Fun with the Hasselblad 907x

Vince Lupo said:
Ha dunno which it is - most likely the camera and Hasselblad’s ‘Colour Science’ and not my all-thumbs methodology.

I do have a bit of a personal dilemma, and maybe others feel this too — I love using this camera and am really pleased with the results I get, but I still feel this attraction to my old cameras, yet I get more reliable results from the Hasselblad. I definitely appreciate the ‘perfection in imperfection’ of some of my other cameras like the Ermanox, but sometimes I just want to take good, reliable photos that I can work on right away instead of having to finish the roll of film, developing the film, scanning the film etc etc. Or worse yet, shooting a bunch of film only to realize afterwards that I missed focus on most of the shots (like the guesstimate-focus Ermanox) or I had a light leak etc. Maybe this comes from having more cameras than I really need, though I don’t really have all that many compared to others.

Thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Although I certainly wouldn't recommend an extreme either/or decision for anyone, my own choice became clear a couple of years ago. After a heavy investment in very good digital equipment, I chucked it all and went back to film exclusively (and was very glad I kept the film equipment I had; anyone price a Hasselblad system recently?). My head said digital, for all the reasons you give, but my heart said film.
If you can juggle the two, I envy you. It seems not to be an issue for most folks here. And for you, Vince, the juggling act might be a necessity, since you work commercially and that, these days, means digital. I will say that you do superb work in both film and digital, and fully exploit the strengths of whichever one you shoot.
As with so many of life's dilemmas, the hardest thing to do is to live in the "gray area" of both/and instead of either/or. But I do believe that the gray area is where the most important and fruitful personal development occurs, if one has the patience and strength to remain there. Ugh, I sound like a self-help book...
 
Ah that's okay -- self-help books are most welcome here! I think maybe we could all use a bit of it, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

I'm not sure how everyone else is, but I'm involved in photography every single day in one form or another. For me it's a free-flow, a continuum if you will, and most times I don't categorize things by saying 'this is digital photography' and 'this is film photography' as if they're two different things. To me it's all photography, and the recording media and the method of processing may vary somewhat. Dunno maybe you're right that being in that 'grey area' is the best place to be. Not sure if I'm there or not!
 
On your exchange with Retro-Grouch I am thinking photography whenever I can and use evethying from a Barnack through to the iPhone 11 Pro. Sometimes friends ask me about my 'camera collection'. It is not a collection. I use them. This weekend I was out with a long refrigerated couple of years expired roll of Ektachrome EG100. That is in my M2 with a Zeiss C Biogon 35, in my M4-2 half case. Takes me back as it was my first camera in my teens. Properly serviced in 2007 it is the sweetest camera of all. The bulk and the weight and the quietness all amplified in the leather case makes for a superb instrument. The M2 viewfinder with a 35 is almost like looking through the Hasselblad. As you said, Vince, it's all photography.
 
Vince Lupo said:
I do have a bit of a personal dilemma, and maybe others feel this too — I love using this camera and am really pleased with the results I get, but I still feel this attraction to my old cameras, yet I get more reliable results from the Hasselblad. I definitely appreciate the ‘perfection in imperfection’ of some of my other cameras like the Ermanox, but sometimes I just want to take good, reliable photos that I can work on right away instead of having to finish the roll of film, developing the film, scanning the film etc etc. Or worse yet, shooting a bunch of film only to realize afterwards that I missed focus on most of the shots (like the guesstimate-focus Ermanox) or I had a light leak etc. Maybe this comes from having more cameras than I really need, though I don’t really have all that many compared to others.

Thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
Vince, when I get really satisfying results on film, I think that film is the greatest thing, and I feel like buying more film-related stuff, conveniently forgetting that I may get 10x as many really satisfying images digitally! I enjoy a little bit of collecting for it's own sake, but mostly of photo-related "ephemera", such as advertising. The cameras themselves only really come to life for me when I've got photos to show for it.

As far as going back to film as I used it before 2005 - no!! The only reason that I don't mind processing and scanning my own film today is because my volume is so much lower now.
 
JeffS7444 said:
Vince, when I get really satisfying results on film, I think that film is the greatest thing, and I feel like buying more film-related stuff, conveniently forgetting that I may get 10x as many really satisfying images digitally! I enjoy a little bit of collecting for it's own sake, but mostly of photo-related "ephemera", such as advertising. The cameras themselves only really come to life for me when I've got photos to show for it.

As far as going back to film as I used it before 2005 - no!! The only reason that I don't mind processing and scanning my own film today is because my volume is so much lower now.
Click to expand...

Jeff I think you hit the nail on the head -- that's pretty much how I look at it. The other thing (and maybe this is just some deluded justification for buying cameras!) is that it opens up new creative/visual possibilities that I hadn't considered. And that's whether I'm doing it commercially or for myself. But I have to watch that I don't tip the scales to the collecting side and less to the shooting side and growing as a photographer.

As a complete digression, years ago I took a course in undergrad called 'The Psychology of Art' with Dr. George Swede. We studied things like the 'science' behind art, how people 'view' a piece of artwork (saccadic eye movements etc), art interpretation across cultures and the like. But one of the things that really interested me was this study of the 'creative lives' of artists across genres. So take a musician/songwriter -- I think that generally speaking, their most creative and 'energetic' time periods and when they do their best work is in their 20's and 30's, not so much in their 60's and 70's (say someone like a Paul McCartney etc). Writers maybe the same, but maybe someone like a Margaret Atwood may possibly be an exception. Philosophers may be the opposite, as they can draw on longer lives and more life experiences. But what about photographers? Are they more prolific in their earlier years? Perhaps they have more to 'prove' in their 20's and 30's and not so much in their later years? Or, can they draw on their life experiences and what/how they've photographed in the past, so their better years of photography are still yet to come? I think about that a lot.


Chanticleer2022-9 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Vince Lupo said:
Jeff I think you hit the nail on the head -- that's pretty much how I look at it. The other thing (and maybe this is just some deluded justification for buying cameras!) is that it opens up new creative/visual possibilities that I hadn't considered.
Click to expand...
That sounds familiar! In buying and selling gear over the years, I've made a lot of briefly- and superficially-interesting wrong turns. More recently, I've been wrestling with the dilemma that for me, most of the process seems to be about my simply recognizing photo-worthy situations. But if I try instead to find situations which might favor a particular camera, lens (including novelty bokeh) or medium, I go crazy. Extreme case in point, Holga: Every once in awhile, I get the itch, and I'll get a couple of Holga photos which just totally work, dark corners and all. But the other 90% of the time, it just looks like I was trying too hard.

]As a complete digression, years ago I took a course in undergrad called 'The Psychology of Art' with Dr. George Swede. We studied things like the 'science' behind art, how people 'view' a piece of artwork (saccadic eye movements etc), art interpretation across cultures and the like. But one of the things that really interested me was this study of the 'creative lives' of artists across genres. So take a musician/songwriter -- I think that generally speaking, their most creative and 'energetic' time periods and when they do their best work is in their 20's and 30's, not so much in their 60's and 70's (say someone like a Paul McCartney etc). Writers maybe the same, but maybe someone like a Margaret Atwood may possibly be an exception. Philosophers may be the opposite, as they can draw on longer lives and more life experiences. But what about photographers? Are they more prolific in their earlier years? Perhaps they have more to 'prove' in their 20's and 30's and not so much in their later years? Or, can they draw on their life experiences and what/how they've photographed in the past, so their better years of photography are still yet to come? I think about that a lot.
Click to expand...
When you're talking western pop/rock music, isn't that where youth culture really took off? Albums like Pink Floyd's DSOM no longer resonate with me the way they once did, because I no longer feel so alienated and angst-y, and thank goodness for that. But it's the rare top-40 act which risks pissing off fans by venturing off in new directions.

Not sure about photographers, but age seems to improve some astronomers and architects - I'm thinking of Frank Lloyd Wright's Marin County Civic Center here; I believe that Wright was in his 90s then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom