Cameras of Permanence - does anyone else feel this way?

Retro-Grouch said:
I think the experience of shooting large format certainly delivers that sense of "permanence". You're using a camera much like those at the dawn of the medium, and there is a near-infinite amount of control which you can choose to use, or ignore, but both reflect a decision to control the image in multiple ways. That feeling of connection to a long tradition is sobering. And so is the expense per sheet of film!
Unfortunately, I think a lot of LF shooters put so much time, effort, and money into each shot that they are unable to acknowledge their failures. And let's face it, we all know that the failures far outweigh the successes. That sense of permanence in LF shooting has some drawbacks.
Click to expand...
Just wondering, is there a version of the Polaroid back for large format that was used by medium format shooters?
 
Rob-F said:
For me, a history of success I have had making satisfying images, become associated with the camera I made those images with, leads to confidence and trust in that camera and in my ability to use it well. The camera produces the results I want, in my hands.
Click to expand...
Sums up quite well how I think back to the original Konica Hexar. I don't have it anymore, and don't even know if I would experience it in the same way, but with that camera I had a higher keeper rate than with any other I've had before or ever since then.
 
Thinking back on the cameras I had and have, I honestly think the Holga has yielded most keepers. I do love to shoot with my Leica and my Mamiya, but the Holga has something special:
  • It's dead simple, there are basically no settings to distract you.
  • It's cheap so I brought it everywhere; Sandstorms in the desert, in hail and rain, up in the mountains skiing etc.
  • It's still medium format. 12 shots per roll, so you still feel the need to be conservative and thoughtful about what you capture.
I don't know. I probably should get another one, since my old one broke down.
 
I like your points Rikard and to me, the biggest thing about the Holga is the cool image quality. Images have a relatively sharp center and beautiful edges, especially of things like tree limbs. Being a Holga collector, I have plenty of back-ups with cameras loaded with b&w, color, Lomo Turquoise and even infrared. I have a modified one with no shutter for night photography. The plastic Holga may not seem like the topic here - a "Camera of Permanence" but it could be mine.
 
Archiver said:
Just wondering, is there a version of the Polaroid back for large format that was used by medium format shooters?
Click to expand...
Yes, Polaroid sold a couple of versions of 4x5 backs. I went through a lot of 4x5 Polaroid when I was shooting color transparency film for clients. A Polaroid test told you that your exposure, focus, etc. was correct, and you didn't have to ask a client to look at a dim upside down reversed from right to left image on the ground glass to approve the shot. Incidentally, Polaroid film was quite high in quality, contrary to many people's impressions of it. Since you were shooting with a high quality lens instead of a lump of plastic that came with low end Polaroid cameras, the B&W Polaroids (Type 52, especially) were excellent.
 
Archiver said:
Just wondering, is there a version of the Polaroid back for large format that was used by medium format shooters?
Click to expand...
I think most system cameras had a version. I know Hassies did, and there was one for the RB67. Since the Mamiya used a Baby Graflok mount for its backs, their Polaroid back would have been adaptable to a multitude of cameras.
 
I've considered the premise of this thread for a while, about cameras which make you feel that the image they're making is somehow more permanent or meaningful. I think my experience has been that it's mostly either larger/heavier/more "pro" level cameras, and/or ones which have more process involved in shooting. In both cases, it feels like there's more "going into" the picture than there is with lighter, smaller, more consumer-oriented cameras.

But I also think it's my relation to the camera, the way I think about it, which mostly causes this. I definitely had that feel with my Pentax K-1 II. It's heavy, it's pretty much pro-grade, the flagship (and only) Pentax FF DSLR. The sensor makes beautiful images. Pair it with a good lens and you almost have to try to take a bad photo... but here's the thing: I've owned it for a long while and I've shot loosey-goosey with it, I've shot all sorts of things, I've tried things that definitely haven't worked. The feeling has therefore dissipated, a little.

I guess the spark is still there, though. More in the sense like I'd rather pick this camera up and take a meaningful, permanent shot with it. So, in that way, it's still conducive to that feeling. Just a little less keen than when it was newer to me.
 
agentlossing said:
I've considered the premise of this thread for a while, about cameras which make you feel that the image they're making is somehow more permanent or meaningful. I think my experience has been that it's mostly either larger/heavier/more "pro" level cameras, and/or ones which have more process involved in shooting. In both cases, it feels like there's more "going into" the picture than there is with lighter, smaller, more consumer-oriented cameras.

But I also think it's my relation to the camera, the way I think about it, which mostly causes this. I definitely had that feel with my Pentax K-1 II. It's heavy, it's pretty much pro-grade, the flagship (and only) Pentax FF DSLR. The sensor makes beautiful images. Pair it with a good lens and you almost have to try to take a bad photo... but here's the thing: I've owned it for a long while and I've shot loosey-goosey with it, I've shot all sorts of things, I've tried things that definitely haven't worked. The feeling has therefore dissipated, a little.

I guess the spark is still there, though. More in the sense like I'd rather pick this camera up and take a meaningful, permanent shot with it. So, in that way, it's still conducive to that feeling. Just a little less keen than when it was newer to me.
Click to expand...

What you say is true, at least I hope it is true as I have drained my wallet over and over again for good gear. OTOH some pics I have taken with an old Sony DSC S70 are wonderful. I paid $1,000 for one in 2000. When it broke I bought another off eBay for $35. Same great photos at both prices, same gear. It is a long list of variables. At the top I'd put the one thing we cannot control: the light.
 
agentlossing said:
I've considered the premise of this thread for a while, about cameras which make you feel that the image they're making is somehow more permanent or meaningful. I think my experience has been that it's mostly either larger/heavier/more "pro" level cameras, and/or ones which have more process involved in shooting. In both cases, it feels like there's more "going into" the picture than there is with lighter, smaller, more consumer-oriented cameras.

But I also think it's my relation to the camera, the way I think about it, which mostly causes this. I definitely had that feel with my Pentax K-1 II. It's heavy, it's pretty much pro-grade, the flagship (and only) Pentax FF DSLR. The sensor makes beautiful images. Pair it with a good lens and you almost have to try to take a bad photo... but here's the thing: I've owned it for a long while and I've shot loosey-goosey with it, I've shot all sorts of things, I've tried things that definitely haven't worked. The feeling has therefore dissipated, a little.

I guess the spark is still there, though. More in the sense like I'd rather pick this camera up and take a meaningful, permanent shot with it. So, in that way, it's still conducive to that feeling. Just a little less keen than when it was newer to me.
Click to expand...

The K1 is a wonderful camera. Unfortunately, mine wouldn’t reliably focus with the lenses I wanted to use on it, one being a Sigma Art lens that started faulty but was never great even after doing focus adjust etc. as a result I sold it. However, if you are using with lenses that it works well with then it really does make nice files and can make lovely pictures. Plus, it ‘feels’ nice.

I’ve thought about this topic and concluded that I’m either very fortunate and have only ‘cameras of permanence’ or that I’m pretty in discerning. I suspect it’s mostly about attitude for me - sometimes I’m thinking photographically and sometimes I produce lots of stuff that I have no care for with the best kit.
 
I think when I started photography, it was the time (not so long ago) that phones weren't up to par with their cameras yet...I had a 450D but that was too large and the next smallest thing were basically my film cameras.

I was also at uni at that time and was at the photography studio a lot so I practised a lot and connected to photography via film cameras. So yes any film camera makes me feel like I'm taking a picture more worthy than a digital one.

Of course we all shoot with our phones these days but...I just go back to the film camera when I want something "worthy".

I knew someone who got some Fuji camera and was like "oh yeah you get all these film stocks with it"...but I didn't really think he understood what it meant shooting with the actual film. I just nodded my head as he explained "these cool colours" from the "fake film". :) lol
 
sara said:
I think when I started photography, it was the time (not so long ago) that phones weren't up to par with their cameras yet...I had a 450D but that was too large and the next smallest thing were basically my film cameras.

I was also at uni at that time and was at the photography studio a lot so I practised a lot and connected to photography via film cameras. So yes any film camera makes me feel like I'm taking a picture more worthy than a digital one.

Of course we all shoot with our phones these days but...I just go back to the film camera when I want something "worthy".

I knew someone who got some Fuji camera and was like "oh yeah you get all these film stocks with it"...but I didn't really think he understood what it meant shooting with the actual film. I just nodded my head as he explained "these cool colours" from the "fake film". :) lol
Click to expand...

You’re spot on about the idea of film colours from digital. Even if they were spot on, it’s just a simulation and I don’t engage with that at all. I shoot film and digital but, like anyone who still works with film I think, it holds a special attraction.
 
sojournerphoto said:
You’re spot on about the idea of film colours from digital. Even if they were spot on, it’s just a simulation and I don’t engage with that at all. I shoot film and digital but, like anyone who still works with film I think, it holds a special attraction.
Click to expand...

I am ambivalent on film vs digital, analog(ue) vs digital. I have been through this in audio and seen the overwhelming arguments from both sides. How can they both be correct? This joke brings it into focus for me.

Vinyl.jpg​
 
boojum said:
I am ambivalent on film vs digital, analog(ue) vs digital. I have been through this in audio and seen the overwhelming arguments from both sides. How can they both be correct? This joke brings it into focus for me.

Click to expand...

Audio is a world full of snake oil. I’m remember a test when several golden eared vinyl manufacturers and journalists were invited to listen to a system with a switchable ADC/DAC chain between the pre and power amps. Despite the advertising noise, in blind tests they couldn’t tell the diffeeence
 
sojournerphoto said:
Audio is a world full of snake oil. I’m remember a test when several golden eared vinyl manufacturers and journalists were invited to listen to a system with a switchable ADC/DAC chain between the pre and power amps. Despite the advertising noise, in blind tests they couldn’t tell the diffeeence
Click to expand...


Audio is a field with more possibilities to sell things. And little of what is sold has any supporting evidence other than the seller's word. These guys knock me out. I saw them at a high end show in SF. Comical and popular. Shun Mook Audio, Inc.

Golden ears are funny. When Billy Joel's Turnstiles came out on CD it was hailed as magic. A few years later a vinyl re-release was hailed as magic. Oh, well.

But analog(vs) digital. I know folks still love film. "You just can't beat the good old days." And Pixii folks whine because batteries only last ~250 shots. Try 36 exposures and then the fun of a film reload. At least you can swap batteries in broad daylight. It is easier and more convenient to shoot digital. There are a lot of options in post. I think there will always be some film. A camera club I was in had folks doing all sorts of forgotten print types. Yeah, they were interesting. Probably easily duplicated with a good editor on a good printer. But not as complex and time consuming as platinum prints. You pays yer money, you makes yer choices.
 
sojournerphoto said:
You’re spot on about the idea of film colours from digital. Even if they were spot on, it’s just a simulation and I don’t engage with that at all. I shoot film and digital but, like anyone who still works with film I think, it holds a special attraction.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

It's like, oh wow your camera has Kodak Portra but okay...have you shot with THE Kodak Portra.

And it's not like you can use any film stock instantly...every thing adds up eg...ok I ran out of Fuji Superia, I only have HP5 so I'll just have to deal with "this situation". Changes the way you photograph things too with colour or b/w film.

..."but you can just change your photo to bw or colour with a click of a button!".........no you can't.

...you shot that photo on that day using this film stock, you thought of shooting it that way, you manifested the image in your head, you planned and clicked the shutter...

...not do a 1000 clicks and pick one out...which looks fake IMO lol.
 
@sojournerphoto There's a fantastic audio shop in Melbourne called Addicted to Audio, they sell the usual esoteric hifi gear, and have a huge range of headphones and IEM's, many of which are available for demo. I used to go there more often than I should to try ridiculously expensive headphones by Abyss and Sennheiser. But you can always tell the difference between IEM's and headphones at multiple price points. I was shocked a few years ago to hear the difference between some Fiio IEM's: a quad driver pair sounded 'normal', the five driver pair at a couple hundred dollars more had a much more spacious soundstage with excellent instrument separation.

I used some midrange Audio Technica open back headphones for years, and later bought a pair of Sennheiser HD700 when they were half price. The improvement in sound quality shocked me. Having said all of that, I doubt that I'd be able to tell the difference between the standard silver cables and some extra expensive cables. Those details seem like the point of diminishing returns. Do I prefer turntables and tube amps to flac files and DAC's? I haven't listened to a good turntable setup for decades, so I wouldn't know. Like everything, there would be an inflexion point of price and performance where higher prices bring smaller and smaller returns. The trick is to find the most pleasing sound for our budget. Kind of like cameras, haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom