Taping - do you do it? Show us!

This thread reminds me of the old Mulla Nasrudin story:

One day Mulla Nasrudin was sprinkling bread crumbs on the ground around his house.

"Mulla, what are you doing?" a neighbor asked.

"I want to keep the tigers away."

"But there are no tigers within hundreds of miles."

" It works, doesn't it."
 
Last edited:
Boniface XIII said:
Oh, God... O.K. (Actually, not O.K., but I just felt like swooning...)

I realise from my online experience that this topic breeds rancour, but I am truly shocked. I held you and your wife as beacons of rangefinder film photography and now I suddenly discover that you use that bloated whale of a travesty. Sorry...

I mean, those aren't photographs, are they??? Everything I saw prior to trying one was a polyester image; then I tried one myself: same thing. Pixels galore.

I do understand it keeps Leica in business, but from there to actually characterising those "captures" as photography is a rather long leap to my eye.

Am I perhaps missing something? Apologies, my intention is not to inflame; my query is honest.
Click to expand...
If the pension would run to it - I might enjoy having a "bloated whale of a travesty" - even if the results are not "photographs", and I am disappointed to learn that Roger and Frances are not "beacons of rangefinder film photography". Ah well!...at least us true apostles can uphold the honourable tradition!.
Dave.
PS I shall burn my copy of 'Rangefinder' by Hicks & Shultz immediately
 
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson said:
If the pension would run to it - I might enjoy having a "bloated whale of a travesty" - even if the results are not "photographs", and I am disappointed to learn that Roger and Frances are not "beacons of rangefinder film photography". Ah well!...at least us true apostles can uphold the honourable tradition!.
Dave.
PS I shall burn my copy of 'Rangefinder' by Hicks & Shultz immediately
Click to expand...
I think it's ugly but, more importantly, the 'things' it produces are ugly. Pretending to the photograph, these pixel maps ultimately only highlight the importance of photography itself and demonstrate via the ersatz photograph how sad it is that the art is succombing to the need for speed of transmission from Baghdad/Kabul to N.Y./D.C.
 
Boniface XIII said:
I think it's ugly but, more importantly, the 'things' it produces are ugly. Pretending to the photograph, these pixel maps ultimately only highlight the importance of photography itself and demonstrate via the ersatz photograph how sad it is that the art is succombing to the need for speed of transmission from Baghdad/Kabul to N.Y./D.C.
Click to expand...

Again, sorry, don't agree. A lot depends on where you draw THE LINE. If THE LINE is 'film vs digital' that's one thing. If it's 'colour vs mono' that's another. If it's 'film vs plates' that's another again. Or 'dry plate vs wet plate'. And so forth. The phrase plus royaliste que le roi (more royalist than the king) springs to mind.

Cheers,

R.
 
marke said:
The anti-tape/stealth approach?

original.jpg
Click to expand...

Leica M3 avatar limited edition ?
 
Roger Hicks said:
Frances still shoots only film, but if we both shot only film we'd soon starve: the magazine market for film-only shooting is vanishingly small.
Click to expand...
That is an argument I certainly can undersand, but can neither respect nor endorse. If it is not luminaries such as you and your wife who will help preserve the magic of the silver halide, who will?? Couldn't you lecture at a top Uni in the U.K. or elsewhere? I'm sure you could, rather than embroiling yourself in the pixel rush for your livelihood.

Roger Hicks said:
Initially I shot out of curiosity (for a review) but even though the body is distincty chubby next to a film Leica, 'bloated whale' is a bit over the top, and I don't find it a travesty.
Click to expand...
Compared to the glorious Ms (even the flimsy M6), it feels like a toy. And 'bloated whale' is a term I didn't even coin. But I agree with it.

Roger Hicks said:
I vastly prefer film for monochrome...
Click to expand...
What is 'monochrome'?

As a term it is inferior even to the already reductive 'black and white', for silver halide photography is about the joys of a seemingly limitless palette of greys, from absolute white to absolute black and everything inbetween.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks said:
Again, sorry, don't agree. A lot depends on where you draw THE LINE. If THE LINE is 'film vs digital' that's one thing. If it's 'colour vs mono' that's another. If it's 'film vs plates' that's another again. Or 'dry plate vs wet plate'. And so forth. The phrase plus royaliste que le roi (more royalist than the king) springs to mind.
Click to expand...
Mr. Hicks, I haven't drawn any 'line'. As for being holier than the Pope, I feel no such thing; all I see is that the paucity of the pixel is a pauper's vision compared to the infinitesimal riches of silver halides. And I was surprised that your eyes can stand it. Sorry, let this be just a parenthesis in this thread about tape; I didn't know that you used those things and was taken aback, just as I was when I learned of a similar (but worse!) decision on the part of Ascough.

To each his own.
 
Never taped my chrome M6. Thought of trying gaffer tape to cover the camera a bit and give it a badly worn look though, as some areas where I live are pretty dangerous to walk around with a camera. At least I will have my own view on the reactions in the street to a taped or not taped camera.

I've read that having gaffer tape for a long time in a camera or anything can get pretty gooey and sticky, has anyone left tape for a long time (6 months, a year?) and removed it safely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom