How do you explain to people, simply?

Roger Hicks said:
I have a '78 BMW R100RS. How many '78 Hondas are still easily reparable, with all parts available, and are still practical bikes for a 3000 mile jaunt?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Um, think you'd get a bit of an argument on this end about that one.

break.jpg


Plus, the parts might be a bit cheaper than a Beemer. So I don't really think that particular argument holds water (at least from where I'm sitting on my '66 Honda, and my friend Lee with his late '70s CX500).

As far as the 'having to explain' the equipment/film/digital thing to people, I personally don't have that kind of discussion, as I don't think they're generally paying attention on that level (or even really care). Usually I get the 'wow you must be a really great photographer with all that equipment!'. My usualy reply is: "All it demonstrates is that I know how to spend money -- and I'm REALLY good at that!".
 
I feel like I don't usually face an open-ended question ("why that camera?" etc.). I have thrice recently got the question "Is that a Hasselblad?" -- about my Rolleiflex! (I'd forgive it as a near-miss if that were asked about my Bronica S2.) And I have multiple times heard "Is that a Leica?" about my Voigtlander Vitessa. It seems that people not well-versed in classic gear know only two words for "beautiful all-metal vintage camera": "Hasselblad" if it's large, "Leica" if it's small. The other non-open-ended question I get, especially with MF cameras, is "can you still get film for that?!" If I can get past all that nonsense, usually I'll explain that I can't get the hang of a plastic fantastic DSLR with a lot of little black buttons marked only with icons and abbreviations (RAW? DNG? WTF?). "This camera is so much more intuitive and gets out of my way and lets me just shoot," etc.
--Dave
 
A better question is why do people get upset that someone is interested in something they are doing? You expect mainstream non-photographers to know of vintage cameras and to know film is in use by a niche crowd? Get over yourselves and stop being anti-social... says the hypocrite. ;)
 
I recently took photos at a friend's 50th with my M9. One of our circle from the early '80s joined us after a long absence. He merely glanced at the camera, and thinking it was the M2, observed 'Oh yes, you like to take pictures with that old camera don't you.' Everyone else has given up on me too. The people I don't know never question.
 
My borther-in-law makes fun of me often for giving overly detailed explanations of nearly every question I'm asked. About 2 years ago we were together for a family gathering at the beach -- he was shooting pictures with his iPhone and I pulled out a Fuji GA645. When the monster roared to life and the lens popped out, he just looked over and shook his head.

'Why on earth are you using that?' he asked. I said, 'This camera cost $400. To match the quality using digital, you would probably need to spend $5K, if not much more. The tonal range...' He abruptly cut me off and said 'Stop right there. That was the most efficient explanation you've ever given. Don't ruin it.'

:)
 
It seems to be human nature to have to find something wrong with A in order to justify B. I might answer, "Both are good choices; nothing wrong with either."
 
Hi,

If using a Leica you could point out what the cost of a digital replacement would cost and add that there seems little point in changing as film is just as good, if not better for some things. F'instance slides, especially in B&W.

Regards, David

PS All the idiot questions are compensated by people who offer you all their old film gear for free, because they'd like it to be used...
 
Because content is more important than technology. The less technical your process is, the better you can connect with your actual work. The less distracted you are from your inner vision, the more pleasing is the result.

Digital photography is as far away from this goal as you can currently get, since the computer is the most advanced technology we have. Analog photography can be a lot less advanced and if you learn the few absolutely necessary technical bits well enough to know them by heart and reflex, you can keep the distraction level to a minimum.

I believe that in order to reach a certain state of mind, you need to have a direct hand-eye-hand coordination. Any camera is already one step away, which is why drawing is usually a better way to stay connected to your self.

Most people stop listening after "because", but that word alone is usually enough anyway.
 
1. To my eye, film gives better results than digital. To each his own.
2. Just love using old school cameras, I know it's weird.
 
There's some great responses here.

I wish I was as creative with mine. If someone asks about my camera, I usually tell them what it is. 80% of the time that's where it ends.

It seems like people in new york, or at least the ones i've come across are more apt to understand why someone still shoots analog. And among us young folk, it's the "hipster" way now. except the kids i see these days are shooting with either manual SLRs they know nothing about (im guessing to have that look) or they're into those Dianas you buy at Urban Outfitters.

not saying those are particularly poor choices for film cameras, but many times I'll ask these persons and comment on their camera. Turns out I knew more about their cameras than they did. i tell you, it's a refreshing thing when you come across a person who is actually knowledgable with the tools they use. This goes for almost anything, aside from cameras.
 
Hi,

As for why I use film, it is part emotional, part financial. Emotional because I somehow appreciate the process more - having to wait to see the result, forcing me to spend more time thinking about my composition and exposure - not to mention that I really enjoy every second spent in the darkroom. I spend enough time in front of a computer screen at work...

Financial because I find myself using my rangefinder (an M4) more and more, preferring it to my SLRs for most of the photography I do. The cost of a digital M is still prohibitive (to me, anyhow) - so I'd rather keep using my film M for the time being, bringing out a DSLR when I need the convenience of digital or the capabilities of a modern SLR.

The emotional argument is generally met with a lot of understanding. Comparing it to listening to vinyl records, wearing a mechanical watch or -for that matter- writing with a fountain pen usually drives the point home - I simply find it more enjoyable than the alternative, and this being a hobby, what is fun matters a whole lot more than what makes sense.

If I'd been running a professional photography business, I expect it would be 100% digital, though.
 
Unless there's a specific (and measurable) advantage to whatever it is I'm trying to explain, I tend to say "personal preference" - sometimes qualified with "I've tried the alternatives and this is the one I prefer......" If I was trying to sell something, I'd go for whatever unique benefits / selling points it may have.

My advice to most people is that, if it's a significant purchase, they'd be better to "try before they buy" as my perception of quality and/or utility is almost certainly different to theirs.
 
I tell them shooting film keeps me sharp and on top of my game because its great practice that requires more patience and skill to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom