Sailor Ted
Well-known
For me it's pretty simple- I love to shoot with Range Finders. It's the user interface I feel comfortable with and it's the aesthetic I find appealing in a piece of photographic equipment. Give me an R-D1 or an M8 any day and I'll shoot to the best of my ability and enjoy working with the machine I'm shooting on, warts and all.
Now on to an entirely different technology and aesthetic.
Now on to an entirely different technology and aesthetic.
Attachments
pundit
Established
My Canon EOS MkII has spoiled me for film. I have an M8 ordered so that I can renew my use of my Leica lenses however.
My flickr url:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85974234@N00/
My flickr url:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85974234@N00/
Topdog1
Well-known
Why?pundit said:
Is it the convenience, quality or what? I'm just curious about what happens to people when they get a good digital camera in their hands and then forego film. Something of the same happened to me, but I'm trying to fight it with a passionate acquisition of rangefinder gear. Although I must admit I'm pretty adicted to my R-D1.Regards,
Ira
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Well this post was a humorous comparison of aesthetic similarity between the Canon 5D and the first generation Xbox controller.
S
Socke
Guest
Hm, I'm hard pressed to see any similarities there, ok, both are mostly black with rounded corners and are designed to controll a complicated system intuitivly with highest possible speed and accuracy.
Black is en vogue for almost anything except with Leica M8 owners and rounded corners are quite popular, too. Colanys T-90 design wasn't as creative as he wants us to belive, he just adapted a well known fact to a piece of technology where this hasn't been done before.
Come to think of it, the Porsche Design Contax RTS contradicts the Porsche 911 design philosophy. On the other hand, Porsche Design never designed Porsche cars and is more known for watches, bicycles and sun glasses. Where Colany is best known for ball pens, beer glasses and toilets
Black is en vogue for almost anything except with Leica M8 owners
and rounded corners are quite popular, too. Colanys T-90 design wasn't as creative as he wants us to belive, he just adapted a well known fact to a piece of technology where this hasn't been done before.Come to think of it, the Porsche Design Contax RTS contradicts the Porsche 911 design philosophy. On the other hand, Porsche Design never designed Porsche cars and is more known for watches, bicycles and sun glasses. Where Colany is best known for ball pens, beer glasses and toilets
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Topdog1 said:Why?
The way I see it, the appeal of a digital camera is not so much that it lets you say goodbye to film -- it's that it lets you say goodbye to scanning.
In other words, I think we need to distinguish between film > printed via conventional wet process and film > scanned for computer applications.
If you want to make nice prints to hang on the wall, especially in b&w, film > wet process is still about as good as it gets. There are people who will argue that you can get results as good, or almost as good, from digital output, but it's hard to beat the wet process for its range of expressive potential. It's also quite a bit more fun than sitting in a chair waiting for a print to crawl out of the inkjet.
Once you need a digital end-product, though, film starts to be more of a problem. You have to scan it, or have it scanned, or make prints and scan those. Scanning film yields more detail than scanning prints, but it's hard: A scanner is much more sensitive to dust, scratches, etc., than the average enlarger, and the way most CCD scanners work also raises the issue of grain aliasing, especially with higher-speed b&w films. Fixing or dodging around these problems makes it very time-consuming to prepare a film scan for really high-quality results.
Scanning prints largely avoids those problems, but you sacrifice fine detail and basically double your workload, since now you have to do the entire analog process and then do the entire digital process.
None of this is a problem if your approach to photography is to invest a lot of time producing one really great shot... but if you shoot a lot, the scanning process turns into a millstone around your neck.
That's why, for people who want to produce digital output, a digital camera is so liberating. I used to say that taking a picture was like making a baby -- the fun part comes right at the beginning, and then you've got to endure a lot of messy, uncomfortable stages before you can see how the results turn out. Shooting digitally drastically reduces the "gestation period" compared to a hybrid film > scan > file process.
Again, this isn't relevant to the person who sticks to the wet-process workflow all the way through: shoot film, develop it, go into the darkroom and make a print. That's still a very efficient, productive, and artistically effective process.
But if you want to end up with digital files that you can manipulate on a computer, put on DVDs, post on a website, etc., cutting out the scanning step saves a lot of time and energy that you can use for something else - taking pictures, for example.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
well said jlw, I hope your message doesn't get lost in this thread. I'll take it a step further and say I enjoy taking pictures in the spirit of the more liberating, less arduous digital workflow (for me) that I know is to come later. I look at my film cameras now and think, do I really want to set an analogue process in motion? A nice analogue camera will, though, be tough to resist. That is pretty fun baby making.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Digital is very convenient. I have the Canon 5D, and love it. It increased my "faith in digital", now that I can visualize, frame and shoot my lenses without any friggin' conversions.Topdog1 said:Why?
It has not diminished my love for film. I shoot less film than, say, four years ago, but I still shoot it. Digital has its advantages, but film is still beautiful.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Socke said:Hm, I'm hard pressed to see any similarities there, ok, both are mostly black with rounded corners and are designed to controll a complicated system intuitivly with highest possible speed and accuracy.
Black is en vogue for almost anything except with Leica M8 owners
Come to think of it, the Porsche Design Contax RTS contradicts the Porsche 911 design philosophy. On the other hand, Porsche Design never designed Porsche cars and is more known for watches, bicycles and sun glasses. Where Colany is best known for ball pens, beer glasses and toilets
Socke and film vs. digital,
This post was in fun and mostly tongue in cheek. You are of course correct about rounded "lines," in an egg shape fashion, being indeed in fashion- the new Porches and Mercedes come to mind but for me this does not look quite right- in a camera or a car. This ergonomic is fine for video game controllers but not my cup of tea when I'm out and about with a camera on my shoulder. To me the Canon and pretty much all DSLR's (except Leica's of course) look like toys and not objects I could admire (nor would I want to carry the Leica DSLR- too heavy plus it's an SLR.) RFs on the other hand are objects I do admire when I stop at a cafe or a bar for a break from a long day of shooting. As is the case after parking a sexy sports car or motorcycle, you always stop to turn around for one last look before proceeding to your final destination. Of course this is purely a matter of taste.
As a side I just got a new M8 and as a design study it falls short of the R-D1s in my opinion.
Film vs. Digital- I was a hard-core film guy, however photographing less and less these past five years. Now since purchasing a new R-D1s I have fallen in love with photography all over again (it's currently at Robert White getting "sorted.") In fact I now enjoy photography to a degree far beyond my hey-day back in the 90's with my first M camera. Having the ability to work the (digital) dark room (I'm a color guy), to shoot as much as I like without worry regarding expense, and always having the perfect film in my camera (custom white point and film speed way beyond what was possible in the chemical days) means my ability and enjoyment as a digital photographer are progressing at an exponential pace compared to my years as a film photographer. And I'm sure along with the convince of digital this too is a major factor for many in their preference for digital photography especially among serious digital photogs.
Just my 2 cents : )
Last edited:
SteveM(PA)
Poser
Gabriel M.A. said:
Ooooh I don't think I knew you had a 5D, where's that "insanely jealous" emoticon?
S
Socke
Guest
Sailor, I know you meant it tongue in cheek, but it is a worthy topic in itself.
And I don't think I was too earnest.
On the other hand, Colany, who designed the T-90, is realy best known for his Vileroy and Boch Desings and for all is failed attempts to sell a car design.
And do you remember the folding Porsche Design Sunglasses from the early 80s? Crap! The plastic lenses scratched in an instant when you tried to put it back in its pouch, the earpieces where mostly bend in the process and the zipper didn't close without massaging the allready bent glasses in the pouch.
But the PD Contax RTS and the Colany Canon T-90 have one thing in comon, the design works, after a very short while everything is where your finger expect it and you don't need to think about it.
And I don't think I was too earnest.
On the other hand, Colany, who designed the T-90, is realy best known for his Vileroy and Boch Desings and for all is failed attempts to sell a car design.
And do you remember the folding Porsche Design Sunglasses from the early 80s? Crap! The plastic lenses scratched in an instant when you tried to put it back in its pouch, the earpieces where mostly bend in the process and the zipper didn't close without massaging the allready bent glasses in the pouch.
But the PD Contax RTS and the Colany Canon T-90 have one thing in comon, the design works, after a very short while everything is where your finger expect it and you don't need to think about it.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I traded a lot of gear for it. Hey, you got an RD-1 and I'm still waiting for my toy. We're even?SteveM(PA) said:Ooooh I don't think I knew you had a 5D, where's that "insanely jealous" emoticon?
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Socke said:
I understand and agree this is a major topic for discussion- after all it is the user interface as well as the aesthetic that in large part create the RF niche in the first place.
Socke said:
I hear you- this is exactly how it was for me when I purchased my R-D1s. In no time flat the camera was second nature from the way it fit in my hands to the process for compensating for exposure (plus or minus in AP mode.) Compare this to how you adjust this on the M8 a big strike against the more expensive cameras hunt and peck method, to the process for selecting WB and to how you advance the shutter- there all second nature on the R-D1. In fact this is the best camera I've ever owned, M6 or otherwise, for getting out of the way so I can get in the zone and shoot to my best ability. Along these lines I'm afraid the M8 is an acquired taste but in the end will have to prove very close to the R-D1 or it's little better (for me) then would be that Xbox camera whose primary fault in my mind is it's user interface : )
Last edited:
N
Nick R.
Guest
jlw said:
Exactly! I love the look of film but I hate scanning. I'm backlogged with film from August that I haven't scanned yet. I love the photos but scanning is a tedious chore that's too easy to put off.