binky
Established
"...not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age."
pretty much sums it up
pretty much sums it up
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There is a contrarian appeal, as well. If all the world were shooting rangefinders, the folks here would only shoot DSLRs!
MCTuomey
Veteran
find what you like to use and need for what you shoot. it's that simple, isn't it?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well you must have five thumbs on each hand then ... and thus naturally suited to a blunt instrument! :angel:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I'm a simple soul, and have a cheapo D40 (not many buttons) onto which I stick some of my old preAI Nikkors, it says 'no lens attached' - if not in M position. I then guess at an exposure - from my fifty year recollections, and have the occasional peep at the histogram as I go along! - dead simple. It's cheap 'n nasty, small 'n light, and takes bloody good pictures!
Dave.
apart from that, Mr. Rockwell says it's FAB!
Dave.
apart from that, Mr. Rockwell says it's FAB!
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
know what i truly dislike?
talking about slrs of any nature on rff.
but thats just me...
talking about slrs of any nature on rff.
but thats just me...
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
What about EP-1's or GF-1's? They aren't RF's.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
them too...be gone!
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have used my friends D700 this evening to take some low light photos in color where I didn`t wanted to waste expensive high ISO color-film. So with a 50/1.2 Ais lens attached and the camera set to AE, I was able to take photos straight away. No need to read a manual or fiddle with settings, just switching the camera on and take photos, easy.
bmattock
Veteran
If that is what you believe, you seem not to have full control over the tools you believe have been taken from you. A photographer uses exposure as creatively as, say, selective focus or intentional use of fast or slow shutter speeds or rear-curtain synch for flash, or filtration, or any number of tools that assert their own individual concept over the resulting photograph.
The camera, film or digital, is a dumb beast, and it cannot know what your creative intent is with regard to exposure, focus, composition, etc. It simply presents you with choices that others have programmed into it which tend to appeal to the thundering herd. Are you part of that herd? If so, you should be happy with the choices it makes. If not, then manual control awaits, whether film or digital, and what on earth are you complaining about?
When you have mastered a film camera, you are likely to find that you have the same level of control over most digital SLR cameras if you wish to use it, and importantly, an understanding of why you would wish to do so.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The D700 can certainly output RAW files.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
Other than the ability to change white balance and ISO on the fly, I don't find much different between digital cameras vs film cameras.
bmattock
Veteran
There seems to be an opinion held by some that if a thing is not difficult to do, the end result is not worthy, and that therefore, anything which automates or otherwise makes straight crooked paths is to be eschewed.
This gets to the heart of what Rolande Barthes had to say about the 'art' of photography when he spoke of the art of the photographer making the image. This is not about the resulting photograph as seen by a viewer, this is about the pleasure the photographer feels as they go about making the exposure in the camera. It is art of the first part.
What these folks are really saying is that they enjoy the process of using hard-won skills they have mastered, the once-difficult chores that they now find a pleasant and soothing ritual, and anything which detracts from that is repugnant to them.
I understand this. As a former smoker, I can tell you about the pleasure of ritual. No nicotine patch could give me what I craved, which was not the mere presence of nicotine in my body, but the delivery method and the ritual to which I had grown accustomed. I didn't just like the effects of nicotine, I liked to smoke, and those are two very different things that just happened to be tied to each other in one little paper tube.
Those who bemoan the automation that accompanies digital photography (although as others have said, the automation arrived before the digital sensor did) are really expressing their sense of loss over a pathway that they have grown accustomed to. The creekside trail they once wandered over, their feet knowing each gnarled root in their way and every fallen log to be clambered over, now hesitate upon finding that the trail has been paved and handrails put up.
It cannot be denied that most digital SLR cameras offer the same level of manual control that film SLR cameras do - more if you include newer manual choices such as ISO settings in-camera instead of by changing film. However, they are not the same ritual, not the same foot-path, and although the same skills once hard-mastered are still useful, not everyone who learned using film recognizes this at first.
This gets to the heart of what Rolande Barthes had to say about the 'art' of photography when he spoke of the art of the photographer making the image. This is not about the resulting photograph as seen by a viewer, this is about the pleasure the photographer feels as they go about making the exposure in the camera. It is art of the first part.
What these folks are really saying is that they enjoy the process of using hard-won skills they have mastered, the once-difficult chores that they now find a pleasant and soothing ritual, and anything which detracts from that is repugnant to them.
I understand this. As a former smoker, I can tell you about the pleasure of ritual. No nicotine patch could give me what I craved, which was not the mere presence of nicotine in my body, but the delivery method and the ritual to which I had grown accustomed. I didn't just like the effects of nicotine, I liked to smoke, and those are two very different things that just happened to be tied to each other in one little paper tube.
Those who bemoan the automation that accompanies digital photography (although as others have said, the automation arrived before the digital sensor did) are really expressing their sense of loss over a pathway that they have grown accustomed to. The creekside trail they once wandered over, their feet knowing each gnarled root in their way and every fallen log to be clambered over, now hesitate upon finding that the trail has been paved and handrails put up.
It cannot be denied that most digital SLR cameras offer the same level of manual control that film SLR cameras do - more if you include newer manual choices such as ISO settings in-camera instead of by changing film. However, they are not the same ritual, not the same foot-path, and although the same skills once hard-mastered are still useful, not everyone who learned using film recognizes this at first.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fair enough. Just having a bit of fun with what I see as a straw man argument.
It's the bloat that really gets me. Not just DSLRs: 'pro' film SLRs too, since about the mid-90s.
If I could live with that, I might find it easier to live with a camera that offers all kinds of things I neither want nor need.
Cheers,
R.
FrankS
Registered User
The more effort required to accomplish a task, the greater satisfaction I get from the successful completion of that task.
TO ME, digital seems too easy. I may be wrong in this thinking, but that's how it seems to me.
If I were a pro with deadlines to meet and overhead to keep down, digital would make sense. But as an amatuer, I'm interested in photography as a hobby, a pleasant activity. As such, it is not all about the final image for me. I get pleasure from the process as well.
To each their own. I'm only saying that "my way" is right for me, not that all should feel and do the same.
I could live happily without digital threads on RFF.
TO ME, digital seems too easy. I may be wrong in this thinking, but that's how it seems to me.
If I were a pro with deadlines to meet and overhead to keep down, digital would make sense. But as an amatuer, I'm interested in photography as a hobby, a pleasant activity. As such, it is not all about the final image for me. I get pleasure from the process as well.
To each their own. I'm only saying that "my way" is right for me, not that all should feel and do the same.
I could live happily without digital threads on RFF.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
davelam
Member
This is pretty much my thoughts, I use my digital (Nikon D300) when I have to get things done, i.e. weddings, personal shoots, autocross, etc. But i'd rather take a film camera out if it's for ME, and my enjoyment with photography.
I think it's better put this way;
The enjoyment of shooting digital is a different kind, where as shooting film to me is another. I enjoy both.
back alley
IMAGES
i miss the simplicity of a single focus forum, rangefinders in all their glory.
i have nothing against slrs or m4/3 etc, but i would be happy visiting a site where they were king.
as for the topic at hand, i agree with bill, people have grown comfortable with their routines and digital has thrown a wrench in there that some folks find impassable. i have found my path to satisfaction in rangefinder cameras and having a drf is nirvana for me. i actually like and now prefer the computer and photoshop to a wet darkroom. no long hours standing, no smells, no clean up...what's not to like?
i have nothing against slrs or m4/3 etc, but i would be happy visiting a site where they were king.
as for the topic at hand, i agree with bill, people have grown comfortable with their routines and digital has thrown a wrench in there that some folks find impassable. i have found my path to satisfaction in rangefinder cameras and having a drf is nirvana for me. i actually like and now prefer the computer and photoshop to a wet darkroom. no long hours standing, no smells, no clean up...what's not to like?
FrankS
Registered User
It seems we've drifted apart over the years, Joe.