Contemplating the unthinkable for me

back alley said:
celluloid or sensor...neither has a soul...the photographer has the soul.
Click to expand...

... still, my really early stuff is sadly lost to the world ... I recall being given a boxwood slide box way back, it was a blond wood with two brass clasps on the front and two small brass hinges, I would put my very best slides in it and leave the dross in those blue and orange Agfa boxes that the finished slides came back in.

The first monochrome contact sheet I still have dates from 1968 which is five years after I got my first proper camera (a Yashica J for my eleventh birthday) and there are very few slides or negs that survive from that period until I started keeping proper records in the mid 70s ...

... the few that there are however, I would argue that while maybe you're right and they don't have a soul, they do have a provenance, an existence in my own personal reality that a computer file couldn't possibly replicate
 
Sparrow said:
... still, my really early stuff is sadly lost to the world ... I recall being given a boxwood slide box way back, it was a blond wood with two brass clasps on the front and two small brass hinges, I would put my very best slides in it and leave the dross in those blue and orange Agfa boxes that the finished slides came back in.

The first monochrome contact sheet I still have dates from 1968 which is five years after I got my first proper camera (a Yashica J for my eleventh birthday) and there are very few slides or negs that survive from that period until I started keeping proper records in the mid 70s ...

... the few that there are however, I would argue that while maybe you're right and they don't have a soul, they do have a provenance, an existence in my own personal reality that a computer file couldn't possibly replicate
Click to expand...

i think perhaps that you are more sensitive than your rep...i, on the other hand, am a soulless ******* and have no warm feelings towards my 'stuff'...
 
back alley said:
i think perhaps that you are more sensitive than your rep...i, on the other hand, am a soulless ******* and have no warm feelings towards my 'stuff'...
Click to expand...

Really? ... you don't like any of your photos? ... or rate some as being better than others

That you have an eye for composition is obvious from what I see on Facebook and flicker, and an interest in aesthetics (a quick read through the bag section confirms that)

So it's difficult to agree with that self assessment.
 
Sparrow said:
Really? ... you don't like any of your photos? ... or rate some as being better than others

That you have an eye for composition is obvious from what I see on Facebook and flicker, and an interest in aesthetics (a quick read through the bag section confirms that)

So it's difficult to agree with that self assessment.
Click to expand...

was not talking about images…was talking about gear…i like my gear but i really don't hold much affection for it or i never would have sold my rd1 and cv lenses…i do have a warm spot for bags, yes…but only because they can make my day go easier if i have the right one with me.
 
back alley said:
was not talking about images…was talking about gear…i like my gear but i really don't hold much affection for it or i never would have sold my rd1 and cv lenses…i do have a warm spot for bags, yes…but only because they can make my day go easier if i have the right one with me.
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought your rd1 period produced some really strong work myself. If I obsessed over the equipment it would be one to go into my display cabinet.

I never felt the need to upgrade the m2 and sp500 I used at collage, and I admit to becoming attached to things ... I have shirts that should have been binned years ago that I hang on to for sentiment's sake

oh, and why I just have the one old Billingham I suppose
 
Sparrow said:
... yes I think I'd arrived at the "digital blows the highlights whilst films blocks up the shadows" thing already .. I'd have preferred it the other way round but its not too bad, I used a lot of slide film in the 70s so it's not really a problem

I'm still doing physiotherapy to try get rid of the DT's, the but I recon two stops would fix it easily ... my only worry is the psychology of it really. I'll be hanging on to the M2s for a while I expect anyway

I'm not wanting to sound like a swivel eyed analogue nutcase, but I can't help feeling that little strip of film that caught the actual photons that bounced off my subject is somehow special as an artefact in its own right, its a slice of time and space, quit literally preserved in aspic, and I can't stop myself thinking the equivalent digital file is a somehow a bit soulless in comparison
Click to expand...

:)

I wasn't trying to suggest this may be new information to you, simply that its pretty much the only difference that I need to bear in mind when switching between the two mediums.
 
Just buy it. Film/digital is not an "either/or" decision. It's not boolean. This is a classic false dilemma. As a staunch film hold-out, no matter how much people said "digital is just as good", I just didn't see it up to a few years ago. Year after year, new tech gen after new tech gen -- yeah. They've caught up to small format, prices have dropped, and they have distinct advantages in low light (ironically) and are far more flexible in terms of tweaking than any old-school darkroom. Film reigns supreme in medium and large format. The camera will pay for itself in short order in film and processing costs. Small format? Digital from a pragmatic stand-point. Shoot the old cameras because they're charming and fun to shoot or you enjoy processing and/or printing your own black and white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom