style of photography.
Rob
Actually, a great way to think about it.
gdmcclintock
Well-known
Sigh.... Photography is "stuck in the past" by default. The past is its raison d'être!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I am not stuck in the past.
I am going back in time purposefully
Starting photography later in life with digital allows me to appreciate both mediums from a clean slate, so to speak.
I have no bias against or for film other than the fact that I love film's "imperfections."
And darkroom printing.
I am going back in time purposefully
Starting photography later in life with digital allows me to appreciate both mediums from a clean slate, so to speak.
I have no bias against or for film other than the fact that I love film's "imperfections."
And darkroom printing.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I don't know, I still shoot film for a lot of reasons and ossification or HCB worship aren't two of them, although I am very fond of Henri's work.
The main reason why I still shoot film is that I simply prefer the way it looks. It's that simple. Tri-X is the way I see the world.
I've owned a 5D and D700 and just wasn't happy with the results. I also prefer the 12-14 stops of range i get out of film, the grain and organic nature of it. Both of those DSLR were stuck around 9 stops, which to my eye makes the output look like video. I have to admit that the low light capabilities of something like a D700 blow film out of the water, but I also enjoy the challenge of working within the limitations of shooting film at f1.4 and 1/30th.
I also prefer compact full frame cameras and with the exception of the M9, there are none on the market.
I sit in front of a computer all day and the last thing I want to do in my spare time is have another computer beep at me.
I prefer the archival nature of film. Unless the building burns down along with negatives, they will be around for as long as I am and then some. But I've seen countless terrabytes of data vaporize in an instant and would hate to see the same happen to my own work.
If there was an M10 with 12-14 stops of range I may throw in the towel, but since there is no end in sight to the ridiculous megapixel race, it looks like I will be sticking with film for the foreseeable future.
The main reason why I still shoot film is that I simply prefer the way it looks. It's that simple. Tri-X is the way I see the world.
I've owned a 5D and D700 and just wasn't happy with the results. I also prefer the 12-14 stops of range i get out of film, the grain and organic nature of it. Both of those DSLR were stuck around 9 stops, which to my eye makes the output look like video. I have to admit that the low light capabilities of something like a D700 blow film out of the water, but I also enjoy the challenge of working within the limitations of shooting film at f1.4 and 1/30th.
I also prefer compact full frame cameras and with the exception of the M9, there are none on the market.
I sit in front of a computer all day and the last thing I want to do in my spare time is have another computer beep at me.
I prefer the archival nature of film. Unless the building burns down along with negatives, they will be around for as long as I am and then some. But I've seen countless terrabytes of data vaporize in an instant and would hate to see the same happen to my own work.
If there was an M10 with 12-14 stops of range I may throw in the towel, but since there is no end in sight to the ridiculous megapixel race, it looks like I will be sticking with film for the foreseeable future.
dave lackey
Veteran
I find this a curious question. As we are all products of the past, we choose what we like. Using a term like "stuck in the past" is as arrogant and dismissive as calling someone or their ideas "old school". I detest the use of both, but that is just me. YMMV.
After a career built on CAD, digital photography and dozens of various computer systems since 1910 something, I am no stranger to new technology and, in fact, embrace it. Actually, everyone does to some extent. When was the last time someone on the forum lived in a cabin in the woods, grew his own food, made candles for lighting and hunted animals for food?
I tired of my DSLRs after the last 12 + years and have since sold them all. They will be replaced with a digital Leica something when the opportunity presents itself. Film is where I find the most satisfaction with the gear, the process and the results as well. It is a choice. I am a hybrid while others are somewhat entrenched in the film-only or the digi-only camps. No problem with me.
After a career built on CAD, digital photography and dozens of various computer systems since 1910 something
, I am no stranger to new technology and, in fact, embrace it. Actually, everyone does to some extent. When was the last time someone on the forum lived in a cabin in the woods, grew his own food, made candles for lighting and hunted animals for food? I tired of my DSLRs after the last 12 + years and have since sold them all. They will be replaced with a digital Leica something when the opportunity presents itself. Film is where I find the most satisfaction with the gear, the process and the results as well. It is a choice. I am a hybrid while others are somewhat entrenched in the film-only or the digi-only camps. No problem with me.
gb hill
Veteran
...and Rob's the old chap that came up whth the RFF Postcard project where one uses the "Snail Mail" to send their cards?...brilliant idea I might add.
In both cases these phrases can be used as both dismissive and as a badge of honor. I think, from the tone of my OP, that I was not being arrogant or dismissive.
Anyway, this got moved to film vs. digital...
and no longer shows up on the front page. 6 feet under...
gb hill
Veteran
I remember speaking of my brilliant idea of buying that little Canonet in the glass case, developing my own b&w film, & scanning it to the internet to the sales guy at Peace Camera. He said Why? Just because I want to...said I. So I bought that little Canonet & here am I. I too am a hybrid. Stephen Schuab calls it a Figital Revolution. It just happens to be the process I enjoy doing. After all, for me it's a hobby. How far it will take me...who knows. It's enjoyment.I am no stranger to new technology and, in fact, embrace it. Film is where I find the most satisfaction with the gear, the process and the results as well. It is a choice. I am a hybrid while others are somewhat entrenched in the film-only or the digi-only camps. No problem with me.
dave lackey
Veteran
In both cases these phrases can be used as both dismissive and as a badge of honor. I think, from the tone of my OP, that I was not being arrogant or dismissive.
Anyway, this got moved to film vs. digital...
Nah...I like the idea of the thread but it falls into the film v digital category rather quick doesn't it? I did not take the original post to be negative as I know you would not.:angel:
The only thing that bothers me is why there is so much angst within both camps about the other. I reckon it's like when someone mentions "old school" around me...pisses me off and I will take it on for further discussion.