daveleo
what?
What I miss the most about the film era of photography is not the film, it's not the "look" of the final image, it is how simply and humanistically ( is that actually a word?) the cameras worked.
I'm not thinking about film IQ vs digital IQ or all that arguable stuff.
I'm not arguing about "it's the image that matters, not the machine" . . .
At the moment I am bemoaning (is that a word ?) that I have to suffer the complexities of new cameras to make image making "simpler" (it is to laugh, huh !).
This is the photo-therapy meeting, right?
I'm not thinking about film IQ vs digital IQ or all that arguable stuff.
I'm not arguing about "it's the image that matters, not the machine" . . .
At the moment I am bemoaning (is that a word ?) that I have to suffer the complexities of new cameras to make image making "simpler" (it is to laugh, huh !).
This is the photo-therapy meeting, right?
bitfeng
Well-known
Agree. Whenever I hold a film camera, especially a fully mechanical one, I feel simplicity and quite like it.
ChrisN
Striving
Right. I still love to pick up my favourite film rangefinder; just focus, aperture and shutter speed to worry about, and all controls perfectly positioned and where my fingers expect them to be. The digital equivalent is very close but the original is perfection.
Eric Kim made a good point about using a film camera for shooting projects - it allowed him to concentrate on the overall flow of the project, rather than being distracted by the particular image (chimping).
Eric Kim made a good point about using a film camera for shooting projects - it allowed him to concentrate on the overall flow of the project, rather than being distracted by the particular image (chimping).
benlees
Well-known
If you want to look at a film image, well then; you have a few more steps to take don't you? :angel:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Which is one reason why I use digital Ms. They're as close as a digital camera can get to film Ms and can be used seamlessly alongside them.
Expensive? Yes. But what's the alternative?
Cheers,
R.
Expensive? Yes. But what's the alternative?
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
Life was all simpler in the recent past. Now, it simply sucks. Not all technology is bad, my bride and I are alive because of it. The problem with technology is that there is too damned much of it now!
Those who are wise know when Enough is Enough. A good balance between simplicity and complexity is the good life, IMO.
I would much prefer film over digital if only someone would come by the house and help me develop my own until I know what I am doing!
As it is, I still prefer it but can indulge in it too much.jedrek
Member
I'm not sure, are you being disingenuous or ignorant? There is just as much technology now as there was 50 or 100 years ago, it's just gotten more advanced and efficient, while being much less wasteful. It's especially naive to write this on an internet forum - something that couldn't exist without a massive amount of very advanced technological infrastructure.
The truth is that you can live modern life more or less as you could 60 years ago: get your news from a newspaper, listen to music on the radio, watch the occasional OTA tv show, shoot film, use the yellow pages and grow your own tomatoes, etc. Almost nobody wants to do that though, because we have so many more options now. Stop it with the 'life was so much simpler', it wasn't, it was harder and a lot less convenient.
gerikson
Established
Film cameras became pretty complex after the AF revolution, if you stop comparing films cameras at around 1985 (or just use Leicas) then you're correct.
Digital cameras can be very complex, but if the user interface is well-designed (granted, a big IF) then they're almost as simple to use as mechanical film cameras. I know I use my DSLR in essentially the same way I do when I started photographing with an OM-1 in high school.
Digital cameras can be very complex, but if the user interface is well-designed (granted, a big IF) then they're almost as simple to use as mechanical film cameras. I know I use my DSLR in essentially the same way I do when I started photographing with an OM-1 in high school.
dave lackey
Veteran
Did you live through the 1950s? Do you have advanced technological degrees? Have you taught at Georgia Institute of Technology or any highly advanced technical university since the 1970s? I have. On what do you base your opinion? Whatever it is, I am not interested in continuing a conversation with such a rude person as yourself.
Back to the original topic if you please.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
While a more efficient form of communication the internet is certainly not less wasteful, all that infrastructure comes at a price. The storage alone doubles every year or so in fact more photos have been taken in the last couple of years that the complete previous history of photography.
Now lets look at the power consumption in Kw/h of each person in the developed world....
I'm sure you can't see the bigger picture
and seem to be just trolling the OPI'm sure you're not being ignorant either in stating there is just as much technology 100 years ago it just became 'more efficient' which unless you're living in a special community is obviously false.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Um... Yes, it was simpler. And yes, in many ways, it was also harder and a lot less convenient. The fact that you seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive casts something of a cloud over your other arguments.
What Dave was saying -- and no sane person can argue with him -- is that rabid neophilia, or uncritical admiration and adoption of the new merely because it is new, is unnecessary and, in most cases, an illustration of immaturity; inexperience; stupidity; ignorance; severe financial overprivilege; or any combination thereof.
Is there 'too much technology'? I don't think Dave himself would defend that statement, if pressed: I'd be reasonably confident he'd back my point about neophilia. Equally, I'd be interested to hear your defence of your statement that there is no more technology around that there was 100 years ago. After all, it can be taken two ways, neither of them defensible.
First, the technology that existed 100 years ago is now far more widely distributed, at least in the rich world, so there's more of it about in that sense. In the last 100 years my house has gone from oil- and candle-light to electric lighting; from a pump (and before that, a well) to running water; from cooking on a wood range to cooking on gas.
Second, there are technologies that did not exist 100 years ago: we are communicating on one of them now. In that sense, too, there is indisputably more technology about. Never mind the microwave oven, the cordless telephone, nylon, photocopiers...
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
It's all those menus and weird symbols that get to me. At some point in the 90's or, perhaps, later the photographers stopped designing the things and the software merchants took over.
Luckily I've still got my Leica Digilux-2...
Regards, David
It's all those menus and weird symbols that get to me. At some point in the 90's or, perhaps, later the photographers stopped designing the things and the software merchants took over.
Luckily I've still got my Leica Digilux-2...
Regards, David
Fujifilm X series comes closest. Not quite filmish to the degree of the M9, but this is offset by price, superb lenses, and AF. Oh and did I mention the lack of stratospheric prices?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Closest, yes, but nothing like close enough. Enormous disadvantage: autofocus. Secondary disadvantage: grossly inferior viewfinder. Price? I'd rather buy what I want (if I can afford it) than compromise on second best. If I can't afford it... well, it's got to be second best, which is why my wife's latest car is a second-hand Peugeot instead of a new Toyota MR2, and why my everyday fizz is Spanish Cava instead of Bollinger.Fujifilm X series comes closest. Not quite filmish to the degree of the M9, but this is offset by price, superb lenses, and AF. Oh and did I mention the lack of stratospheric prices?
Cheers,
R.
Isn't competition wonderful? Some may say the M9 is the inferior view, and MF the serious disadvantage. And it's pretty obvious which has the larger installed base. It helps that IQ and high ISO punches far above its weight.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sentence 2: Well, quite. But we were talking about film-like cameras.
Sentence 3: Sorry, not following you.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It costs a lot of money to get the simplicity of features and user controls that I am fond of in my film cameras. That's why I bought an M9.
dave lackey
Veteran
It costs a lot of money to get the simplicity of features and user controls that I am fond of in my film cameras. That's why I bought an M9.
Precisely what I meant by "too much technology". A balance in life is to be preferred over any extreme, IMO. I don't believe in absolutes of any kind and I do not care for extremes either. Simplicity of features and user controls is spot on. YMMV.
daniel_aj7
Member
Well David,
I fully agree. I have this feeling that in the past when everyone was using film, camera manufacturers had a level playing field when it comes to imaging surfaces or "sensors". That was when they had to focus on the actual cameras and the lenses in order differentiate themselves from the competition.
Nowadays with digital, the competition seems to be focused on megapixel counts and imaging processor. Since everyone is not using the same sensors anymore as they were in the film era, they can compete on sensors instead of developing the actual optical aspects of cameras and lenses. That is where all the engineers come in.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Oh, they're continuing to work on developing lenses... Tuning them to work best with the digital sensors. And thy continue to work on the bodies too—a modern pro class DSLR is a stunningly complex and well engineered piece of machinery. Digital cameras are simply far more complex devices than any film camera had to be.
It's just that most users today want convenience, want features, want automation. Most don't realize what a lot of the RFF community value: I like simpler cameras because I find them easier to use, not because I cannot understand complexity. I understand focus, exposure, the workings of the recording medium so well that the automation and features pose a distraction, not an aid. Others feel the automation help them concentrate on their subject matter.
To each their own. I've seen wonderful photos made with all types of gear. I use what I like, others use what thy like. The goal is the photographs, not th gear.
G