The RF Without Any Cultural Strings Attached

R

ruben

Guest
Just a small comment, by its nature I cannot insert either in the "Culture", or in the "Counter Culture"

The difference among both versions of choices is that the former appears as a retro enligthened one, while the other is a lighter version, like a diet cola.

Despite the good humour displayed on both, which had it been exxagerate a bit more woud had saved me the need for this comment, I smell something we carry that better we leave aside as soon as possible:

We are not a sect with common traces beyond the love of RF cameras. As such we do are a great community grown under the good shadow of our unique forum.

But trying to find common "cultural" links beyond that (and to a some extent cultural traces belonging to our friendly US members) as retro as they may be, doesn't sound to me correct.

True, we are a small group among the digital sea, but this doesn't require any antropological explanation beyond the fact that we are another phenomena enabled by the multivaried world enabled by the internet.

Nor it is true that we all, or we most, are in love with retrograde cameras nor retro styles of any kind, beyond the range finder cameras. And here too, quite loosely.

So why fabricating a stereotype of ourselves ? Why doing it with our own hands, we ourselves ? Laughing is not enough a reason.

Best,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i agree with that ruben. for example i like some vintage stuff - but i dont use rf because they are old - i use them because for me it is the easiest way of shooting and also they are smaller than slr. i could use even smaller cameras - like digital p&s for example - but i simply dont like digital look so that is not the option.
also one thing i cant agree - i dont think that making stereotypes about ourselves would do us any harm. i think it always is good to have good laugh on ourselves - it keep society alive.
 
While there are people who truly do use RF's because they are the best tool for them personally, I'm afraid that a lot also are "into" RF's because it's the key to being a part of an interesting community, it's counterculture, it's "different." Nothing wrong with that.
 
Ruben, I tend to agree with you, but I do see a purpose in the threads, it's all about bonding and piss taking. I tend to side with the urine extractors more than the vintage watch/build your own amp/Land Rover Owners Club (I had one of those once, it was the worst car I've ever had. It let in the rain and let out the oil, never got warm in winter and used more fuel than the two cars we have in the family now put together... definately a piece of agricultural machinery that should have been consigned to history years ago. Who in their right mind would buy one these days?).

The RF Culture Poll is so "pseudy" and "middle-class-up-itself" that it was crying out for Sparrow's parody.

What most of us here have in common is that we use and enjoy Range Finder cameras, there's no need to go beyond that in justifying yourself, or trying to become a member of some exclusive clique.

All sorts of people use these cameras, even arseholes like me.
 
Intriguing post Ruben, one that i certainly agree with. Whilst the idea of a manual-focus, analog camera may seem deceptively primitive in this day and age, it is merely a method that works for us, granted that it is a minority group amongst the endless sea of digital users, it still represents a significant portion of the photographic community.

And to that i might add that there is a certain method to this madness (or so it might appear to others), this "retro" [as you put it] approach yields results for us that a digital camera simply cannot yet achieve. Any anthropological explanation that may be applied here (successfully or not) would be reduced to, in my opinion, an arbitrary one, because to me, the reasons behind it all are irreducibly personal in nature and one that cannot be extrapolated into any context of 'culture' or the like. And to add to that, the fact that this trend of analog/rangefinder/TLR/MF or whateverfloatsyourboat photography exists globally, albeit in small pockets, typifies that cultural explanations are constructed entities rather than lived realities.

Oh, and long live film!
 
Ah Mick … I am rumbled, you are of course quite correct, I was simply poking gentle fun at my cultural betters … and; as we know they do enjoy a gentle poke now and then

:angel:
 
Land Rover Owners Club (I had one of those once, it was the worst car I've ever had. It let in the rain and let out the oil, never got warm in winter and used more fuel than the two cars we have in the family now put together... definately a piece of agricultural machinery that should have been consigned to history years ago. Who in their right mind would buy one these days?) - [quote-MickH] WOW!....when a certain well known photographic journalist and author gets back.....you're dead pal! :eek:
 
MickH said:
It let in the rain and let out the oil, never got warm in winter and used more fuel than the two cars we have in the family now put together... definately a piece of agricultural machinery that should have been consigned to history years ago. Who in their right mind would buy one these days?).
Click to expand...

:D They also let the rain out through the gaps, if the oil leaks stop it's to let you know it needs re-filling, in winter it toughens you up or just wrap up warm, I've had motorbikes with worse fuel consumption and I am not necessarily in my right mind :p Horses for courses, a Ferrari won't carry 3/4 ton of scrap or rescue lesser 4x4 when they get stuck. Mine have all been almost as MickH described, but were all over 25 years old and still running strong
 
I've used rf's for more than half my 49yrs now, because I like the process and the feel--sometimes, even, my results (that's an issue with my skill, not the tool; afterall, a scapel in the hands of a non-doctor is just another sharp knife). That said, I come to RFF to read interesting ideas and see interesting photos. I often learn some new or see something thought-provoking. Ruben is right when he says the common link among us is use of (or at least interest in rf's). It's a big world and even among rf'ers, we, as human, come in many flavors.

BTW, I used to own an LR and I still own vintage watches. I do not find that my identity arises from either of those facts, nor from my 27+ yr use of Leicas. Two weeks ago, I shaved off my whitening, almost Santa Claus-length beard (a nearly annual spring ritual to make my wife happy), leaving behind a droopy, sometimes waxed and always very long mustache. That's not my identity either, but merely part of my outward trappings. I am what I am. All the rest is just window dressing. I am defined neither by my facial hair (or rare absence thereof) nor my choice of camera. We are all defined by what we think and what we do, much less than by what we choose to use to shoot pictures. That's my humble two cents.

I agree with 35mmdelux: click and smile. Life is short.

Go see the post linking to a youtube of Gary Winogrand at work. Watch him wander, click and smile. That's living. He sure doesn't seem preoccuppied with the M4 in his hand. He's focused on looking at the world around him and snapping, snapping, snapping. The camera looks very comfortable in his hands or around his neck. Everytime he brings it up to his face, being a left-eyer, his nose seems to be protesting that Leica put the vf on the left. Just his nose. Not Gary. Click, click, click. Engaging with some of his subjects and annoying, scaring or failing to be noticed by some.
 
Last edited:
ruben said:
So why fabricating a stereotype of ourselves ? Why doing it with our own hands, we ourselves ? Laughing is not enough a reason.
Click to expand...

That train has left the station long ago, Ruben.

It's a forum. All RF-related discussions are game, as long as nobody gets hurt, IMO.

Why trying to impose rules other than the forum rules ?

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Why trying to impose rules other than the forum rules ?
Click to expand...

I should be the last person here to defend or speak for Ruben, but let me say that I don't think he intends to impose any additional rules on anyone else. Ruben's sense of humor and cultural sensitivities appear to differ from the two posters of hte "cultureal" and "countercultural" polls... as well as it seems to differ from many of the poll respondents. That's OK. We're all entitled to our opinions (and sensitivities). Rube's point seems to be more about stereotyping in general. There are two problems with stereotypes, as I see things: 1. They are generally based on some sort of "data" or common experience (hence believed to be generally true) and 2. They don't always apply to everyone of "that class". That's the dilemna of stereotyping, and I think that's basically all Ruben was commenting on.
 
ah Sociology... sounds like a naughty word sometimes, it plays on a base that is difficult, if not impossible to get : neutrality. Polls say, "100% RF users own a RF camera and 50% of them like vintage cars." Period.
Isn"t that cool to see that 50% of those who answered the poll might share a common interest to cars?
The problem is that nowadays, sociology and social science are politically oriented, and that in some culture, you owe to make groups of people and put them in the same area or street (ie, the golf club sellers and the chinese restaurant). In mine (in France), Republic means that everybody is a citizen, and that we're not allowed to do any discrimination based on any cultural, religious or ethnical aspect whatever it be.
Now, counter-culture isn't a rude word either. It only means a culture that may go against some aspects of the main culture. And since we are in a culture in which instantaneity, and using a RF camera with a film is kind of opposed to that dominent culture because you need to process or have your film processed before actually saying the result. And that is all. No judgement (good/bad) emited.
Interesting topic because we can question ourselves and have point of views from all around the world about the same question!
Cheers,
The Sociologist :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom