Late night rants of an RF devotee

[sf]

To those who would go AWOL :

Here is my personal late night rant on why RF photography is completely unique, and why it is important to carry that torch. SOmetimes there are threads that talk about the impending "fall of film", this is about why there will never be a fall.

RF photography isn't about cost or efficiency or the future. It is about a whole list of things, most of which are outside the range of reasonable description. Mostly, it is about the rawness of photography. The pure physical act of expressing appreciation for the world around us. Rangefinders are machines designed and used to capture nostalgia and awe or to record what words would fail.

A rangefinder is an extension of the mind and the eye at the end of the arm, in the hands.

Leica exists for the very reasons that we are here. For instance, the M3 is, if you think of things in terms of lines parallel to our current technological development as humans, closer to the earth than anything digital. It is natural, organic, dynamic, as close to flesh and bone as anything made of metal and glass could ever or will ever be. Rangefinder cameras in general have a special quality of blending with their owners in use. The motions of shooting are all balanced and circular, the sounds are real and immediate and vocal, and the weight and feel of the camera is an affirmation of consciousness and a reminder of all the animate mechanics, all the springs and gears tensed, prepared to release their energy at the gentle depression of a finger tip. You hold a camera like some precious little creature, nestled in your fingers, guiding it with your eyes to see what you see.

Rangefinders are unique in every vital sense. Their delicate, quiet divinity is why they command the hearts of their users as they do.

There ARE things about photography that are primal and which digicams of any breed fail to offer. What of photography reaches the deepest parts of me are all those things that would simply vanish forever, should film make a permanent exit from our world.

 

[pvdhaar]

Having just spent almost 1 hour cleaning the dust off the sensor of my dSLR, I can and will attest that film photography with a fully mechanical RF is still loads of troublefree fun..

 

[Frank Granovski]

I was one with my pristine/newish Voigtlander Vitomatic 11 when I was young, but then I got it stolen when I was about 31. Hopefully, the new Voigtlander will rekindle some of the oneness I once had. 🙂

 

[sf]

I feel I need to add something profound here.

But anything that I add would pale by comparison.

I've been doing Digital since 1981. Given that you can still buy Regular-8 movie film for a format that has been defunct for 40 years, I'm not worried about film leaving the planet before me.

Exactly. I mean, it has something that digital will NEVER have. Lots of things, actually. The attraction of RFF has its foundation on those things. 4000 members can't be wrong. 4000 members in a rapidly shrinking world, it is like the world of film photography is a bubble slowly deflating, only to be stopped by the swelling of RFF. We are the anti-deflator of the film culture.

 

[varjag]

I think for a lot of people here, rangefinders invoke nostalgic memories. Not for me though, too young for that.. have to invent my rationalization I guess 🙂

 

[sf]

Heck, I am too young too. At 24, I have little room for nostalgic memories of pretty much anything. I mean, I don't have that many years under my belt to have a great deal of nostalgia - though I do have some. My current experiences with the cameras are creating what will surely become nostalgia in the future. And not many things bring me to write like that. Love letters to rangefinder photography.

 

[Frank Granovski]

Nostalgia is back: http://www.zeissikon.com/index.htm 🙂

 

[jaapv]

Having just spent almost 1 hour cleaning the dust off the sensor of my dSLR, I can and will attest that film photography with a fully mechanical RF is still loads of troublefree fun..

Really? I spent last night up till half past one cloning out "tramlines" from a slidefilm that obviously had been developed by some idiot standing in a sandstorm.

 

[pvdhaar]

Really? I spent last night up till half past one cloning out "tramlines" from a slidefilm that obviously had been developed by some idiot standing in a sandstorm.

Yep, trouble was that each time I removed the dust from the sensor, new dust would settle after a couple of test shots again. Probably present somewhere in the mirror box and attracted by static. It took quite some runs with a swab to get everything out, especially as I didn't want to damage the camera..

 

[Richard Black]

I recognize some of this group does not like guns; however, we still have hunters out here that use bows and arrows, black powder long rifles, and a number of antique weapons. The use of film, imho, will continue because of the folks like us. It probably won't be provided by the big yellow box, but that doesn't matter. I hope the Voigtlander will bring back that oneness. I've had mine for about a year and it is so natural that I wonder what I did before.

 

[kmack]

There ARE things about photography that are primal and which digicams of any breed fail to offer. What of photography reaches the deepest parts of me are all those things that would simply vanish forever, should film make a permanent exit from our world.

Gee, and I thought it was just because I hated having the batteries die at critical moments. 😉

 

[VinceC]

>>Gee, and I thought it was just because I hated having the batteries die at critical moments.<<

Hmm. Running out of film at a critical moment can also be a drag (and takes as long to change as a battery).

Nonetheless, I fully agree with the sentiments of this thread. A well-built old camera can be unobtrusive enough to carry around so regularly that it becomes a part of who you are. And you know that if it (or its basic design) lasted all these decades, it almost certainly will be around for the remaining decades of your life.

A new digital doesn't have that sense of permanence. I do enjoy (with reservations) my Canon Powershot G1, which my wife and I bought for a lot of money when it first came out in, I believe, the beginning of 2001. A few pixels are burnt out now and the four-way toggle button only toggles three ways. It's often my pocket camera. But I don't expect it to still be working well five or 10 years from now.

 

[gns]

I just like rangefinders because I want to see what I'm taking a picture of.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[FrankS]

What an empassioned post, Shutterflower! Well done.

 

[KoNickon]

Well -- while I appreciate shutterflower's sentiments, I get a little uncomfortable with the idea of anthropomorphisizing equipment. Don't get me wrong, I cherish my equipment as much as anyone else, but "holding the camera like some precious little creature" (and much of the rest of that paragraph) is rather over the top.

Anyway, I'd submit that an intuitively laid out manual SLR, like a Nikon FM or a Leicaflex, is even more "close to flesh and bone" (hoo boy) than an M3. Here's why -- for me at least: I still have to make the leap of faith with a rangefinder that indeed the RF mechanism is properly aligned and that I've got my eye centered on the patch properly, and that the framelines (or external viewfinder) will accurately frame what I want them to. With an SLR, if my eye sees that something is in focus, it will be in focus on the film, and I can always check the depth of field. And there's no parallax to be concerned about.

Whether RF or SLR, though, long live film!

 

[varjag]

Nick, absolutely. My Kiev hates when I anthropomorphize him.

 

[lubitel]

One of the reasons that I like RFs is because they seem to allow a different kind of photography than SLRs. But I also have a lot of affection for my non RF cameras. 🙂

 

[kaiyen]

I posted something very different about 10 minutes ago, but am changing it because I don't want to get kicked out of this place.

But let me say this - these "film isn't dying" and "I don't just love my RF, I _LOVE_ my RF" threads are getting close to becoming "RFs and not other things" threads. In other words, I feel that we are getting close to moving from pro-RF to anti-other things.

APUG is another community in which I have tried to take part. However, I have been slowly driven away over the last year because the pro-film attitudes have turned into offensive and intimidating anti-digital ones. I still shoot film, but do the rest digitally, and I feel excluded and ostracized there.

This thread isn't like that. But please don't let this grow out of control.

allan

 

[FrankS]

No worries, Allan. Most of us here at RFF use cameras other than RFs including digital, so we're not going to hate you for that.

Shutterflower's post IS way over the top, but I applauded it because of its passion and his willingness to take a risk by being so passionate.

This RFF site is about RF cameras. If you want to sing to the world about your love for digital or SLR's there are other appropriate sites for that.

 

[jan normandale]

Cameras , I like them!

RF's I like them because they are "throw in a bag and go shoot" cameras. I live in a city, 35;40;50 mm lenses are all I really need here.

SLR's a bit more serious on the backup lens stuff and bulging bags of supporting equipment. Still they have a place or they wouldn't exist.

MF, not a lot of lenses really either SLR MF or RF MF but they are a bit of a 'luggage' commitment to haul around for a day.

LF well this is even more of a love affair. Few shots lots of set up time.

There is a place for them all. Even digital. I hang out here because my environment suits the rangefinder camera's style of shooting. But sometimes I reach for ....