helvetica
Well-known
I just picked up the book Steve McCurry: The Iconic Photographs and the had the following thought sequence
I found it at Barnes & Nobel, and you should thumb through it if you ever see it. I know I am guilty of worrying about sensor dynamic range and noise reduction at ISO6400, so it's a refreshing and humbling reminder to see amazing portraits done on "primitive and inferior" equipment.
- Wow, McCurry has talent
- Wow, 35mm prints just fine blown up to art book sizes
- Wow, I should have shot some Kodachrome when I had the chance!
I found it at Barnes & Nobel, and you should thumb through it if you ever see it. I know I am guilty of worrying about sensor dynamic range and noise reduction at ISO6400, so it's a refreshing and humbling reminder to see amazing portraits done on "primitive and inferior" equipment.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Hi Helvetica.
Not sure of your age or history but Steve McCurry has been around for many years. He's the guy who will probably be remembered most for having shot the "Afghan Girl" cover for National Geographic. He shot most of his iconic images with a manual focus Nikon and Kodachrome and, quite frankly, nothing most photographers have shot of similar subjects, before or since, get close.
He is of an age where the image was the ONLY thing to be concerned with - not the camera, just the result of the lens, the film and the subject.
In all honesty, forget Kodachrome. It's gone. However, get yourself a film camera (if you don't already have one, and rattle through a series of rolls of Portra 400 and see what you can produce. Get used to the disciipline of 36 on a roll - it will make you more selective and improve your hit rate with digital.
I'm not anti-digital (I have a Nikon D700, D800 and Panasonic Lumix LX7) but I still love my Nikon F, F2, F3, F5 and F6, Hasselblad Xpan, Rolleiflex 2.8e and Hasselblad 500c/m and 500el/m.
As you suggest, there is NOTHING primitive and definitely nothing inferior about film kit, Anyone thinking that way is, IMO, delusional or hasn't tried it yet!!
Not sure of your age or history but Steve McCurry has been around for many years. He's the guy who will probably be remembered most for having shot the "Afghan Girl" cover for National Geographic. He shot most of his iconic images with a manual focus Nikon and Kodachrome and, quite frankly, nothing most photographers have shot of similar subjects, before or since, get close.
He is of an age where the image was the ONLY thing to be concerned with - not the camera, just the result of the lens, the film and the subject.
In all honesty, forget Kodachrome. It's gone. However, get yourself a film camera (if you don't already have one, and rattle through a series of rolls of Portra 400 and see what you can produce. Get used to the disciipline of 36 on a roll - it will make you more selective and improve your hit rate with digital.
I'm not anti-digital (I have a Nikon D700, D800 and Panasonic Lumix LX7) but I still love my Nikon F, F2, F3, F5 and F6, Hasselblad Xpan, Rolleiflex 2.8e and Hasselblad 500c/m and 500el/m.
As you suggest, there is NOTHING primitive and definitely nothing inferior about film kit, Anyone thinking that way is, IMO, delusional or hasn't tried it yet!!
Monochrom
Well-known
it´s never too late to go shooting...
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
To be sure, Steve is a great photographer and K14 was a great film. Photography has moved on to another era. However, as mentioned above you can still get a film camera and HP400.
thegman
Veteran
I sometimes wonder, if an alien civilization visited Earth, and asked to look at some of our technologies, would they assume that film came after digital.
Would they think,
"Right, so you had these expensive 'digital' cameras, with sensors which became exponentially expensive as they got bigger, the whole camera required large batteries to run, the sensors often had trouble with wide angle lenses, and you needed a secondary machine to look at the pictures afterwards.
Then you developed a type of sensor that could be cut to any size, didn't require batteries, could use any type of lens, and with 'slide' film, you didn't even need a machine to look at the results. If you did want to look at the picture blown up, you didn't need a large expensive screen for your secondary machine, just a bulb and a lens. If you want the image even bigger, you don't need to buy another screen for the secondary machine, you just moved the bulb and lens backwards.
It's like we started off with over complicated machines, and then as technology developed, we were able to simplify it.
______
Well-known
Although you didn't need a machine to look at the results, you did need a complex machine and a boatload of chemicals to create them.
jarski
Veteran
I think Steve is doing great work also with his digital Nikons. just check his homepage stevemccurry.com and photo blog stevemccurry.wordpress.com
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
As much as I love Steve McCurry, I think he's one of few photographers along with Elliott Erwitt for instance that are incapable of publishing any book that isn't a massive 400p bible, it's just too much of a book 
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
At barely $60, it's a steal (probably cheaper in the USA, too).
400 page bibles are sort of inevitable when you have a career that can only be described as legendary.
400 page bibles are sort of inevitable when you have a career that can only be described as legendary.
thegman
Veteran
Certainly, my point was slightly tongue in cheek, but of course, the machinery required to make a digital camera is vastly more complicated.
People have and do make their own film, making even one of the electrical components in a DSLR (the processor, display, sensor, storage) is beyond pretty much any hobbyist, not simply due to skill required, but the manufacturing techniques required.
You're right of course though, I'm part-joking, only part though.
helvetica
Well-known
Colin, if you order online in the states, it can be had for about $35!
Paul, I should have given a bit more context - Steve and Joe McNally where some of my early "heroes" of photography, hence my feverish loyalty to Nikon, despite being a Canon shooter. I've shot film and digitally nearly interchangeably from early days. I think you could make the argument that the release of the 5D2 / 7D era of DSLR's was the definitive point when digital got better than 35mm film as a generality. Sure I love my Velvia 50, but you are arguing for the validity film now, with the assumption that digital is better.
Additionally with the maturation of the internet age and culture, we are constantly bombarded by talent and quality. Youtube, Fstoppers, Adorama reviews, blogs, Creative Live, Kelby Training, and the list goes on. Even if someone doesn't have the "eye", there are enough step-by-step tutorials out there to show you how to set up a 3 light scene, fill the frame, and make a technically correct, nice shot. Throw in RSS feeds, Flickr Explore, 500px, etc, and you can see dozens of fantastic pictures every day of the year without repeating.
It's in this context that I saw the book and was arrested by the images in large print. They where not just technically nice, they where ... clairvoyant? Shot on location too, without pocketwizards and 1,000 WS of strobes. Artistically they are equally stunning - the emotion captured and the composition make the photos so much more than dutiful reporting of a scene.
I don't mean to sound like a fanboy by any means, but in this day and age we expect for things to be complicated. You need a fancy setup, with fancy gear and fancy [gimmicky] shooting styles. McCurry's work is the opposite - primitive tools in comparison to what's out there today, but with genuine substance and soul.
Paul, I should have given a bit more context - Steve and Joe McNally where some of my early "heroes" of photography, hence my feverish loyalty to Nikon, despite being a Canon shooter. I've shot film and digitally nearly interchangeably from early days. I think you could make the argument that the release of the 5D2 / 7D era of DSLR's was the definitive point when digital got better than 35mm film as a generality. Sure I love my Velvia 50, but you are arguing for the validity film now, with the assumption that digital is better.
Additionally with the maturation of the internet age and culture, we are constantly bombarded by talent and quality. Youtube, Fstoppers, Adorama reviews, blogs, Creative Live, Kelby Training, and the list goes on. Even if someone doesn't have the "eye", there are enough step-by-step tutorials out there to show you how to set up a 3 light scene, fill the frame, and make a technically correct, nice shot. Throw in RSS feeds, Flickr Explore, 500px, etc, and you can see dozens of fantastic pictures every day of the year without repeating.
It's in this context that I saw the book and was arrested by the images in large print. They where not just technically nice, they where ... clairvoyant? Shot on location too, without pocketwizards and 1,000 WS of strobes. Artistically they are equally stunning - the emotion captured and the composition make the photos so much more than dutiful reporting of a scene.
I don't mean to sound like a fanboy by any means, but in this day and age we expect for things to be complicated. You need a fancy setup, with fancy gear and fancy [gimmicky] shooting styles. McCurry's work is the opposite - primitive tools in comparison to what's out there today, but with genuine substance and soul.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I'm not sure I agree completely with your hyothesis. I'm shooting with an M7 which I wouldnt consider a fancy set up. Its pretty basic in my mind. My M9 doesn't have auto focus, basically still in manual drive.
However, the Leica has is penultimate glass and compact stealthy. Regards --
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I have my Kodachromes from the 60`s and 70`s. They still look like they came from the lab yesterday, vivid colors, no fading, but my Ektachromes from the same period are just like colored jelly between the plastic envelope. Luckily I duped my best Ektachrome stuff already in the beginning of 80`s to a far better material: Fujichrome...
www.jukkavatanen.fi
www.jukkavatanen.fi
helvetica
Well-known
Of course shooting with Leica pretty much excludes you from the modern photographic norms. We - as a special interest community - may find nothing unusual with MF lenses and film, but that is not so for the majority of photographers, and therefore the vast majority of images we see these days. Magazine articles, newspaper shots, online tutorials and galleries are likely to be done with a full featured DSLR. Unless you are reading LFI - then you will be looking and plenty of noteworthy Leica shots!
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Makes sense. Ciao -