My 35mm rangefinder misadventure

[pshinkaw]

Guys:

I don't care what Bill uses for his photography or what he thinks of what I use (I don't own a digital camera). I like his work a lot.

http://www.br-digiphoto.com/weblog/home/

-Paul

 

[fishtek]

It's too bad that there has to be a better/worse dialogue at all. The advantages and disadvantages of film/digital make them different, not better or worse. The analogy I draw is systems of self-defense. Some are physically better suited to some than others, but it doesn't infer that one is inherently "better". Those who cross-train and learn additional skills are certainly more capable, with a more diverse collection of abilities.


In terms of photography, format, medium, style, and technical ability separate us all, but also unite us all. It doesn't help any of us to choose up sides when it comes to our individual methods of enjoying photography.

Regards!
Don

 

[shadowfox]

<cropped>
I was always disappointed with the results I got from film, however, and gradually my photography tapered off.

Then came digital photography, and I fell in love all over again. Finally I was able to achieve the results I knew were possible. At present, I have a Nikon D200 and a Nikon D70, and various Nikkor lenses.

Hmm, I think this is the crux of the sentiment, shooting with film using manual camera requires more brain power. Some of us enjoys that, others don't (I certainly don't sometimes 😉 ).

So to me, going back in time from all automatic digital to meterless zone-focusing, has been a load of fun.

And the results are subjective, but if you can't be happy looking at your own pictures, unless with the computers in your DSLR making decisions for you, then you can't say that others are "blowing smoke in your butt" (... ewww 😛 )

I have to disagree that digital is *always* superior to film. Workflow-wise, yes, but aesthetically, a well composed black and white with film grain is more pleasing than a well-composed squeakly-clean digital b/w IMHO.

Btw, I like your Zorki shots!

 

[tetrisattack]

Getting hung up on equipment is a great way to halt artistic development.

 

[FrankS]

Why post this Bill? If this isn't a troll, I don't know what is.

 

[steve garza]

He got people to look at his photos. That might be his point.

 

[Pherdinand]

Technical quality means nothing when we talk about "good photographs".
Billions of boring pixel data are produced (and, alas, left undeleted) on a daily basis by people who think THEY have discovered the whiteness in the chicken****.
CDs (and DVDs) are gathering (and slowly fading) in drawers loaded with random shots of people's lives, cd's that were once written and never read back.

As to blowing up smoke into your butt, it is only possible if you turn your butthole towards up. Are you?

 

[Pherdinand]

Yeah yesterday I went to a catholic church. I told them priests and believers, my grandparents and parents were catholic believers. I told them, earlier in my life i was the same. But today i am an atheist. Living an atheist life is just so much newer and superior to the life of the believers. I told them this.

And i did not request an answer.

Maybe tomorrow i will go to a muslim church too. These people all just HAVE to know what the truth is.

 

[POSTI-Tuomo]

What's this sour taste in my mouth... it is turning bitter, I say! 😉

Keep the petrol and matches separated.


Cheers and cookies,

Tuomo

 

[Pherdinand]

I think his opinion is as warranted as anyone's, and he did a good job explaining the points behind his logic. No qualms with that... The closing statement was a bit on the defensive side (as if expecting to be grilled), but surely he doesn't deserve being barbecued here. 🙂 Wouldn't you agree?

No. He did a long but sloppy job explaining his point. Actually, his whole point is no point.
He is complaining about his fiddling with some 20 bucks 50 y old cameras with no meter and manual everything to the results of a 1000 bucks 2 y old camera. And he compares scanned film results to direct digital capture. And he decides that the MEDIUM is superior.
If this proves anything, it is only his inability to make a decent shot without the automatics and electronics of a DSLR.

I'm sorry Bill, i know you are an old and experienced person, and I respect you for everything else you might do in your life, but i accept no prophecy from a bitter mouth.

 

[rpsawin]

Just don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that a 35mm rangefinder camera is superior to a DLSR in some ways. It isn't, just like a 1957 Chevy is inferior to a 2007 Chevy in every way.

Yes, I am sure that the smoke blown up your butt would get in your eyes and then you would not be able to see s**t.

Bob

 

[JohnM]

I don't think much of the 2007 Chevys. I gotta be honest, I'm no fan of the Argus or the Zorki either. Not sure I would still be in rangefinders if they were my first and onlys - sorta like trying Folgers Instant and deciding you don't like coffee.

I have two Canon DSLRs and would agree that they are more capable than my rangefinder cameras. Longer lenses, faster focusing, 8 frames a second if need be, the ability to switch ISOs on the fly, adjust white balance, exposure compensation - they are a dazzling bit of technology. Wonderful cameras. I cannot take a better picture with my rangefinders than I can with my Canons.

You either like using rangefinders or you don't. I find them addicting - it's almost like golf.

I play golf and the ball is all over the course - woods, rough, traps, I am there. But occasionally, you hit one just right and it's like a drug - at the end of the day, I remember those shots and I keep coming back to the course.

I develop a roll of film and there are plenty of misses - but the keepers are the ones that do it for me in a way that I just don't experience with the big Canons. Maybe it is because I had to work harder to get them, I dunno.

But, to each his own - enjoy the DSLRs, Bill.

 

[pmu]

I kinda disagree on everything that was in that first post... EDIT: By the way: check out my blog, that first post on the opening page!! 😀 --> http://www.strap-photos.com I wrote that yesterday...

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

He got people to look at his photos. That might be his point.

Hmmmmm ... I think you're on to something. And whatdayaknow his photography reinforces his argument! There's no way in hell that any photography (no matter how talented) could produce a photo such as this one with a film rangefinder:

Hallelujah! I've been converted!

 

[ywenz]

Bill, I'm lighting a cigar up tonight. Care to join me? I can blow smoke up... ;-)

 

[Keith]

Let me give some brief background. I began shooting in the late 1950s while I was in grade school. My first camera was an Argus C3. Along the way, I owned many film cameras, including a Canon AE-1 SLR and a Canonet QL17 rangefinder.

I was always disappointed with the results I got from film, however, and gradually my photography tapered off.

Then came digital photography, and I fell in love all over again. Finally I was able to achieve the results I knew were possible. At present, I have a Nikon D200 and a Nikon D70, and various Nikkor lenses.


I would say that you never really really managed to walk with film ... but digital has allowed you to run ... good for you. I can't see the the need for a DSLR diatribe on this forum though!

 

[Robert Price]

Hmmmmm ... I think you're on to something. And whatdayaknow his photography reinforces his argument! There's no way in hell that any photography (no matter how talented) could produce a photo such as this one with a film rangefinder:

Hallelujah! I've been converted!

Especially the slight lean to the left in the composure, the thru the lens effect is spectacular for sure.

 

[Michael Da Re]

I don't think I've ever posted before but I couldn't pass on this. To become a better photographer I decided to take the New York Institute of Photography course. I had two choices. The Professional Photographers course or the Digital course. It just seemed right to me that the Pro course deals only with film. Because in my opinion just about anybody can take a good picture with a digital camera, but it takes a truely dedicated photographer to be able to take a great picture with any film camera be it rangefinder or slr. And I've seen some fantastic photos on this site. Don't get me wrong. I do think digital photography has it's place , but only for newspaper reporters and shooting weddings where fast turnover is a must. Other than that I can't see where taking 100 pictures then finding one that's fixable by using CS2 is art. But that's just me.

 

[Bertram2]

I'm not trolling. I'm expressing my opinion based on my experience. I did not request a response.

What makes you believe anybody here at RFF could be interested in your opinion ? Nothing new, there have been many who weren't able to work with a Rangefinder. And therefore they have all gone. To the DSLR Forum !!!.:bang:

 

[pedro.m.reis]

I understand you Bill.
My pictures sucks as much as yours...
And i do get better results with my EOS 350D with L glass than with my GSN, zorky or fed... Maybe because when i go shooting, family or travel, i shoot about 200 or 300 digital photos and 24 or 48 film ones.... Dont know....
The bad news are, like Keith novak, when i get home, not only i get 36 pieces of crap, but thousands....