Strangely Dissatisfied

Some Bloke

Some Bloke

Messages
5
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
My Minolta X300 finally gave up the ghost on Sunday, intermittent electronic fault, probably the capacitor, probably terminal. A new addition to my camera museum.
Anyway, I took the dog for a walk this afternoon and took my Sony a700. Just a few shots of railway arches, dilapidated structures, and the like. A quick review of the images has confirmed that I am happy with the finished results. So what's the problem?
Well, I'm absolutely certain I won't be the first to say it, but the whole experience is somehow joyless, soulless, even clinical?
I love dslr ease and reliability at an event, or, on holiday. But when it comes to photography for it's own sake, it seems strangely dissatisfying.
I don't feel as though I earned anything.
Ok I got a perfect (for me) photograph of an old railway bridge, for example, but so what? Fair do's, I can spend a couple of happy hours editing, but that doesn't really hit the spot for me.
Probably just me, but I'll be picking up another 35mm SLR as soon as I can.
Does anybody else feel the same way?
 
Some Bloke said:
My Minolta X300 finally gave up the ghost on Sunday, intermittent electronic fault, probably the capacitor, probably terminal. A new addition to my camera museum.
Anyway, I took the dog for a walk this afternoon and took my Sony a700. Just a few shots of railway arches, dilapidated structures, and the like. A quick review of the images has confirmed that I am happy with the finished results. So what's the problem?
Well, I'm absolutely certain I won't be the first to say it, but the whole experience is somehow joyless, soulless, even clinical?
I love dslr ease and reliability at an event, or, on holiday. But when it comes to photography for it's own sake, it seems strangely dissatisfying.
I don't feel as though I earned anything.
Ok I got a perfect (for me) photograph of an old railway bridge, for example, but so what? Fair do's, I can spend a couple of happy hours editing, but that doesn't really hit the spot for me.
Probably just me, but I'll be picking up another 35mm SLR as soon as I can.
Does anybody else feel the same way?
Click to expand...
Maybe you need to get into the printing side of things to enjoy the DSLRs to have a solid output from your work.
 
I too miss the 'ritual' of taking a photo with a film camera. The effort needed to focus,change aperture and wind a frame on is much more 'tactile' than pressing a few buttons, the anticipation of waiting days, or maybe only hours if you had darkroom facilities, to see your results beats instant gratification any day. But..... I'm a tight owld bugger so it's digital for me all the way.

Jack
 
Some Bloke said:
Does anybody else feel the same way?
Click to expand...

No.

Cameras are a means to an end for me. The joy for me is in the mental / intellectual side of creating a photograph, the camera is simply a tool I use to achieve it in the same way Lightroom and Photoshop is.
 
JackBell said:
I too miss the 'ritual' of taking a photo with a film camera. The effort needed to focus,change aperture and wind a frame on is much more 'tactile' than pressing a few buttons, the anticipation of waiting days, or maybe only hours if you had darkroom facilities, to see your results beats instant gratification any day. But..... I'm a tight owld bugger so it's digital for me all the way.

Jack
Click to expand...

You're talking about manual film cameras, not film photography per se. Many SLRs had auto focus, exposure and film advance.
 
JackBell said:
Well yes, obviously.
Click to expand...

And apart from actually winding the film on, all those other manual activities can be performed using a DSLR: changing aperture or shutter speed still requires turning something, and manual focus is just like it ever was, and restrict yourself to a single sensitivity between 100 and 400. If anticipation is the thing then don't chimp and put the camera away for a week before uploading to the computer.

;)

Alot of the difference is 'in your head', though I grant that film can give a different rendering to an image and there is something pleasing about handling a less automated and more mechanical *feeling* instrument. You could also try what my friend Fernando does sometimes: http://fernandogros.com/virtual-film-camera-exercise/
 
Last edited:
I'll never go back to film. It was frustration with print quality that made me go digital years ago, I assume they'd cut costs to compete but whatever the reason after getting disappointing prints back time after time I gave up. I briefly went back after a few years but it was only briefly.

If the whole DSLR things seems a bit sterile try a CSC with old manual lenses. For me it's a nice experience :D
 
Print quality that did for me too - that and my old 35mm cameras giving up the ghost one by one (I had 3 or 4). I found out long afterwards that when Jessops brought their developing/printing in house rather than using a lab it was all done on a machine with image enhancement as default. I didn't want mine enhanced - it wrecked them. And waiting weeks to a) find I'd made a complete hash of it and b) wonder where the hell that image was taken because I'd forgotten where I'd been. I'd almost given up photography when I got the dSLR. But I use my dSLR very 'manually', apart from autofocus which to my aging eyes is the dog's whotsits. Never had that on my SLRs. I still have a box of 35mm bodies needing tlc and some fully manual lenses in the loft if anyone knows someone who wants them..................?
 
Jannyfox said:
Print quality that did for me too - that and my old 35mm cameras giving up the ghost one by one (I had 3 or 4). I found out long afterwards that when Jessops brought their developing/printing in house rather than using a lab it was all done on a machine with image enhancement as default. I didn't want mine enhanced - it wrecked them. And waiting weeks to a) find I'd made a complete hash of it and b) wonder where the hell that image was taken because I'd forgotten where I'd been. I'd almost given up photography when I got the dSLR. But I use my dSLR very 'manually', apart from autofocus which to my aging eyes is the dog's whotsits. Never had that on my SLRs. I still have a box of 35mm bodies needing tlc and some fully manual lenses in the loft if anyone knows someone who wants them..................?
Click to expand...

I think you should have a look at evil bay or the for sale section here as there's a market for film era lenses, not sure about bodies, as you can use them quite easily on CSC's as focusing is easy with peaking and / or the magnified view. I'm lucky as I bought most of my old lenses years ago but looking at the prices they're going for now they've definitely risen and some lenses which were easy to find cheap years ago are now harder to find and more expensive. If you fancy selling any you may be in for a pleasant surprise.
 
Hiya OP, don't know if this'll help, but:

I was gifted an X-300, non-working, with a couple of lenses and the words "If you can get it to work, it's yours".
Googled the symptoms, found out it was likely to be the capacitor. Googled the repair process, found out that it's actually a really cheap and easy fix.
The video below was probably the best guide I found, the capacitor was a couple of quid (tops) from Maplin, and once I had the bits it was only a 10-15 minute job, even with taking my time and being extra careful.

The way I see it, it's worth a try: If it works, you've resurrected a camera and you might lift that 'strangely dissatisfied' feeling. If it doesn't, all you've lost is the price of a capacitor and 20mins of your day

 
Some Bloke said:
My Minolta X300 finally gave up the ghost on Sunday, intermittent electronic fault, probably the capacitor, probably terminal. A new addition to my camera museum.
Anyway, I took the dog for a walk this afternoon and took my Sony a700. Just a few shots of railway arches, dilapidated structures, and the like. A quick review of the images has confirmed that I am happy with the finished results. So what's the problem?
Well, I'm absolutely certain I won't be the first to say it, but the whole experience is somehow joyless, soulless, even clinical?
I love dslr ease and reliability at an event, or, on holiday. But when it comes to photography for it's own sake, it seems strangely dissatisfying.
I don't feel as though I earned anything.
Ok I got a perfect (for me) photograph of an old railway bridge, for example, but so what? Fair do's, I can spend a couple of happy hours editing, but that doesn't really hit the spot for me.
Probably just me, but I'll be picking up another 35mm SLR as soon as I can.
Does anybody else feel the same way?
Click to expand...

,It sounds as though you find digital photography too easy compared to difficulties of film photography. I've only been shooting digital for ten years, having spent the previous forty with film, and I know what you mean about how absurdly easy it is compared to film. Digital cameras are quite flexible, however, and can be used in a great variety of ways. If you restricted yourself to shooting only fully manually, including manual AF, plus always shooting all day with the same fixed ISO and fixed white balance, and never used the LCD to review your shots, all that would go a good way towards making your A700 more difficult to use in a film-like way. You should also avoid looking at your images on a computer. Wait a few days, then get small prints made of the whole lot, using those prints to decided which ones to choose for a bit of editing and making larger prints.

All that should go a good way towards recreating the important problems of film shooting, but at less cost.
 
Some Bloke said:
I love dslr ease and reliability at an event, or, on holiday. But when it comes to photography for it's own sake, it seems strangely dissatisfying.
Click to expand...

I know there are people who think like this, but I can't see it at all. I think some people are more into cameras and/or the experience than making pictures. I admit I used to enjoy the clunk of my Pentax and the feel of winding each frame on, but the pictures I make with a digital camera are so much better, not technically, because I can afford to take more of them. My prints are better, technically, though because it's easier to sort out what they'll look like before printing them.

I've given the Pentax a couple of outings, but it's too much hassle. 36 frames then having to reload is worse than using mirrorless and having to change batteries three or four times a day!:LOL:
 
I've often thought it'd be good if someone made (and it may exist I just may not be aware of it)a "back to basics" camera with a decent sensor. No auto mode, no fancy different focus tracking systems. Just dials for ISO, Shutter speed and Aperture (aperture could even be on the lens). Settings for flash compensation with manual focus. Really stripped down and made to be compatible with older manual lenses.
 
mjmountain said:
I've often thought it'd be good if someone made (and it may exist I just may not be aware of it)a "back to basics" camera with a decent sensor. No auto mode, no fancy different focus tracking systems. Just dials for ISO, Shutter speed and Aperture (aperture could even be on the lens). Settings for flash compensation with manual focus. Really stripped down and made to be compatible with older manual lenses.
Click to expand...

Keep your eyes on Zenit - if anyone does that, it may be them :)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/45831...-release-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-in-2018
 
P.Y. Photographic said:
Hiya OP, don't know if this'll help, but:

I was gifted an X-300, non-working, with a couple of lenses and the words "If you can get it to work, it's yours".
Googled the symptoms, found out it was likely to be the capacitor. Googled the repair process, found out that it's actually a really cheap and easy fix.
The video below was probably the best guide I found, the capacitor was a couple of quid (tops) from Maplin, and once I had the bits it was only a 10-15 minute job, even with taking my time and being extra careful.

The way I see it, it's worth a try: If it works, you've resurrected a camera and you might lift that 'strangely dissatisfied' feeling. If it doesn't, all you've lost is the price of a capacitor and 20mins of your day

Click to expand...
As above, I was given a dead Centon DF300 (Minolta X300 copy) and carried out the same repair. It was easy to do, even for someone as impatient and clumsy as I am. And the camera has gone to a friend who was showing an interest in photography.

Then again if you enjoy the film side of things and have a few nice Minolta lenses why not upgrade to one of the better bodies? The XD7, XE7 and SRT 101 are all better built and more tactile than the X300.
 
Wow! Thanks everybody for your contributions to the thread. To follow on from some of the points raised:

The replacing of the capacitor was interesting, and appeals to my "let's take it apart and see how it works" nature, so I might give it a go.

If I think about it I am probably more interested in the technicalities of taking the photo than I am with the finished photograph. Plus, to be completely honest, I just love the feel and sound of old film cameras. Also, for me, there's something to be said for revisiting cameras that were out of my reach when they were launched.

Never had, or even looked at having, a CSC. They might be better suited to my personality though. Pretty taken with the Fuji models.

Phil
 
I cannot see what the pleasure of working with films is - I had 5 years working at Kodak when I left school then travelled a lot and was also a photographer on cruise liners for a few years and cannot say I ever enjoyed the messing about with chemicals and darkrooms.
And if you think developing and printing film is fun try being on a cruise liner in the Caribbean where the darkroom was so hot you needed to put all the chemical baths in ice to get the temperature low enough because it was situated just inside the hull with the sun beating down outside!
Photographic Colour Chemicals do not like that!
Ot the 2-3 hours in an even smaller room exposing the colour paper.

So I say "God Bless Digital"!
 
Some Bloke said:
Never had, or even looked at having, a CSC. They might be better suited to my personality though. Pretty taken with the Fuji models.

Phil
Click to expand...

I had Canon DSLR's but their time was limited when I tried a Panasonic G1 and later I loved using that camera with old manual lenses, so much so that I now often use my old lenses on a FF Sony A7. Amongst the best bargains are 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5 or f2.8. You can get a three lens set like that and a cheap adapter from under £100. With either MFT or APS-C cameras the lenses are subject to the crop factor but they're still lots of fun, I've taken a lot of pictures with MFT (x2 crop) and film era 50mm f1.8 and f2.8 macro.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I know there are people who think like this, but I can't see it at all. I think some people are more into cameras and/or the experience than making pictures. I admit I used to enjoy the clunk of my Pentax and the feel of winding each frame on, but the pictures I make with a digital camera are so much better, not technically, because I can afford to take more of them. My prints are better, technically, though because it's easier to sort out what they'll look like before printing them.

I've given the Pentax a couple of outings, but it's too much hassle. 36 frames then having to reload is worse than using mirrorless and having to change batteries three or four times a day!:LOL:
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up for me too.
Without wanting to sound harsh, too many 'photographers' concentrate on the 'effort' of focussing and exposure.
They're missing the point of photography IMHO. The effort should go into the image, all of a sudden realisation dawns when what you've achieved is a picture you love, rather than a perfectly executed meaningless image.

I love using cameras, and whether it's tweaking auto focus settings or using a live histogram to help with exposure, they're fun to use. But it's only when you've worked hard to create an image and succeeded, that you realise what the point is.
 
chris malcolm said:
I've only been shooting digital for ten years ...
Click to expand...
Twice as long as me, then!

horrocks said:
The answer to the problem of poor print quality with film is to establish a hybrid workflow - get the film processed as normal (or, particularly if B&W, process it yourself), then scan into your usual software for pp and printing.
Click to expand...
Up to a point. My own introduction to digital was scanning my 35mm film originals, followed by tweaking in PS and sending digital files to print. Which seemed very sensible at the time since my scanner resolution was in excess of the dslr's of the day. It worked well up to a certain print size, but a 'full-frame' digital camera will these days produce images with greater resolution than a 35mm film camera, and more equivalent to medium format film. However sometimes the texture of film (random grain) can be a benefit (less clinical). Think of vinyl versus cd's - but forget please about mp3's (ugh).

mjmountain said:
I've often thought it'd be good if someone made (and it may exist I just may not be aware of it)a "back to basics" camera with a decent sensor. No auto mode, no fancy different focus tracking systems. Just dials for ISO, Shutter speed and Aperture (aperture could even be on the lens). Settings for flash compensation with manual focus. Really stripped down and made to be compatible with older manual lenses.
Click to expand...
That would suit me too, but it obviously wouldn't be mainstream.

There are more than three ways to skin a cat. And nobody has to stick to just one of them. The main thing, I think, is to be as fully aware as possible about what you're doing. Different types of subject matter, too, can need different approaches. I feel that it's all an adventure.

For my own practice, I still use film - 35mm or mf - and enjoy that, but my main workhorse is a dslr that holds well in the hand and has a certain heft, along with a bright optical vf, and - here's the Luddite bit - mf lenses. But then, I'm not trying to photograph greyhounds or birds in flight.

It's an arena - we can just do what suits us. The field is open.
 
Last edited:
petersmart said:
I cannot see what the pleasure of working with films is
Click to expand...

Oddly enough (for a film photographer!) I agree with that. I don't derive any pleasure from using film, or the necessary evils of developing (and scanning in my case). I use film for a couple of reasons; firstly, I can get a print quality from large format black and white that I can't get with digital (although I'll admit I haven't tried anything with a larger resolution than a Sony a7rii) and secondly, I find that I work better with a large format camera as the working method suits me in a way that eye level hand held cameras don't.

For me, the aim is to produce a print, and everything else is secondary. Even producing versions to display on the internet.

I can see the fun in playing with old cameras, ones that I could never afford in the 1960s or that I couldn't justify as not needing 20 different 35mm SLRs :D
 
I decided last summer that I wanted to start shooting film again. I've shot film in the past (I'm nearly 50) but not in a serious 'photography' way, it was just the usual snapshots that everyone used to take on film because that was all that was available. After completing a (mostly digital) Photo 366 project last year, I've pretty much exclusively shot film in 2017 and enjoy the process much more than shooting digital. Shooting film has a tactile feeling that I don't get from digital - the loading of the film, the physical sensation of the film moving through the camera after each shot, the anticipation at seeing the results - all these things are pleasurable to me as someone who does this for personal enjoyment.

It's not an equipment thing either. While I like the sensation of using film cameras, I wouldn't use them if I didn't get photographs I was happy with. I also like the look that film gives me, even if it lacks (with 35mm) the pin-sharp resolution that I can get using my digital gear, and while the look of film stocks can be replicated to an extent digitally, for me it's not the same. In a way I suppose it's a little like listening to music on vinyl - you have to remove the album from the sleeve, you have to put it on the turntable, the recording may suffer from imperfections, and you have to flip it over after a few songs, but there's nontheless something enjoyable to some in that experience that means they will forego the obvious convenience of having thousands of crystal-clear tracks instantly available via a digital music player.

I've also become a much more deliberate photographer since shooting film. With digital, I'd see something that might make a nice shot, and then take a bunch of pictures, check the results on the LCD, and then go through the results to get the best one on the computer. As each frame of film has an actual cost, I don't do that, instead spending my time working the scene to get the composition I want, waiting for the light, and then, quite often, deciding that it's not really a shot worth taking anyway and looking for something better. As a result, the percentage of shots I like against the volume of shots taken has risen considerably. Obviously, this same technique is one that can (and probably should) translate equally to digital photography, and I've toyed with the idea of taking my DSLR or MFT camera out and limiting myself to 36 shots (and no chimping) just for the fun of it.

At the end of the day, photography is a pastime for me, so I don't have the same overheads or concerns that might impact me if I were to be professional / commercial, and at present I just enjoy shooting film more than shooting digitally. I wouldn't say film is better or worse than digital, but it's certainly something that I get more pleasure from right now. These are just my personal reasons for enjoying film photography, and I'm sure that many will see the same things as the reasons why they don't shoot film. Each to their own, I guess. :)
 
Last edited:
It's like having cabinet making, carving or any woodworking craft as a hobby. Not much fun or craftmansshift left when the garage is turned in to a fully automated CNC workshop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
It's like having cabinet making, carving or any woodworking craft as a hobby. Not much fun or craftmansshift left when the garage is turned in to a fully automated CNC workshop.
Click to expand...

If what we did was automated then I'd agree.

If we spent more time analyzing our photographs as we did analyzing gear we’d make much better photographs no matter what that gear is.

David Duchemin
Click to expand...
 
ancient_mariner said:
If what we did was automated then I'd agree.
Click to expand...
Im glad you noticed my signature and understand you see an irony in my posting here quoting Duchemin.

Well this isnt a thread about image quality, the Udgrading to....?, which camera is best for.........? Im unsatisfied with my pics.......... which camera will do......?

Its a thread about the joy of photography or at least the joy of a part of photography as a hobbyist.
Some say the camera is just a tool and all that matters is the end result but while I agree that we all wants to do the best we can and achieve the best possible images its, to me at least, not everything.
To me photography is about having fun and enjoying using the camera and the processes afterwards, developing film, seeing the images appear on the paper and framing them.
Its not all about how good the endresult can be if....... but doing something I enjoy and doing the best I can to be better at it. If its not fun or rewarding in the process I dont care how good the endresults get.
That said I do have fun playing strobist, doing long exposures and macro etc using my A6000, I just have more fun shooting a 4x5 or my RZ67ProII
 
Dissatisfied no, but it depends what you define as the challenge.

I strive for the best SooC shot I can get, in part because my PP skills are rubbish.

I know quite a few folk who just take a shot and say, nah, I'll fix that in PP. To their credit they can.
 
JohnM100 said:
Dissatisfied no, but it depends what you define as the challenge.

I strive for the best SooC shot I can get, in part because my PP skills are rubbish.

I know quite a few folk who just take a shot and say, nah, I'll fix that in PP. To their credit they can.
Click to expand...

Shooting raw has real advantages even with limited processing skills and I think you'll probably have to put just as much effort into your jpegs and getting them right in camera as I put into shooting raw, doing basic processing and saving as jpeg.
 
soeren said:
Im glad you noticed my signature and understand you see an irony in my posting here quoting Duchemin.

Well this isnt a thread about image quality, the Udgrading to....?, which camera is best for.........? Im unsatisfied with my pics.......... which camera will do......?

Its a thread about the joy of photography or at least the joy of a part of photography as a hobbyist.
Some say the camera is just a tool and all that matters is the end result but while I agree that we all wants to do the best we can and achieve the best possible images its, to me at least, not everything.
To me photography is about having fun and enjoying using the camera and the processes afterwards, developing film, seeing the images appear on the paper and framing them.
Its not all about how good the endresult can be if....... but doing something I enjoy and doing the best I can to be better at it. If its not fun or rewarding in the process I dont care how good the endresults get.
That said I do have fun playing strobist, doing long exposures and macro etc using my A6000, I just have more fun shooting a 4x5 or my RZ67ProII
Click to expand...

I appreciate the pleasure in using 'nice' technology, pleasing equipment etc, and that sometimes it's about the process too. I just can't agree with your comparison.

Perhaps it's because I've used a variety of cameras when film was all we had that actual film photography holds no magic for me, though I liked the handling of the kit in some cases then, and would like a Nikon Df for that reason now. I love digital, because it makes possible many of the things I did in the darkroom, but easily & repeatably, and without all that mucking about with trays of chemicals. There's a lot to be said for creating an image that was shaped by placing ones own hands in the light beam from the enlarger in order to burn & dodge, but in all honesty Lightroom can be controlled much more easily for a similar and just as directly controlled result.

But y'know, if you enjoy it then why not - if you're using a half-plate camera effectively then you should have some serious skills. Just don't make a comparison that suggests those using current kit are doing something inferior.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I appreciate the pleasure in using 'nice' technology, pleasing equipment etc, and that sometimes it's about the process too. I just can't agree with your comparison.

Perhaps it's because I've used a variety of cameras when film was all we had that actual film photography holds no magic for me, though I liked the handling of the kit in some cases then, and would like a Nikon Df for that reason now. I love digital, because it makes possible many of the things I did in the darkroom, but easily & repeatably, and without all that mucking about with trays of chemicals. There's a lot to be said for creating an image that was shaped by placing ones own hands in the light beam from the enlarger in order to burn & dodge, but in all honesty Lightroom can be controlled much more easily for a similar and just as directly controlled result.

But y'know, if you enjoy it then why not - if you're using a half-plate camera effectively then you should have some serious skills. Just don't make a comparison that suggests those using current kit are doing something inferior.
Click to expand...
Inferior??? No no, not Inferior. A modern Mercedes is a better car than a sixties Triumf or MG but the experience of driving...... Why do kayaking or rowing round Fyn ( Danish Island Funen) when it's faster and more comfortable in a motor yacht? It's not about efficiency, better or inferior it's about the experience in the process.
 
soeren said:
Inferior??? No no, not Inferior. A modern Mercedes is a better car than a sixties Triumf or MG but the experience of driving...... Why do kayaking or rowing round Fyn ( Danish Island Funen) when it's faster and more comfortable in a motor yacht? It's not about efficiency, better or inferior it's about the experience in the process.
Click to expand...

And one might feel even more in touch with what's happening in the sea by swimming, although that's much less efficient than either kayak or motorboat. The idea of kayaking around the Danish coast sounds good too, if rather hard work.

I have realised from your post that you're not British, and I may therefore have misunderstood what you meant. My problem was with the idea that creation of a digital image was automated compared to the process of taking pictures with film, and that by being automated the photographer was less in touch with the images they were creating.
 
Some Bloke said:
Wow! Thanks everybody for your contributions to the thread. To follow on from some of the points raised:

The replacing of the capacitor was interesting, and appeals to my "let's take it apart and see how it works" nature, so I might give it a go.

If I think about it I am probably more interested in the technicalities of taking the photo than I am with the finished photograph. Plus, to be completely honest, I just love the feel and sound of old film cameras. Also, for me, there's something to be said for revisiting cameras that were out of my reach when they were launched.

Never had, or even looked at having, a CSC. They might be better suited to my personality though. Pretty taken with the Fuji models.

Phil
Click to expand...

I was about to say buy or try a Fuji X series but it looks like you've already at least played with the idea, for me it brought me back from "selling the lot" to enjoying it again, it's part results, part weight/size and a big part the experience of using it, and frankly I'm not that good [emoji4]
 
ancient_mariner said:
And one might feel even more in touch with what's happening in the sea by swimming, although that's much less efficient than either kayak or motorboat. The idea of kayaking around the Danish coast sounds good too, if rather hard work.

I have realised from your post that you're not British, and I may therefore have misunderstood what you meant. My problem was with the idea that creation of a digital image was automated compared to the process of taking pictures with film, and that by being automated the photographer was less in touch with the images they were creating.
Click to expand...
Darned what gave me away :D
 
I too feel the same way , I'll take a digital out shoot plenty of shots and then delete 90% of them then never look at the rest again. Compared to film where I will only take a few each time I take the camera out, I'll put plenty of effort in choosing the settings (old manual cameras) and the photo it's self and then find myself cherishing each photo and staring into them each time I look. The idea of mixing computers with photography also upsets me partly as photography for me is an excuse for getting out in the real world.
 
Hi All,

In the last couple of weeks I managed to get a replacement capacitor for my X300 and thought I'd take a stab at a repair. All went well but it didn't work, so obviously this wasn't the problem.

In the meantime I got hold of a pretty grotty SRT 201, body only, which appeared to have been stored in a garden shed without case or body cap.

So, following videos and advice on the internet I substantially dismantled it, cleaned everything and resoldered a loose wire. Just finished the reassembly and everything seems perfect, even unstuck the light meter. It now sports the lens from the X300 and I'm pleased as punch. Going to run a roll through over the coming week and see how they turn out.

Lesson learned, for me at least, is to stick with mechanical cameras, I kind of prefer mechanical old cameras anyway. With that in mind, I've just picked up a near mint Praktica body which appears to have been constructed from a recycled panzer IV.

Thanks to all for your interest, commentary and advice. I'll post some photo's from the SRT, good, bad, or, ugly, when they're ready.
 
I'm glad it's not just me that's thinking that way. I've been into photography since I was a teenager, and despite owing some high-quality 35mm SLR cameras I was an early adopter of digital cameras, buying a 1.3mp Fuji in Dixon's January sale in the late 90s. :cool: Image quality was passable, but it was so handy for work-related use... no more trekking to the local high-street chemist and paying extra for a 1 hour develop & print service, then scanning prints to put into a report (which would probably take half a day to deliver and collect the film and scan the prints). Plus, I could check the photos were OK before I left the site. Fantastic!

Roll forward over 15 years... in 2014 I bought a Canon 6D and a couple of L series zoom lenses; I think it's a wonderful camera/system, you can be as creative as you want or put it in full 'auto' and, as long as you frame the shot well, I find it will consistently deliver lovely looking photos. After using the 6D for a while I still think it's a great camera, but I started to get that niggling feeling that photography had become a little too easy. I somehow felt that I didn't deserve such consistently good results. I know that probably sounds a bit odd, but film photography can be a cruel mistress, get things a bit 'out' and you've probably blow it. However, the reward for getting it right... well, that's a good feeling.

Plus, there's also that certain 'look' to film that digital doesn't have. It's probably like comparing a very good digital music recording with a very good analogue vinyl LP recording... the digital recording is clear, clinically-precise, no background hiss or crackles and pops, and it's convenient and easy to take around with you to listen to on a variety of different devices. The vinyl recording might have the odd imperfection and you'll need a good quality record player and hi-fi system to appreciate it, so it's not portable, but the sound has a certain warmth, depth and 'feel' to it.

So am I taking rot? Well, judge for yourself; both these shots were taken on the same day in similar lighting conditions; they're nothing special, just typical 'record' type shots of a country event. The first is digital from my Canon 6D and 24-105 L lens; the second is from my Canon EOS-3 35mm SLR with an old (and not outstanding) Mk1 Canon 75-300 IS lens (NB the film version was 'home scanned' using a flatbed photo scanner, so the quality would have been better if I'd gone for a high-quality photo-lab scan).

So, which one of the two do you prefer the look of... then which one do you think carries the 'feel' of a fine September day in England, to the extent that you can perhaps almost hear the tractor and faintly smell the warm stubble field?

Trac russel. by J White, on Flickr

img443a by J White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top