What I miss the most about the film era

[flip]

There is a payoff for most things with a learning curve.

Although I also like the feel and use of manual cameras better, I also appreciate the distinctly different body of work produced when one does not get instant feedback and continues to participate, when serendipity injects itself and does not fall prey to the hunt for a "perfect" shot. And, if I am honest with myself, I appreciate being party to a group of likeminded individuals who are willing to question convenience.

 

[Snowbuzz]

Roger H. is, of course, absolutely correct regarding the digital M. While my film cameras have not changed in many years I've gone through a heap of digital cameras trying to find something that suits me. I found it quite recently. Finally.

What I do miss from the old film days is good photography writing from the experienced and the wise. I realised this today as I skimmed through a blog with copious writing and advice about film use: all from an author who has about ten rolls under his belt. Sad, really.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger H. is, of course, absolutely correct regarding the digital M. While my film cameras have not changed in many years I've gone through a heap of digital cameras trying to find something that suits me. I found it quite recently. Finally.

What I do miss from the old film days is good photography writing from the experienced and the wise. I realised this today as I skimmed through a blog with copious writing and advice about film use: all from an author who has about ten rolls under his belt. Sad, really.

Hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Where's the money in a blog? Advertising...

Cheers,

R.

 

[daveleo]

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

😉

That camera design (in terms of handling) was wonderful. (I still have mine too.) It applied the handling design characteristics of small cameras that evolved over 75 (?) years. There are a few other cameras now that handling almost similarly ( 😀 ), but the trend now is for buttons and menus - because a camera design today strives to be all things to all people, in terms of included features.

I think, it would be easy (but probably not profitable) to eliminate most of the menu items that are now technically possible and make a nice simple (physical) design. Leica (I am NOT a Leicaboy !) has done that and Fuji is wicked close with their X cameras. So it' s possible.

PS . . . I am a technoid (retired engineer) and love technical achievements. But it is not necessarily a good idea to cram every possible technical feature into a device and say "That's better."

 

[Snowbuzz]

Hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Where's the money in a blog? Advertising...

Cheers,

R.

Ha! Yes. Anyway, some people will still pay: I've got most of your books and subscribed to your 'photo school' before it was free. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ha! Yes. Anyway, some people will still pay: I've got most of your books and subscribed to your 'photo school' before it was free. 🙂

Gawd bless 'ee, kind sir...

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

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.

After seeing all these replies...I find it surprising no one has pointed out that the 'film era' is not over.

If you want to shoot film, shoot it. If you enjoy how film cameras work, use them. 🙂

 

[daveleo]

After seeing all these replies...I find it surprising no one has pointed out that the 'film era' is not over.

If you want to shoot film, shoot it. If you enjoy how film cameras work, use them. 🙂

Well I understand your points but (1) I don't want to shoot film - so for me personally the film era is over and (2) I just want some digital camera designs that handle more like film cameras than they do today 😀

PS: I originally posted this thread under "general topics" because in my mind it is not a film vs digital issue. Someone moved it here, so by default it is becoming a film vs digital topic.

 

[splitimageview]

OK, well your options are Leica or Fuji. 🙂 Take your pick!

 

[David Hughes]

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

Hi,

I can't argue about lenses, I've two stunning lenses in the collection that are still being made and sold; meaning modern.

But I'd be a lot happier if I had simple controls like a ring to turn and not a joy stick to fumble with to change the aperture. And heaven help anyone who touches a button by mistake and finds the thing set up for something weird. At that point you need the instruction manual to sort it out as there's no "Back" button.

And I agree that they want features, although I wonder if they need them. I know a lot of photographers and I've never heard one wish for a photographing food button but I've led a sheltered life...

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

😉

That camera design (in terms of handling) was wonderful. (I still have mine too.) It applied the handling design characteristics of small cameras that evolved over 75 (?) years. There are a few other cameras now that handling almost similarly ( 😀 ), but the trend now is for buttons and menus - because a camera design today strives to be all things to all people, in terms of included features.

I think, it would be easy (but probably not profitable) to eliminate most of the menu items that are now technically possible and make a nice simple (physical) design. Leica (I am NOT a Leicaboy !) has done that and Fuji is wicked close with their X cameras. So it' s possible.

PS . . . I am a technoid (retired engineer) and love technical achievements. But it is not necessarily a good idea to cram every possible technical feature into a device and say "That's better."

Hi,

I couldn't agree more. And the Digilux 2 is one I grab very often to get a picture. And (2) I thought it was the ideal travel camera but it's got a bit of competition these days.

Regards, David

 

[tunalegs]

...
What I do miss from the old film days is good photography writing from the experienced and the wise. I realised this today as I skimmed through a blog with copious writing and advice about film use: all from an author who has about ten rolls under his belt. Sad, really.

I don't ***-*** enthusiasm of new users, in fact I think it's great they're interested and communicating!

What does irritate me though is the "experts" who write shoddy articles, after one particularly silly article that I mistook for a joke initially, I decided I couldn't stomach reading The Online Photographer anymore for instance. That is unfortunate. On the other hand there are so many books about photography already that are great, it's not as though one has to miss much.

I'll agree about the simplicity of film cameras, and I would say that I also appreciate the "authenticity" of film photography. Digital lacks authenticity. What I mean is when you take a photo, the latent image is formed on the film from light reflected off of the subject. You then either have a slide - a slide which was there, present at the location and moment you took the photo, or a negative. You have an authentic article. With digital you have a digital camera that may be well travelled and may have been present for all matter of interesting events and locales, but you don't get an image that shares in that. Yeah it is a visual record, but it's missing a lot of what made photography great in the first place.

 

[Godfrey]

...
But I'd be a lot happier if I had simple controls like a ring to turn and not a joy stick to fumble with to the change the aperture. And heaven help anyone who touches a button by mistake and finds the thing set up for something weird. At that point you need the instruction manual to sort it out as there's no "Back" button.

And I agree that they want features, although I wonder if they need them. ...

The ergonomics debate over whether to place the lens controls on the lens or on the body has been going on for decades. There are good points to both sides of this debate, from an ergonomics standpoint. The one thing that pushes me in the direction of putting the aperture ring (a MECHANICAL aperture ring...!) on the lens is that it promotes more interchangeability of lenses ... if the body controls the lens, the lens in some sense must be dedicated to a particular control interaction with any body you use it with. But if you are only ever going to use lenses with the bodies they were designed for, the point is moot.

For instance, the Olympus E-System lenses are all electronically controlled from the body except for zoom and focus rings. The E-1 has superbly positioned controls on the body for the exposure controls (configurable as to which you prefer to use in manual exposure mode, configurable to allow direct EV compensation and the primary control in AE operation). Even the focusing ring, which is a servo actuator, is configurable to work in the right or left rotation manner, which ever suits you best. This is an example of superb control organization and configuration capability on a modern body. As counterpoint, the M9 offers no such control configuration and is completely different in layout with all mechanical controls on the lens, yet it provides excellent ergonomics just as it is.

I don't think I've had any cameras where touching a discrete control (button, slider, switch or dial) by mistake was not instantly recognizable as to the error and immediately easy to undo. Menu options ... that's another matter. But most of what I've used hasn't needed much menu use other than to configure the camera once for a particular purpose.

Whether "they" need the features or not is not mine to judge. *I* don't need most of the features, and that's good enough for me. ;-)

G

 

[pipoca]

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.

Oh, I don't know. Using actual film?

 

[robklurfield]

My problems with technology:

1. It is smarter than I am.
2. It advances faster than I do.
3. It becomes obsolete faster than I like.
4. It is too easy to use.
5. It is too difficult to use.
6. It makes me lazy.
7. it is addictive.
8. It costs to much.
9. And, it tempts me with its charms.

I have and use with some regularity an M2, a IIIf Barnack, a Nikon S2. With less regularity I use a Crown Graphic. Is the film era over? I hope not. Is it in decline? Afraid so. However, I have tried more different emulsions in the past three years than in all my previous life. I love my M8 and use it regularly. I love my film gear, however, because it makes a whole different series of neurons fire and makes me slow down and think more carefully. Also, I've never rid myself of the notion I grew up with that there is no such thing as "plenty" in my life and that I have to conserve. Digital makes me temporarily forget that. Film reinforces the sense -- and I think this is a good thing -- that I must be careful and conserve; that no frame should be wasted (well, in reality, try as I might, many frames are wasted, but that's more about skill than it is about plenty vs. scarcity).

All that notwithstanding, digital got me back to photography a few years ago when I thought I had given it up. It also reminded me that I love film and made me get serious about film again.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, I don't know. Using actual film?

Well, yes. But surely the underlying question was about why digicams aren't laid out like film cameras.

Cheers,

R.

 

[doolittle]

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.

I think this is a very good point. Comparing the Nikon line of cameras, going from the F3 to the F4 and F5 is a case in point. If anything things have got less complex with digital. For instance compare the ease of the current menu system on Nikon dSLRs compared to the custom function settings on the F5 or F100. At least you don't need to memories numbers or use a crib sheet with code numbers and options to change settings.

However, what has changed is choice of models. Back in those film days you had the choice of the bells and whistles camera or the back to basic camera. Now you only have the former.

 

[daveleo]

Well, yes. But surely the underlying question was about why digicams aren't laid out like film cameras.

Cheers,

R.

That indeed was the point I started this thread with. I personally don't miss film, but I do miss the physical camera designs. As noted above (Godfrey?) digital designs (buttons buttons buttons menus menus menus) are dictated to accommodate the (too much) technology they cram into them.
Some smart designer could easily get rid of most menus and options and buttons and make a camera that is wonderful to handle, like in the olden days 🙂

EDIT: I can imagine a simple physical design with a very few buttons or only one dial. The camera comes with some default software that dictates what the few buttons do. The user however can go to the (let's say, Fuji) website and download any one of 57 software packages to replace the default one. Each of the 57 packages offers a different set of options of what the buttons do, from simple to painfully complex. The camera is priced at $1200, each software package is $150.

 

[salan]

For someone like me, the technology can be a great help. I am visually impaired (not blind, just my 'spectral range is wrong, I 'see' into the UV). I used to buy books like Rogers (like the books BTW), but I always had to have someone else read them to me, which is a pain as everything is printed on this 'whiter then wite paper' That to me glows.
So I use computers and electronic formats to read things as I can adjust to suit.
At the same time I have just got started into LF and I am finding it great fun.
I work with technology all day ,so to me going back to film and a 'more basic' way of doing photography is relaxing.
When I subscribed to your photo school, I found it very interesting but stopped because I coudln't adjust the files to suit my vision.
I have digital cameras (including a rangfinder), but they are often used on Auto and whilst giving me good results, they just are not so much fun as my film cameras that are fully manual.
Yes I could use the digital ones on manual, but they are not easy to use that way for some one like me. The Pentax MX is so easy I can set it with my eyes closed (ok apart form focussing lol.).
Alan

 

[shadowfox]

What do I miss from the film era?
Nothing.

This is my "film era"
Didn't catch the train the first time around. 🙂