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.
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.
pvdhaar
Peter
RFF is probably one of the last hold outs for old timers.. Most other forums are very digital oriented. And if they aren't they're not nearly as rich in content and traffic as RFF..
ChipMcD
Well-known
I use film for black and white and digital for color. I grew up with film and feel comfortable with it. Also, for black and white, I think film looks better, but that may be a function of having my aesthetic sensibility shaped by my photographic upbringing. For color, digital looks great. I never thought grainy color looked that good. Digital photography is also much easier from the standpoint of getting the file into a computer. I don't wet print any more, and was never all that good at it anyway.
As to the old gear question, that gets into gadget fetishes. For film, I use everything from a Leica IIIc and a Leica M3 to a Nikon F5 for 35mm and Rolleiflex TLRs and Hasselblads (500 C/M and 903SWC) for 6x6. I have a 4x5 pinhole camera that I haven't gotten around to using yet. Using those cameras is, in part, driven by an appreciation of the precision and quality of the machines themselves, as well as the lens quality and draw of the lenses. I started photography at age 15 with a YashicaMat LTM and maybe having these cameras now is fulfilling youthful gear lust that could not be induged then. Mercifully, the prices for these film cameras have come down. That said, the YashicaMat was probably all I ever needed.
For digital I use an M9 because I like focusing for myself, simple controls, the ability to use lenses that I already own and what are, to my eye, really amazingly high quality images. I realize that technological progress will swiftly supersede this model; however, I think that it'll do me just fine for my purposes for the foreseeable future.
I try as best as I am able to develop my own photographic sensibility. I enjoy looking at other photographers' work, both past and present, and they influence me, probably for the better. I have to confess that I often prefer the work of past photographers, but that is not universal. Although the journey is rewarding, I doubt that I'll ever be as good at photography as I am at my day job, but seeing how high others set the bar is a welcome goad to do better.
As to the old gear question, that gets into gadget fetishes. For film, I use everything from a Leica IIIc and a Leica M3 to a Nikon F5 for 35mm and Rolleiflex TLRs and Hasselblads (500 C/M and 903SWC) for 6x6. I have a 4x5 pinhole camera that I haven't gotten around to using yet. Using those cameras is, in part, driven by an appreciation of the precision and quality of the machines themselves, as well as the lens quality and draw of the lenses. I started photography at age 15 with a YashicaMat LTM and maybe having these cameras now is fulfilling youthful gear lust that could not be induged then. Mercifully, the prices for these film cameras have come down. That said, the YashicaMat was probably all I ever needed.
For digital I use an M9 because I like focusing for myself, simple controls, the ability to use lenses that I already own and what are, to my eye, really amazingly high quality images. I realize that technological progress will swiftly supersede this model; however, I think that it'll do me just fine for my purposes for the foreseeable future.
I try as best as I am able to develop my own photographic sensibility. I enjoy looking at other photographers' work, both past and present, and they influence me, probably for the better. I have to confess that I often prefer the work of past photographers, but that is not universal. Although the journey is rewarding, I doubt that I'll ever be as good at photography as I am at my day job, but seeing how high others set the bar is a welcome goad to do better.
maddoc
... likes film again.
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.
umcelinho
Marcelo
I think that it's all about equipment helping each person create images with the look they want.
I like using older lenses because they tend to have lower contrast, mostly. But I also like modern lenses that won't flare and have a more clinic look.
I like shooting film because of the texture it delivers, but I also like the cleaniness and versatility of digital.
I've started photographing "for real" with a 120 Holga, then my late grandpa's Yashica Lynx 1000 taught me to use a "real" camera - and a rangefinder. Then I moved to London and finally got a Canon 450D, I had been wanting one for a few years already but I'd travel to the US just before the new model would be released, and buying one locally would be too expensive. I then started to acknowledge it wasn't helping me make the images I wanted, in very dim lit situations... so I started looking for what would be the best type of camera to get these shots right. it was then that i realised a rangefinder would be the best tool for me. I then sold the canon and got an M6+50/1.5 Nokton, and from that point on I felt that I really found a kind of camera that made me feel extremely comfortable.
the other benefits of a rangefinder started to get me afterwards, as well as its limitations, but nowadays I sometimes have a hard time with AF because it won't be as quick or reliable as manual focusing. of course it depends on the situation, but still mf feels more natural to me. I also now prefer an all manual camera with no meter because it's a haven for me, a camera that i know will be working no matter what. though i also like using aperture priority and af on the r-d1 and x100. all a matter of being the best tool for the job, i think.
i do feel, though, that many try to take photos emulating what people would shoot back in the 50s or 60s, and i find it a bit odd, after all, the photographers of the period were just registering what happened in their time. i try to register whatever i encounter that is either odd or beautiful, sometimes a scene isn't aesthetically beautiful but the feeling it captures is.
last but not least, older lenses are usually cheaper: a canon 50/1.8 ltm is around $150 and a great performer, a modern 50/1.5 nokton is a fantastic modern lens and around 4x the cost of the canon. a canon 50/0.95 is way less expensive than a leica 50/0.95 - i know, the leica putz the canon to shame, but the canon is a good bang for the buck.
I like using older lenses because they tend to have lower contrast, mostly. But I also like modern lenses that won't flare and have a more clinic look.
I like shooting film because of the texture it delivers, but I also like the cleaniness and versatility of digital.
I've started photographing "for real" with a 120 Holga, then my late grandpa's Yashica Lynx 1000 taught me to use a "real" camera - and a rangefinder. Then I moved to London and finally got a Canon 450D, I had been wanting one for a few years already but I'd travel to the US just before the new model would be released, and buying one locally would be too expensive. I then started to acknowledge it wasn't helping me make the images I wanted, in very dim lit situations... so I started looking for what would be the best type of camera to get these shots right. it was then that i realised a rangefinder would be the best tool for me. I then sold the canon and got an M6+50/1.5 Nokton, and from that point on I felt that I really found a kind of camera that made me feel extremely comfortable.
the other benefits of a rangefinder started to get me afterwards, as well as its limitations, but nowadays I sometimes have a hard time with AF because it won't be as quick or reliable as manual focusing. of course it depends on the situation, but still mf feels more natural to me. I also now prefer an all manual camera with no meter because it's a haven for me, a camera that i know will be working no matter what. though i also like using aperture priority and af on the r-d1 and x100. all a matter of being the best tool for the job, i think.
i do feel, though, that many try to take photos emulating what people would shoot back in the 50s or 60s, and i find it a bit odd, after all, the photographers of the period were just registering what happened in their time. i try to register whatever i encounter that is either odd or beautiful, sometimes a scene isn't aesthetically beautiful but the feeling it captures is.
last but not least, older lenses are usually cheaper: a canon 50/1.8 ltm is around $150 and a great performer, a modern 50/1.5 nokton is a fantastic modern lens and around 4x the cost of the canon. a canon 50/0.95 is way less expensive than a leica 50/0.95 - i know, the leica putz the canon to shame, but the canon is a good bang for the buck.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I don't consider my self an old-timer... yet Early 30's.
Frankly, I don't really like what I've seen of HCB's photos, so I certainly don't practice HCB worship. I do shoot mostly B&W film, mainly because I like the way it looks and I enjoy the process of wet printing. The main reason I avoid digital is because I'm in front of a computer all day long and like my hobby to be something other than worrying about backing up drives, file management, etc. It helps that I do like the look and process of film.
As far as why I shoot RFs, well, they are the proper size for me. Not too small, fiddly, and lacking manual controls like most P&Ss - though the latest batch of mirrorless camera releases are looking mighty fine in this area. At the same time, rangefinders are smaller than most SLR/DSLR kits that I'd be interested in. Maybe not that much smaller in the big picture or in some of your eyes, but enough that it makes a significant impact on the enjoyment of the camera system for me. I know this is true for me because I started shooting on a DSLR and a regular SLR.
The M9 is tempting, but a bit too expensive, and I'm not sure if I'd be ok with the corner fix workaround. I would have one if it was $2k (which I know is not realistic). The X-Pro1 looks pretty amazing. A good complement of lenses, the right form factor, etc. I'm definitely keeping my eye on that one. The new OM-D looks pretty cool too. And they offer what appears to be some lenses that would fit my style - I'm not sure how I missed the 12/2 release. On the other hand, 4:3 is really not my thing. So I might have a 'serious' digital camera in the next year or so. But I keep coming back to the fact that I like film, I like B&W printing, and it's all about the enjoyment for me.
Early 30's.Frankly, I don't really like what I've seen of HCB's photos, so I certainly don't practice HCB worship. I do shoot mostly B&W film, mainly because I like the way it looks and I enjoy the process of wet printing. The main reason I avoid digital is because I'm in front of a computer all day long and like my hobby to be something other than worrying about backing up drives, file management, etc. It helps that I do like the look and process of film.
As far as why I shoot RFs, well, they are the proper size for me. Not too small, fiddly, and lacking manual controls like most P&Ss - though the latest batch of mirrorless camera releases are looking mighty fine in this area. At the same time, rangefinders are smaller than most SLR/DSLR kits that I'd be interested in. Maybe not that much smaller in the big picture or in some of your eyes, but enough that it makes a significant impact on the enjoyment of the camera system for me. I know this is true for me because I started shooting on a DSLR and a regular SLR.
The M9 is tempting, but a bit too expensive, and I'm not sure if I'd be ok with the corner fix workaround. I would have one if it was $2k (which I know is not realistic). The X-Pro1 looks pretty amazing. A good complement of lenses, the right form factor, etc. I'm definitely keeping my eye on that one. The new OM-D looks pretty cool too. And they offer what appears to be some lenses that would fit my style - I'm not sure how I missed the 12/2 release. On the other hand, 4:3 is really not my thing. So I might have a 'serious' digital camera in the next year or so. But I keep coming back to the fact that I like film, I like B&W printing, and it's all about the enjoyment for me.
FPjohn
Well-known
No. My photography is anachronistic as i use older and current technology in combination.
I do use a fountain pen.
yours
FPJ
I do use a fountain pen.
yours
FPJ
rdeleskie
Well-known
I'm in my early 40s. I use a mix of older film cameras and lenses (from the 50s forward), a digital rangefinder and some modern lenses, as well as fully modern digital camera (currently a NEX5N, sometimes a Nikon D7000) - though I use that the least by far.
Initially, I must admit that nostalgia probably had some appeal: i.e., using cameras and material I remembered from when I was a child or had used when I first became interested in photography in the 1980s.
Now, however, my attraction is a recognition of how good so many of these cameras and lenses are as tools. I like the way that shooting film, or using a rangefinder, has simplified and slowed down my approach to photography. Their anachronisms, challenges and, yes, flaws give lie to the myth of technological perfection that Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to market along with every new camera they release.
As I mentioned in another thread, it's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. A Nikon D7000 is a fantastic machine, and the fast and accurate AF and high ISO open realms of photographic possibility that are frankly closed to me when I'm shooting a M6 or M8. But every tool imposes restrictions on how it can be used, and as creative people, how we select those limitations and respond to them is at least as important as how much we make of a camera's capabilities (I believe artists work best when dealing with limitations, either self-imposed or created by their medium, social conditions, etc.). The limitation/capability equation of a M6 or M8 continues to be creatively stimulating to me, and so I remain dedicated to using them.
However, in the end, I shoot 90% for pleasure, and using a Leica or Yashica Mat or Olympus 35RC is just more fun to use - to me of course.
Initially, I must admit that nostalgia probably had some appeal: i.e., using cameras and material I remembered from when I was a child or had used when I first became interested in photography in the 1980s.
Now, however, my attraction is a recognition of how good so many of these cameras and lenses are as tools. I like the way that shooting film, or using a rangefinder, has simplified and slowed down my approach to photography. Their anachronisms, challenges and, yes, flaws give lie to the myth of technological perfection that Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to market along with every new camera they release.
As I mentioned in another thread, it's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. A Nikon D7000 is a fantastic machine, and the fast and accurate AF and high ISO open realms of photographic possibility that are frankly closed to me when I'm shooting a M6 or M8. But every tool imposes restrictions on how it can be used, and as creative people, how we select those limitations and respond to them is at least as important as how much we make of a camera's capabilities (I believe artists work best when dealing with limitations, either self-imposed or created by their medium, social conditions, etc.). The limitation/capability equation of a M6 or M8 continues to be creatively stimulating to me, and so I remain dedicated to using them.
However, in the end, I shoot 90% for pleasure, and using a Leica or Yashica Mat or Olympus 35RC is just more fun to use - to me of course.
Soeren
Well-known
Why do I still use the oldfashioned stuff?
To achieve what I want. The style, the look, the fun and the comfort.
Would my photography be better if I used the latest technology available? I don't think so. Perhaps different but not better. My eyes don't change because I buy a 30mp SLR or the latest fuji X series. I like spending time in the darkroom. I like the sound of an old syncro compur shutter: I like focussing using a loupe on a screen showing the image upside down or just looking in the finder of my F3. I don't feel like stuck in the past I feel lucky to get to have photography as my hobby and be able to follow the path I like the best knowing if I ever want to do something else there are so many other options I can persuit. Though Im not very good at it I feel like a craftsman and artist (just a tiny bit ) Using the newest technology availabel will not make me better just poorer.
For me its about using the technology to support my vision and not the other way around.
Best regards
To achieve what I want. The style, the look, the fun and the comfort.
Would my photography be better if I used the latest technology available? I don't think so. Perhaps different but not better. My eyes don't change because I buy a 30mp SLR or the latest fuji X series. I like spending time in the darkroom. I like the sound of an old syncro compur shutter: I like focussing using a loupe on a screen showing the image upside down or just looking in the finder of my F3. I don't feel like stuck in the past I feel lucky to get to have photography as my hobby and be able to follow the path I like the best knowing if I ever want to do something else there are so many other options I can persuit. Though Im not very good at it I feel like a craftsman and artist (just a tiny bit
) Using the newest technology availabel will not make me better just poorer.For me its about using the technology to support my vision and not the other way around.
Best regards
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm not sure what "modern photography" is, except of course in how it reflects the equipment we use. So much of what I think of as "currently stylish" is dominated by surreal levels of post processing and I just don't find it attractive. In fact, it tends to make me shudder.
I think most of us here are mindful of current styles and influenced by them. Perhaps, as a group, we would be best described as "classical, with modern influences," with examples of extremes to be found in all directions of course.
Classifying a person's work based on the technical details of the process ignores the person's vision and aesthetic entirely and doesn't seem useful to me.
I think most of us here are mindful of current styles and influenced by them. Perhaps, as a group, we would be best described as "classical, with modern influences," with examples of extremes to be found in all directions of course.
Classifying a person's work based on the technical details of the process ignores the person's vision and aesthetic entirely and doesn't seem useful to me.
Gareth Rees
Established
I use both film and digital, but I seem to enjoy film more. This is probably because I am more used to it and prefer making wet prints in my darkroom rather than sitting at a computer and printer.
I am not saying my wet prints are better than digital ones; they just look different and I like the way they look.
Gareth
I am not saying my wet prints are better than digital ones; they just look different and I like the way they look.
Gareth
Steve M.
Veteran
For me it's very simple. Modern cameras are digital, and I don't like digital images. I like photographs. You know, images made w/ film. Especially B&W prints on fiber paper.
Digital files just don't cut it, and all digital has done is saturate the web w/ pictures of people's babies, 'ol lady's and dogs. That's photography? So I'm not favoring an old process over a new one, I'm favoring an excellent process over an inferior one.
Digital files just don't cut it, and all digital has done is saturate the web w/ pictures of people's babies, 'ol lady's and dogs. That's photography? So I'm not favoring an old process over a new one, I'm favoring an excellent process over an inferior one.
I meant current photography.
Digital is photography. If you like photographs, you wouldn't differentiate between the two no? You only like analog photographs may be the better statement. However, don't you feel that content trumps medium?
Yes, photography has always been utilized by everyone for different purposes. The only difference now is that people's snapshots of their kids, babies, pets, etc are on public websites instead of in private shoeboxes.
Digital is inferior in what way? Isn't it just different?
haempe
Well-known
Working as product photographer.
Full digital workflow, detailed and idiot-proof presettings. Piecework payment.
After leaving this mental bone-mill in the evening, every interest in any modern, current, new technology is gone...
Full digital workflow, detailed and idiot-proof presettings. Piecework payment.
After leaving this mental bone-mill in the evening, every interest in any modern, current, new technology is gone...
Gumby
Veteran
Equipment-wise - yes.
Image-wise - I don't think so.
Image-wise - I don't think so.
bwcolor
Veteran
I'm old. I use both modalities. I recently have been caught up in the buy X-Pro1/NEX-7. Yesterday, I looked at my Flickr account. It is 90% film. That has lessened my urge to buy these cameras. I sometimes get caught up in the rush to a new camera and then come to my senses.
How about you? Do you ever feel that you are a technology butterfly, always having to have the latest and greatest? Maybe you are young and impulsive. You see, we can view this issue from different perspectives. The 'you' is meant as a general call to the electronic crowd. Funny, a few days ago I entered into a photography conversation with one of my patients. This guy was a successful pro. Half-way through the conversation he said, "ah, I get it.. you are a gear-head". Yup, gear-head talking to a photographer.
How about you? Do you ever feel that you are a technology butterfly, always having to have the latest and greatest? Maybe you are young and impulsive. You see, we can view this issue from different perspectives. The 'you' is meant as a general call to the electronic crowd. Funny, a few days ago I entered into a photography conversation with one of my patients. This guy was a successful pro. Half-way through the conversation he said, "ah, I get it.. you are a gear-head". Yup, gear-head talking to a photographer.
hlockwood
Well-known
At this late stage in my life, always having shot film, I ventured into digital only ~2 weeks ago when I treated myself to an M9-P.
Because archival B&W prints have always been the end product of my photography, I'll be comparing prints from both sources. But I do believe I can make digital work for me. However, the prints will still be B&W.
Am I stuck in the past? Who cares? I certainly don't.
Harry
Because archival B&W prints have always been the end product of my photography, I'll be comparing prints from both sources. But I do believe I can make digital work for me. However, the prints will still be B&W.
Am I stuck in the past? Who cares? I certainly don't.
Harry
At times, I do want the latest and "greatest." However, at other times, I'm the opposite. I buy into many "old school" items... but since I've abandoned film for the most part, I am still waiting for digital cameras to completely mature... which makes me buy more frquently than in the film days. Plus, I like buying and trying, and then selling... it's fun. As long as I have a core set-up to use... it's ok.
I'm 38, sometimes impulsive, sometimes rational. I'm not afraid to change and not afraid to be wrong.
AND again, I didn't say there was anything wrong with being stuck in the past. Nostalgia is not a dirty word to me.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I have been told that my style is a call-back to "the old days" (nice way to say my images are fashioned in "the old style"). I kinda like it. But the truth is that I like better the process of taking the photograph or making the image.