Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
In cat years, I’m about 15.
Some young people who have lived only in the digital era want CCD sensors to come back, saying they prefer the CCD rendition better than CMOS. Oddly, some of these people cite the D700 as an example - which is CMOS!
Some young people who have lived only in the digital era want CCD sensors to come back, saying they prefer the CCD rendition better than CMOS. Oddly, some of these people cite the D700 as an example - which is CMOS!
Tom R
Established
Off the top of my head ... how about photographers making photographs, leaving critical theory, deconstructionism, etc., to philosophers, critics and people who make their living writing about photographs.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Well, Tom R, "the unexamined life is not worth living", and one's work is an important part of one's life (or it is for many of us). Personally, I appreciate the intellectual tools those disciplines afford me in thinking about what and why I, and others, photograph.
Ronald M
Veteran
I don't know if you can still get it, but for a while I was buying up Ilford's Surveillance film - the P3 - in bulk. 150ft rolls instead of the usual 100ft of HP5+/FP4 etc. in the same size pack. Really thin base. It crinkled up super easy if you didn't have clean reels in your development tank, but damn, that was really nice film to use. I'd push process it from 400 to 1600 in Rodinal - of all things! - and still get great results:
Kevin Devine, The Rescue Rooms, Nottingham, 10th June 2012 by Tony Gale, on Flickr
I'd love to bring that stuff back.
As far as ideas I'd like to see come back... I'd go for collapsible lenses. Not enough of those these days. I like the X-Pro 2 and the 35/2... but I'd like it more if it sank back into the body like a collapsible 'Cron.
3 50 2.8 M, 1 original. 2 Elmar m. 1. 90 4.0 macro elmar. Also 50 3.5 Elmar and 2 Summitars. The one original 50 has beautiful smooth focus, new designs not so nice but ok.
M6 is very nice. <50 rolls since new, 1980 early. M10R is incredible .
robert blu
quiet photographer
+1, I fully agree.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Trouble is that recording something that a politician or two said didn't happen will soon be a crime...
Regards, David
Regards, David
f.hayek
Well-known
How about being showcased by photographic skill alone and not the reproductive organs chance provided, the phenotype your genetics dictated nor whatever external persona you decide to embellish yourself with?
Some "old" ideas just never get old.
Some "old" ideas just never get old.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
f.hayek, the idea of skill alone being the criterion of quality is indeed old. Too bad that the idea has never been implemented.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
To isolate skill, what if there were some sort of online way of presenting photos so anyone could see them? Then, when the photos are posted in this sort of online gallery, you wouldn’t know anything at all about the person. Then, by some sort of feedback mechanism, the photos could be discussed, liked, criticized (hopefully constructively).
iphoenix
Well-known
Minox subminiature film
John Bragg
Well-known
Cibachrome. I have 35 year old prints made on a Jobo that just glow.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
It’s available. Blue Moon sells it (sliced Kodak and Ilford films). My understanding is that they also provide this to Minox itself.
They also develop and print it.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Two things. First—and probably most importantly—I'd like photographers to take photos for their own enjoyment and not to impress people on social media. This whole idea that a photo is no good unless it gets tons of approval on social media is poisonous.
Second, I would love to see a move from rampant consumerism and planned obsolescence and a return to cameras that are built to last and are not disposable plastic junk. I'm 50 and I have film cameras that are older than I am and still work as well as the day they were purchased. My Spotmatic, for example, could have been purchased by my father to document my birth and I expect I will be able to use it to document the birth of my grandchildren twenty years from now. I cannot think of anything you can buy today (camera or otherwise) that is likely to be of any use fifty years in the future.
Second, I would love to see a move from rampant consumerism and planned obsolescence and a return to cameras that are built to last and are not disposable plastic junk. I'm 50 and I have film cameras that are older than I am and still work as well as the day they were purchased. My Spotmatic, for example, could have been purchased by my father to document my birth and I expect I will be able to use it to document the birth of my grandchildren twenty years from now. I cannot think of anything you can buy today (camera or otherwise) that is likely to be of any use fifty years in the future.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
More 127 varieties.
Those people that say the d700 probably are only trying to repeat what they’ve heard… and wrongly. The only cool thing about CCD only still cameras was the lack of video!
BillBingham2
Registered User
Simplicity: Cameras and glass with a focus ring, aperture ring, shutter speed dial (or ring like the OM/Nikkormat), and ASA/ISO adjustment on the external part of the camera. Everything else is via touch screen. A GREAT Viewfinder that allows for fast accurate manual focus.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
The Fuji cameras are pretty close to this. The newest, the X-E4 missed this configuration by not including the ISO dial. Otherwise their X-T, X-Pro, and X-E lines pretty closely match my shooting experience with my Nikon film bodies. The viewfinders in their newest models afford excellent focusing accuracy.
sarkleshark
Newbie
How about a modern digital XPAN?
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Make that three things—how about the return of 126 film?
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Oh yes - I think it would be fun to use the carefree Instamatics again. Even more so than an automated 1990’s point-and-shoot. I know there were some advanced 126-cameras, but the emphasis could be on fun and total simplicity.