The death of analogue photography.

Andysnap said:
Well I've kept well out of it...oh dammit.:eek:
Click to expand...

Same here as my knowledge on digi gear is very limited, but I did borrow my son's old Canon D450 (or whatever) and one look through the viewfinder put me off and gotta solve the problem with my Nex 3 as in some angles in bright sunlight can't see a blo*dy thing, maybe a black cloth over my head and camera would solve it. :rolleyes:
 
Mr Badger said:
Sorry... I couldn't believe my luck when you mentioned him!
Click to expand...

What 'luck'? That you managed to find something with Don McCullin using a different brand of camera? McCullin has always used a variety of different cameras and brands. You could have used this pic of him with an Olympus, to 'score points', if you'd really thought about it:

da3ee03a026f2915b16728a2f4f06c2c.jpg

But it's irrelevant. My point was that; when I was first learning about photography, Nikon was an iconic brand, used by people I looked up to. McCullin has spoken about the Nikons he used when he was covering various wars, like the Nikon F that stopped a bullet and saved his life (and carried on working!). It's things like that. Nothing to do with which brand is 'best' at all. So he's endorsing Canon these days; good luck to him. He could take better pics with a Kodak Instamatic than many people could manage with the very best technology has to offer. That's down to talent, nothing else.
 
Last edited:
I've been away from this thread for a while since my first post on page 1. Some interesting posts and I think despite the differences of opinion everything said is relevant to the thread title.
I have been watching numerous YouTube videos on film photography and the sheer number of these makes me think that if analogue photography is dying then no one told these people. Furthermore, a good number of these film shooters are 25 years and younger. People you'd believe would be happy just using their smartphones are confidently using 35mm and MF cameras.

I really want to get back into film - not because I think it is better but because I love the look of images shot on film; I cannot explain what I like about it - maybe the softness and haziness, the tones and textures and...the imperfections. But I also love digital and for me, it is possible to enjoy and appreciate both.
 
trypdal said:
Apologies - let me express my thoughts in simpler terms for you

-for MY needs, most cheap DSLRs and digital cameras are crippled by poor ergonomics, functionality and/or lack of features
-for MY needs, most expensive DSLRs are crippled by being too big, too heavy, too expensive, too full of useless buttons, displays, interfaces, modes and other computer-style features that distract me from my style of photography.

Your Z6. Congratulations on your purchase. Sounds like it works for you. For me, it's a crippled camera. It doesn't really show me the scene, but an arguably laggy digital representation of it via a digital 'viewfinder'. I don't need this. Also, it's way dearer than I'd be prepared to pay, it has features I don't need, and that distract me from taking photos, it has huge prime lenses, which are bulky and expensive, and wouldn't give me significantly better pictures than those I get with a tiny, simple Zuiko OM 50mm f/1.8. Again, by 'better' here I mean better for my taste.

Your D600. Great camera I'm sure. Too heavy, too expensive, too many buttons, too many dials for my taste. After a couple of hours hanging from my neck, I'd want to throw it away.

I can very much get what's available to work for me. I can get plenty of cheap beautifully designed old cameras to work for me.


Hope this clarified it for you.
Click to expand...

All it's 'clarified' is that you can't seem to get any digital camera to work well for you. And that you are creating a lot of needless reasons not to use one.


Your use of the word 'crippled' is both inappropriate, and in slightly poor taste, imo. No camera is 'crippled' unless it has had an existing feature or function removed. As for the Z6; ever used one? Doesn't sound like you have. I own one, alongside all my other cameras, including my old FM2, which is comparable to your FE. The Z6 is a better photographic tool, all round, than the FM2, regardless of medium. This is from nearly 30 years experience will all sorts of cameras, as I've mentioned before. Your perceived weaknesses of the Z6 ('laggy' viewfinder?) are unfounded. I've found the Z6 to perform brilliantly in the most demanding situations, such as really poorly lit clubs; no 'laggy' viewfinder issue that I have experienced. None of the features (that I don't 'need') distract me at all. Granted, the 50mm f1.8 is a relatively big bugger, but it's significantly optically superior to other 50mm lenses I've tried. I'd wager it's probably better than your old Zuiko (which, btw, I could use on my Z6, via an adapter...). The very short flange allows arguably better lens designs.


"I can very much get what's available to work for me. I can get plenty of cheap beautifully designed old cameras to work for me."

That's great. Enjoy. But why the need to imagine problems with digital cameras? To me, that is limiting, and even counter productive. But it's your choice.
 
Last edited:
southernjessie said:
I really want to get back into film - not because I think it is better but because I love the look of images shot on film; I cannot explain what I like about it - maybe the softness and haziness, the tones and textures and...the imperfections. But I also love digital and for me, it is possible to enjoy and appreciate both.
Click to expand...

This. This. This. This. Spot on mate.
 
Retune said:
It doesn't really matter whether you use Nikon or Canon,
Click to expand...
The real question is: do you use Contax or Leica? The Zeiss camera has that lovely long base rangefinder but the Leitz camera is cheaper (or it was until those darned communists got in on the act)

Kiev camera in ERC GH2 P1320261.JPG

:naughty: :naughty: :naughty:
 
I 'm going to hate myself for posting this, but still...

If the only film available was 35mm, and there were no large format cameras available either for a DIY approach, I'd be 100% digital. 35mm film just isn't good enough for my subjects, print size and visual sensibilities.

That said, digital has limitations that film doesn't have. Digital scores with high ISOs, but I don't need high ISO values except for snapshots and article illustrations (where digital IS better for the job), and due to personal weaknes (impatience, not physical!) I need the discipline of a tripod to make me take enough care over the exact camera position.

What I do need is high resolution and there is a limit on lens resolution set by diffraction. Even a full frame camera is still only 35mm frame size, so needs a lot of enlargement. A 20x16 print means 20 times, and the resolution is therefore cut by a factor of 20. This is a deal killer for me. And yes, I have printed A3 plus from a digital camera, and don't like the look of the print.

I'll admit that I'm obsessive about this; the reason lies in my negative files with all the negatives that I groan over because I can't make a decent sized print from them.

So there's the digital limitation - a 5x4 sensor that doesn't need tethering to a computer in the field, is capable of instantaneous exposures, and doesn't cost more than I'd spend on film and processing over my lifetime. Once we get cameras with 10x8 sensors at under £1000 I'll be interested. £1000 currently buys a 10x8 camera, film holder and a reasonable amount of film...

It's horses for courses, and for me large format film is the only way for me to get the results I want in the print, and simultaneously offers an easier to use camera. Others will have a different opinion.
 
Mr Badger said:
Snip:


I know exactly what your point was. I was having a laugh... you ought to try it sometime! ;)
Click to expand...


You were trying to score points. Admit it. ;)


StephenM said:
It's horses for courses, and for me large format film is the only way for me to get the results I want in the print, and simultaneously offers an easier to use camera. Others will have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for YOU. You have to appreciate you are in a very tiny minority of photographers. And ultimately, the vast majority of viewers won't care what you've shot it on; they'll judge the picture on its merits. You could spend hours traipsing for miles, lugging some anachronistic behemoth to a particular location, spend ages waiting for exactly the 'right' moment, then print it up massively on some über expensive paper, frame it all up, etc, and people might just walk past it and go 'meh'. It's really, really not about the kit, as far as the viewer is concerned. Most of the iconic photographs of the mid to late 20th century were shot on 35mm and medium format. No-one but you (and praps a small handful of others) cares about your 'obsession'.

That is not in any way meant to diminish what you or anyone else does. It's just about not losing sight of the end goal; to tell YOUR story of the world, To others. That's the whole point of photography. I've been steadily working through digitizing loads of old negs, and it's a slow, boring, laborious process. And tbh, there's not a lot that would be worth printing up by my current standards. But there's loads of moments I've captured, that are evocative of my life at that particular period; times spent with mates, a landscape that has changed, ideas Iwas trying out, the whole learning process. so, of some value to me, and possibly some others. Well worth getting into some sort of viewable archive. So; forget what YOUR standards are, and have another look through your old negs, and think about what OTHER people might be interested in looking at. Cos ultimately, without any viewers for our work, our best efforts are a complete waste of time.
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
You were trying to score points. Admit it. ;)
Click to expand...
If I was trying to score points I wouldn't have been as polite and helpful (hopefully) to you in the remainder of that post. (y)
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
think about what OTHER people might be interested in looking at. Cos ultimately, without any viewers for our work, our best efforts are a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

Really? But then surely you are shooting for other people and not yourself?

That means my efforts, regardless of best or not are a complete waste of time as I have no viewers. Aside form the odd image I drop onto Instagram, I don't do anything with them.
 
AZ6 said:
Yeah, for YOU. You have to appreciate you are in a very tiny minority of photographers. And ultimately, the vast majority of viewers won't care what you've shot it on; they'll judge the picture on its merits. You could spend hours traipsing for miles, lugging some anachronistic behemoth to a particular location, spend ages waiting for exactly the 'right' moment, then print it up massively on some über expensive paper, frame it all up, etc, and people might just walk past it and go 'meh'. It's really, really not about the kit, as far as the viewer is concerned. Most of the iconic photographs of the mid to late 20th century were shot on 35mm and medium format. No-one but you (and praps a small handful of others) cares about your 'obsession'.

That is not in any way meant to diminish what you or anyone else does. It's just about not losing sight of the end goal; to tell YOUR story of the world, To others. That's the whole point of photography. I've been steadily working through digitizing loads of old negs, and it's a slow, boring, laborious process. And tbh, there's not a lot that would be worth printing up by my current standards. But there's loads of moments I've captured, that are evocative of my life at that particular period; times spent with mates, a landscape that has changed, ideas Iwas trying out, the whole learning process. so, of some value to me, and possibly some others. Well worth getting into some sort of viewable archive. So; forget what YOUR standards are, and have another look through your old negs, and think about what OTHER people might be interested in looking at. Cos ultimately, without any viewers for our work, our best efforts are a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...



I can accept that it's not about the kit but the result. But you can't produce a photograph without a camera, and a camera is kit. I can't produce a photograph I like without the cameras I use.

And I flat out refuse to drop my standards because I'm told that others don't care. Ever hear of a "just noticeable difference"? Some prints can look wonderful until you place them side by side against a better one. I'm not into producing substandard work just because someone on a forum has the idea that my equipment and standards aren't to their liking. If you're so certain that the kit doesn't matter, why are you so disparaging about what I choose to use?

I produce my photographs for myself, not others. I believe in doing the best work I can, and if others like it, it's a bonus, but I don't produce photographs to win praise.

If this makes you uncomfortable, just move along.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The real question is: do you use Contax or Leica? The Zeiss camera has that lovely long base rangefinder but the Leitz camera is cheaper (or it was until those darned communists got in on the act)
:naughty::naughty::naughty:
Click to expand...
Just don't tell the classic Leica guys that the slow speed mechanism in the Leica III series was made by Zeiss subsidiary Gauthier!

And never mention this:

Hansa_Canon_Nikkor_Ad.jpg
 
Well I've kept well out of it.....ah, dammit again;)
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Really? But then surely you are shooting for other people and not yourself?

That means my efforts, regardless of best or not are a complete waste of time as I have no viewers. Aside form the odd image I drop onto Instagram, I don't do anything with them.
Click to expand...


StephenM said:
I produce my photographs for myself, not others. I believe in doing the best work I can, and if others like it, it's a bonus, but I don't produce photographs to win praise.
Click to expand...


No no no. You misunderstand. Always do your photography for YOU. I do it for ME, and I'll always remain my own harshest critic. But what I'm actually saying, is think of your viewers as well. Think about the story you want to write, not the paper it's written on. And if your work really has no viewers, then get out there and show it off. Others deserve to see your work as much as you deserve the right to be able to show it to them. Photography is a means of communication of ideas between Human Beings. That's why it was invented.

StephenM said:
And I flat out refuse to drop my standards because I'm told that others don't care. Ever hear of a "just noticeable difference"? Some prints can look wonderful until you place them side by side against a better one. I'm not into producing substandard work just because someone on a forum has the idea that my equipment and standards aren't to their liking. If you're so certain that the kit doesn't matter, why are you so disparaging about what I choose to use?
Click to expand...

I totally, totally get that. And of course it's good to push for the best possible quality in your work; I do a bit of woodwork. I like conceptualising, designing and making stuff. But I do get a bit bogged down in trying to make something perfect, and can lose sight of the point of it, which is ending up with a finished, practical product. So I really get the obsession with quality. But what I'm saying, is don't let that obsession stop you doing something. Like, of the only cam you have with you is your 'phone, don't let it's relatively inferior quality put you off taking a picture. Any photograph is better than no photo at all, no? Maybe not, to some of you. But it is to me; at least I now have that visual reminder of that fact, that moment in time. Don't let the limitations of the equipment available, limit you. Learn to work with those limitations, and learn to make them work for you, not against you. Because that will help make you a better photographer than any amount of fancy equipment. I'm not 'disparaging' any equipment. I'm just saying that it can be just as enjoyable using 'inferior' kit. Surely it's the doing, that is the fun bit, rather than the equipment used? It certainly was for me, when I first discovered the magic of photography, using a cheap old Praktica, and I hope that philosophy stays with me forever.
 
AZ6 said:
No no no. You misunderstand. Always do your photography for YOU. I do it for ME, and I'll always remain my own harshest critic. But what I'm actually saying, is think of your viewers as well. Think about the story you want to write, not the paper it's written on. And if your work really has no viewers, then get out there and show it off. Others deserve to see your work as much as you deserve the right to be able to show it to them. Photography is a means of communication of ideas between Human Beings. That's why it was invented.
Click to expand...

Now this I can totally agree with. Thanks. :)
As for sharing them. For me to share my photography, aside from being like a grain of sand in the wind, these days makes me feel rather self conscious and anxious for some reason. I find ‘putting myself out there’ really tough. Yes, I’ll drop the odd on on Instagram every few days but that’s as fas at it goes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well from my POV......


No I daren’t voice it, you really wouldn’t want me to voice it.

I will say ( AS A WIND UP[emoji12]!!!) that all kit outside of LF is nothing but subminiature and sub standard and offers equivalent results.


So who’s going to bite? [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
 
Asha said:
Well from my POV......


No I daren’t voice it, you really wouldn’t want me to voice it.

I will say ( AS A WIND UP[emoji12]!!!) that all kit outside of LF is nothing but subminiature and sub standard and offers equivalent results.


So who’s going to bite? [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Click to expand...

Dunno about LF but there is some truth in what you say in jest as posting here at 1000px X 860px a 6X7 and VG 35mm lens shot... it is sometimes difficult to spot the difference for the untrained eye.
 
I've always liked large format photographers, at least you know they can't bore you with an analogue slide show of their trip to Machu Picchu! ;)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I've always liked large format photographers, at least you know they can't bore you with an analogue slide show of their trip to Machu Picchu! ;)
Click to expand...

Lol! And they've only ever taken like about 3 pictures anyway... ;)

I can appreciate the place for LF cameras and photography, but to me, it's just far too much faffing about. I remember doing a bit of LF stuff in college; my ADHD kicked in long before the shutter was eventually fired. We were doing pics of each other, and all we really got were some very sharp pics of us all looking very bored. So, not great for portraiture imo, when you at least want your subject to look engaged, and not with their eyes glazed over having lost the will to live cos it's taken so long to set up the shot....

I spose it's a bit like a cathedral organ; you can pick up a recorder and instantly bang out a tune, but a big organ needs warming up, air pumped through the system, all sorts of things done before you can start playing. But then when it does get going, lordy. There's nothing else like it for producing sound. Once had the privilege of hearing some Bach played on the organ in Rouen cathedral; that moment will stay with me for life.

But returning to analogue photography; is it fair to say the LF, being the only group of formats still not provided for by digital technology (there aren't any huge LF sensors are there?), is still the ultimate in terms of absolute photographic quality? So it's place must be assured surely for a little while longer at least?
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Boring?!

glad you think I waste my time with boring pursuits.
Click to expand...
Yours are nicely put together, play to the characteristics of the film, and usually have a good soundtrack. We were talking about the boring holiday type produced by people like Howard and Hilda from the old sit com 'Ever Decreasing Circles'. Complete with live monotone narration by the projectionist! Send a glass eye to sleep, that would!
 
Last edited:
gazmorton2000 said:
glad you think I waste my time with boring pursuits.
Click to expand...
It has been said, with what truth I don't know, that one man's excitement is another woman's boredom. :naughty:
 
AZ6 said:
Lol! And they've only ever taken like about 3 pictures anyway... ;)

I can appreciate the place for LF cameras and photography, but to me, it's just far too much faffing about. I remember doing a bit of LF stuff in college; my ADHD kicked in long before the shutter was eventually fired. We were doing pics of each other, and all we really got were some very sharp pics of us all looking very bored. So, not great for portraiture imo, when you at least want your subject to look engaged, and not with their eyes glazed over having lost the will to live cos it's taken so long to set up the shot....

I spose it's a bit like a cathedral organ; you can pick up a recorder and instantly bang out a tune, but a big organ needs warming up, air pumped through the system, all sorts of things done before you can start playing. But then when it does get going, lordy. There's nothing else like it for producing sound. Once had the privilege of hearing some Bach played on the organ in Rouen cathedral; that moment will stay with me for life.

But returning to analogue photography; is it fair to say the LF, being the only group of formats still not provided for by digital technology (there aren't any huge LF sensors are there?), is still the ultimate in terms of absolute photographic quality? So it's place must be assured surely for a little while longer at least?
Click to expand...

I'd go as far as saying there's still a difference in look between medium format and digital, the larger format still renders space a bit differently compared to 35mm digi (even if you're in the ballpark resolution wise) and 645 digi is still a mid 5 figure investment. A good 645 film kit would be an eightieth of that. Large format takes that rendering of space further: there's something really special about the way a 300mm lens transforms space on 8x10, and on top of that the resolution is on par with the top end Phase One backs. 35mm is safe because it's the most popular format, but MF and LF are also safe since they offer something that digi can't economically do and in the case of MF you're using up the same master roll as you would when making 35mm. They're essentially the same initial product. Sheet film uses a thicker film base but again, all the formats are intertwined on many levels.

Portraiture with LF is a different beast altogether compared to portraiture with a smaller format. You can't rely on the speed of your camera to grab shots so you have to be really good at managing people and directing them. It's no wonder why Avedon had three assistants operating the camera while he talked to the sitter:

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/07/random-excell-1.html
 
These discussions bring to my mind a scene from Terry Pratchett's book "Thief of Time", in which a group of beings disassemble a famous painting into its constituent molecules as they attempt to discover why the painting is so revered.
 
Mr Badger said:
Yours are nicely put together, play to the characteristics of the film, and usually have a good soundtrack. We were talking about the boring holiday type produced by people like Howard and Hilda from the old sit com 'Ever Decreasing Circles'. Complete with live monotone narration by the projectionist! Send a glass eye to sleep, that would!
Click to expand...

WHS ^^^^
 
AZ6 said:
Lol! And they've only ever taken like about 3 pictures anyway... ;)

I can appreciate the place for LF cameras and photography, but to me, it's just far too much faffing about. I remember doing a bit of LF stuff in college; my ADHD kicked in long before the shutter was eventually fired. We were doing pics of each other, and all we really got were some very sharp pics of us all looking very bored. So, not great for portraiture imo, when you at least want your subject to look engaged, and not with their eyes glazed over having lost the will to live cos it's taken so long to set up the shot....

I spose it's a bit like a cathedral organ; you can pick up a recorder and instantly bang out a tune, but a big organ needs warming up, air pumped through the system, all sorts of things done before you can start playing. But then when it does get going, lordy. There's nothing else like it for producing sound. Once had the privilege of hearing some Bach played on the organ in Rouen cathedral; that moment will stay with me for life.

But returning to analogue photography; is it fair to say the LF, being the only group of formats still not provided for by digital technology (there aren't any huge LF sensors are there?), is still the ultimate in terms of absolute photographic quality? So it's place must be assured surely for a little while longer at least?
Click to expand...

The faffing about as you so delightfully express it is part of the LF process ( as I’m sure you are aware) ...... a process that I get a lot of pleasure from even if in the end I choose not to fire the shutter.

Clearly for you that pleasure isn’t/ wasn’t evident so therefore you don’t have to persue it nor do you have to criticize those that do enjoy the format. [emoji6]

I have taken a number of portraits for people locally and they have been delighted with the results ( The last lady requested several print copies and framed them for her children as Xmas presents) !
Be assured there is no glazed or bored look about her or any of the other subjects in their photographs.

The only loss of will to live that I recall experiencing came from none of my subjects but from myself when I was shooting digital and having to sit infront of a screen to view the results, often many many results , only to end up with very few that I was pleased with when printed A3 .

Lugging LF kit can be hard work at times but much harder is coping with the frustration of wasting time and effort with smaller formats only to come away with disappointing ( TO ME!!) results.
 
I've been on the other side of a 10x8 camera for a portrait. It was fast and painless - but then the photographer was experienced and knew what they were doing. There's no technical reason why a large format photograph should take much longer than any other kind if it's tripod based.
 
StephenM said:
I've been on the other side of a 10x8 camera for a portrait. It was fast and painless - but then the photographer was experienced and knew what they were doing. There's no technical reason why a large format photograph should take much longer than any other kind if it's tripod based.
Click to expand...

Ah well ya see cos I ain’t a clue what I’m doing, to avoid boring my subjects s***less, I cut out a cardboard “stand in”, to compose with while the real life person goes off for a meal and leaves me faffing about [emoji849]for a couple of hours [emoji23]
 
Asha said:
a process that I get a lot of pleasure from even if in the end I choose not to fire the shutter.
Click to expand...

..and some people spend hours watching tv, so whatever turns you on. I take my hat off to any LF photographer as I don't know why I've never been interested in shooting that format myself to get stunning quality shots. :rolleyes:
 
excalibur2 said:
..and some people spend hours watching tv, so whatever turns you on. I take my hat off to any LF photographer as I don't know why I've never been interested in shooting that format myself to get stunning quality shots. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
LF isn’t the be all and end all for obtaining stunning quality shots Bri. Such results can be obtained from all formats and mediums.
The quality I discuss relates to what is required to obtain a good quality print .... A3 is my préfèred size photograph and tbh for me 35mm negs simply don’t cut it.

But regardless of neg size and quality or lack of it, is our photography as a hobby not to be enjoyable and as such, use cameras / equipment that gives us pleasure.
Like many in here, I’ve used lots of film and digi outfits and often not felt at hone with many of them.
LF is what rocks my boat both in the apparatus required and it’s negative size even if it does have ( like akl cameras ) it’s drawbacks and limitations.
 
I have here, 'Looking East' by Steve McCurry. There are some stunning photos in there and they look great at A3 and for the most part they would have been shot on 35mm, probably Kodachrome. I imagine a print on a non-massed produced book would look even better.
 
I can believe that. Kodachrome was a wonderful film, and the prints I made from Kodachrome using Cibachrome are the best I've done, and beat any other colour prints I've made, including from digital cameras.

I was surprised to find how good the A3 prints were that I made from Epson V700 scans a few years back. Not as sharp and detailed as black and whites from 6x7 and larger negatives, but pretty good if you didn't have a standard to compare against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top