Richard G
Veteran
You have elicited some generous and amusing responses. I think you missed the depth and breadth of RFF. We have Petronius shooting his little Rollei 35 for a year. Orville Robertson taught me here years ago that it is not all about the glass at all, but the RF camera simple controls and scale focus and preset exposure of the manual film camera that is the secret. And indeed, he revived my interest in the M5 and I used one exclusively for a year or two up to the time of buying a digital M. And I have learnt about the other lens makers for M mounts, Voigtlander and Zeiss. Two Zeiss lenses are my favourites of all. It's a pity that many RFFers do not go to the Gallery. Bokeh is seldom of note or interest there. The quality of the contributions is often stunning. Rollei, OM, Leica, Bessa, Konica and iPhone even all feature in the service of getting the shot. Vive la difference. Vivat RFF.
Archiver
Veteran
For me, I fit some but not all of these ideas. I like to shoot wide open unless the lens is too soft and glowy, in which case I stop down and find a balance. I shoot way more colour than black and white, but enjoy black and white when it suits the subject. Digital is preferable to film for convenience, speed and versatility. Yeah, I love wide aperture lenses, but am still happy with good quality f2.8 lenses. I prefer my images to be as sharp as possible, but I'll allow for slippage.
While I love my M9, I shoot just as much with m43 mirrorless cameras, pocket cameras like the Panasonic LX10, and my Canon DSLR's. And I don't shoot a lot of classic street photography, I'm more about aesthetically pleasing landscape, casual/candid with family and friends, and artistic documentary work.
John Bragg
Well-known
I try not to fall into a cliche'd style of shooting. Whilst I shoot 100% mono film home developed, that is by choice and not trying to suit any correctness. Rangefinders do form a small part of my collection, but I am more likely to be shooting a 1980's SLR by Olympus or a 1990's AF SLR by Nikon or a compact from the same era. I do love available light and haven't used a flash in a long time, so although my fastest lens is f1.4, this is more likely to be shot at f2 or 2.8 or whatever the conditions dictate. Most of my posts here are about SLR cameras and film. So all in all I tick some of the boxes by pure chance, but I am the antithesis of the OP's propored theory.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Many interesting, thought provoking and conforting answers!
Thank you all!
I don't want to be misunderstood.
When I need a break I often come to this place to enjoy some wonderful images, often even real pieces of art .
My post perhaps comes from the fact that I feel a bit out of place both because I am a hobbyist and because of my photographical incorrectness (here the word mostly is key: I do shoot film for example, but much less that digital)
Thank you all!
I don't want to be misunderstood.
When I need a break I often come to this place to enjoy some wonderful images, often even real pieces of art .
My post perhaps comes from the fact that I feel a bit out of place both because I am a hobbyist and because of my photographical incorrectness (here the word mostly is key: I do shoot film for example, but much less that digital)
willie_901
Veteran
Shoot B&W
When a black and white aesthetic is useful, I shoot raw and render in monochrome. Black and white is just another tool for creative expression. It turns out post-production work with B&W film is vastly more convenient than color film.
Shoot wide open
Only in extremely low light.
Be a bokeh maniac
Nope.
Every Nikkor lens I've owned had significant axial*(longitudinal) chromatic abberions and I became sick and tired of the red-green fringing in their out-of-focus rendering. So, I quit using Nikon lenses. Now I rarely care about out-of-focus rendering. Although I have some interest in still-life that has a cinematic vibe.
Mostly do to street photography.
Guilty
Do not strive for sharpness
I don't pixel peep. I do prefer lenses that minimize veiling flare. I'm OK with reportage lenses where the center of the frame has higher perceived sharpness than the edge regions.
Mostly use an M Leica camera but not an M5 (let alone an SLR)
I never owned a Leica. This was not a financial decision. I lost interest in Leica altogether after the M8 debut IR debacle. The M9 did nothing to change my mind.
I do not enjoy using SLR/DSLR cameras. I started our with a SLR since back then I had no idea what a rangefinder camera was. Decades later I used DSLRs to make money. There was no other option. As soon as I realized a FUJIFILM X-T1 produced raw files with superior technical quality compared to my D700 bodies, I did all my commercial work with X-T1s and FUJINON lenses.
Prefer film to digital
I abandoned film in late 2008. Scanning film results in a digital image. For this reason a hybrid workflow seems pointless. Initially I did not accept a digital image could produce a proper film aesthetic. Over the years I realized it is possible to render a camera raw file with film aesthetic. The opposite is not true.
However, using film can be the only way to use cameras and lenses that happen to be what one strongly enjoys using. It doesn't make sense to stop using a camera one enjoys.
Pursue shallower DOF and to this purpose use expensive large aperture lenses (wide open of course)
See above (Shoot wide open)
Have an ultra wide lens and use it often
From 2008 through 2014 I used an ultra wide lens on a daily basis. I had a photography for real estate business. I have not touched my 14mm FUJINON XF lens for three years. I should sell it and rent one for those rare situations that require a wide angle of view.
Process and print film by yourself Etc
I quit in 2007.
Are those actually cliches?
No, your list defines a stereotype. Sometimes over simplification is is a mistake. Occasionally over simplification is convenient for propaganda.
When a black and white aesthetic is useful, I shoot raw and render in monochrome. Black and white is just another tool for creative expression. It turns out post-production work with B&W film is vastly more convenient than color film.
Shoot wide open
Only in extremely low light.
Be a bokeh maniac
Nope.
Every Nikkor lens I've owned had significant axial*(longitudinal) chromatic abberions and I became sick and tired of the red-green fringing in their out-of-focus rendering. So, I quit using Nikon lenses. Now I rarely care about out-of-focus rendering. Although I have some interest in still-life that has a cinematic vibe.
Mostly do to street photography.
Guilty
Do not strive for sharpness
I don't pixel peep. I do prefer lenses that minimize veiling flare. I'm OK with reportage lenses where the center of the frame has higher perceived sharpness than the edge regions.
Mostly use an M Leica camera but not an M5 (let alone an SLR)
I never owned a Leica. This was not a financial decision. I lost interest in Leica altogether after the M8 debut IR debacle. The M9 did nothing to change my mind.
I do not enjoy using SLR/DSLR cameras. I started our with a SLR since back then I had no idea what a rangefinder camera was. Decades later I used DSLRs to make money. There was no other option. As soon as I realized a FUJIFILM X-T1 produced raw files with superior technical quality compared to my D700 bodies, I did all my commercial work with X-T1s and FUJINON lenses.
Prefer film to digital
I abandoned film in late 2008. Scanning film results in a digital image. For this reason a hybrid workflow seems pointless. Initially I did not accept a digital image could produce a proper film aesthetic. Over the years I realized it is possible to render a camera raw file with film aesthetic. The opposite is not true.
However, using film can be the only way to use cameras and lenses that happen to be what one strongly enjoys using. It doesn't make sense to stop using a camera one enjoys.
Pursue shallower DOF and to this purpose use expensive large aperture lenses (wide open of course)
See above (Shoot wide open)
Have an ultra wide lens and use it often
From 2008 through 2014 I used an ultra wide lens on a daily basis. I had a photography for real estate business. I have not touched my 14mm FUJINON XF lens for three years. I should sell it and rent one for those rare situations that require a wide angle of view.
Process and print film by yourself Etc
I quit in 2007.
Are those actually cliches?
No, your list defines a stereotype. Sometimes over simplification is is a mistake. Occasionally over simplification is convenient for propaganda.
Dogman
Veteran
Okay. Guilty on some charges.
I shoot 90%+ B&W at wider apertures. Usually of found objects or candids of people "on the street". I could care less about absolute sharpness.
However, I haven't owned a Leica since 2008, the same year I quit using film. I frequently use a DSLR along with the digital "faux rangefinders" made by Fuji. And since I no longer use film, I no longer have to process it or print it. Obviously I prefer digital to film and I'm happy to never have to shoot another roll of film again. However, I print a lot using an Epson--B&W, of course. I have a lot of expensive lenses. Aren't they all expensive? I have several extra wide lenses but I mostly use 35-85mm focal lengths and equivalents. I even have a fisheye lens and I confess to never having taken a single picture with it.
As I said in my post above, I started photography in the early 70s and I was influenced by the times and pictures of the times. My feet were firmly planted in the film era, using simple manual cameras (Leicas among them) shooting Tri-X and HP4/5. Documentary subjects, Life and LOOK magazines, the television programming of the 1950s all had an influence on my generation of photographers. Many of whom still maintain a strict discipline based on this history. As do I. But I'm not dogmatic about it.