Theory and practice

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
9:00 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Some things that shouldn't work, do -- and some things that should work, don't. Obviously there's plenty of 'cognitive dissonance' where people persuade themselves that things are better/worse than they are, but there are genuine surprises too.

What has surprised you when it worked, and 'shouldn't have', or didn't work, when it 'should have'? And how much of it is changing taste on your part, and how much is genuine surprise? For example, I'm beginning to believe in soft focus 35mm and digital (Dreamagon, Thambar, Lensbaby, Monochrom Subjeckiv) despite decades of disliking any soft focus less than 5x7 inch/half plate/13x18cm.

(To anyone who tells me to go out and take pictures: yesterday I put the new gearbox in the Land Rover, and today I connected it all up and put the seat box back in. It works! The old girl now moves under her own steam again! It's gone 11 pm and this is relaxation).

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Lately I've revived a yard sale find, a 1959 vintage Minolta Autocord, and after digging around through my "junk boxes" I found my supply of Bayonet I filters including a Spiratone diffusion filter! That used to give me some great soft focus results.

If I get really brave I might put some sandpaper to work on one of the UV filters and try to give David Hamilton some competition.

The best soft focus lens I ever had was a 100mm f/2 Angenieux that was designed to cover the 18 X 24mm motion picture frame so it was fairly sharp in the middle but quickly became dreamy the more you got away from the center of the image. I'd cobbled together a mount to fit it on a Pentacon-Six with a 56 X 56mm frame size.

Another lens I used to have that could give some nice soft dreamy images wide open was a 150mm f/2.3 Astro Berlin Tachar but I was able to locate a Pentacon-Six factory mount made by Astro.

There is a big difference in the image between a lens that was designed to give a soft image and a lens that just isn't sharp.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
I've recently realised that, to my surprise, I much prefer using older lenses on older Leicas - so I'm selling off my MP and keeping my M3. I know the newer kit is "better" in lots of ways but I like the photos I have taken with the older kit much more.

It's a continuation of a theme in my life where I'm gradually disposing of newer kit in favour of what I actually like - for example I prefer my ancient Saab 900 to my new MX-5 - why should I prefer the "Finland Ferry" to the lovely little sports car?

As Bob Dylan said recently when asked why he's managed to sell 100m records in his career: "Beats me"
 
I was genuinely surprised that I like the Leica M3 and Canon P as much as I do. Same with the Summarit: a real "and now for something completely different" after using Nikkors for over 30 years. I prefer all-mechanical cameras with lenses designed before computers started optimizing the formulas.

Most people that know me professionally would think I'm a digital camera addict. Scanned my first negatives in 1979 and used some of the first Digital imagers in 1981. Wrote a lot of custom image processing software, custom graphics using stop-frame animation on analog Video disk, computer generated imagery. One of the engineers that worked for me built an optical computer. And now Nikki can do image capture and manipulation on a Nintendo DSi. Maybe I can download a development kit for it.
 
Last edited:
Rogrund said:
:D "Finland Ferry", never heard that one here in Sweden. Are they called that in England?
Click to expand...

Not sure where I got that from - I always assumed it was a Swedish nickname as there aren't any ferries to Finland from the UK. Perhaps it's a Stockholm nickname?
 
I'm sorry if I’m stealing someone's favourite quote but I’m sure I’ve read the following in a signature here on RFF, although I may have picked it up somewhere else:

'In theory there's no difference between theory and practise but in practice there is' :D

As for something that sounds great in theory but doesn’t quite work in practice I’d have to say auto focus – after being dependent on it from the moment I took up photography to the moment I took delivery of my first RF. Now my favourite DSLR combo is a D40 with a 50mm prime whose AF capability is rendered useless thanks to the D40’s lack of body mounted AF motor. These days if a camera tries to do anything for me I get quite annoyed – all I want the machine to do is release the shutter.
 
Last edited:
I was surprised i liked the Noctilux as much as I do. Generally I buy, test, sell for the most part. The ability to use slower films effectively in low light blows me away.
 
35mmdelux said:
I was surprised i liked the Noctilux as much as I do. Generally I buy, test, sell for the most part. The ability to use slower films effectively in low light blows me away.
Click to expand...

I heartily agree with your surprise at the Noctilux -- it surprised me too -- but I'd be intrigued if you could expand on 'buy, test, sell'. What are you testing for ('for' in the sense of 'trying to find out', rather than 'why are you testing')?

Cheers,

R.
 
I`ll be suprised if medicare and social security work. Both were set up as government ponzi schemes that would have been illegal if done by private party.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Some things that shouldn't work, do -- and some things that should work, don't. . . . What has surprised you when it worked, . . . And how much of it is changing taste on your part, R.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that theory has much to do with it, but there is a whole lot of common knowledge that I've learned to disregard and have replaced with unconventional practices that bring me greater satisfaction.

I might start with RF itself, but that's too easy. So I'll offer the fact that I shoot 90% of the time with a single prime lens. This is a convention-defying practice (even among RF shooters.) I can't say that I do this because of "changing taste." It's really more iterative--the practice changes my taste and my changed taste connects me more with the practice.
 
i buoght an old Zenit EM, in "not -working" conditions, just to dismount it and take a look inside with no fear to destroy something. I discovered the camera was very easy to fix, and even the lens: I could dismount it, clean all the screws, and put it back again... I tried a roll with my "just- fixed" camera, and it was perfectly working, and the lens (now smooth like a Leica) is really good, sharp and with a good bokeh... ;)
 
the whole Leica/35mm RF experience. I thought it would be an over rated rip off. Turned out to be one of the best moves I have ever made.
 
Roger, I'm sometimes delightfully amazed when I put my brain to sleep and let my subconscious take over! Some of the best photos I've taken have been the result of what my old (film) photography instructor called "happy accidents" or "grab shots".
 
Having stumbled upon a Leica II which I could ' connect ' to , and being so reluctant to sample the scarily complex Contax / Kiev - finding that they surpass my Leicas as komfort kameras ...
Using my M 8 with old lenses [ like buying a Ferrari and never getting out of 1st ? ]
and not caring a jot ... not to mention a specific Fed collapsibe which just sparkles with emma / M8 ...
Finding that I CAN do monochrome acceptably - on screen at least .
Oh , and finding that I know a lot more than I thought when adapting to dee'gital !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom