Wow...! or just What?

chuckles

chuckles

Messages
4,470
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
Since goodness knows when (probably 1971?) I've been interested in the World of Nikon. I think this was fuelled by a friend who even had a subscription to Nikon workshop manuals and got updates every month or so!

Over the years I've been invested in the World of Nikon (apart from a brief courtship/affair with the Mistress Olympus - much to my friend's disgust) and even now I have Cameras and lenses from the early F era (I'm missing an F2). Every now and then we have a "family gathering" and they get air and a clean.

Just out of interest I looked on Evilbay to see about making the family more complete - what a shock, and I mean SHOCK!!!! Prices in the £80-£90 for kit that was 'state of the art' - what happened? (More rhetorical for I know what happened)

Still reeling - not for the lack of monetary worth - but how we find ourselves, photographically.
 
Feel just the same when i think what i paid for Bronica lenses,a time machine would be handy.
 
mikew said:
Feel just the same when i think what i paid for Bronica lenses,a time machine would be handy.
Click to expand...

Yeah... know what you mean Mike. Got one of those too - and a nice wide-angle zoom for it!
 
•
In my props room there is a glass shelf furniture with the retired equipment:
RZ67 system + 4 lenses, P2 4x5 system 3 lenses, F3's, F4E x2 +8 Nikkor lenses…
a heart braking scene!
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
•
In my crop room there is a glass shelf furniture with the retired equipment:
RZ67 system + 4 lenses, P2 4x5 system 3 lenses, F3's, F4E x2 +8 Nikkor lenses…
a heart braking scene!
Click to expand...

Think I'm going to have to create a museum - as opposed to a graveyard!
 
chuckles said:
Think I'm going to have to create a museum - as opposed to a graveyard!
Click to expand...
•
I said retired, not dead yet (just can't let go!) …not quite ready for the museum or the graveyard either.
 
•
…oh Bill! put that thing away… you sadist!
No don't, I still have masochistic tendencies…
 
chuckles said:
Still reeling - not for the lack of monetary worth - but how we find ourselves, photographically.
Click to expand...

You only need to find yourself there photographically if you choose to. What's sad is the way people feel these excellent cameras are now redundant due to technological advances. Also depending who/what you shoot for. If it's purely hobby/amateur/pleasure use, there is no reason at all why any of the cameras mentioned above have to be retired. I only use digital now for weddings and even there I am introducing film. I went to Iceland in March on the TP trip and shot everything except the Aurora exclusively with kit that pre-dates me. A Hasselblad 500c/m and Leica M2. I also regularly use a Canon AE-1 and various Polaroid cameras with either Impossible Project film or the Fuji peel apart stuff.

You know TP has a film section, right? :)
 
•
Gentlemen,
I hereby, officially, declare you all a bunch of romantic, crying over gear nostalgia!
I recognize, as officially, that I find solace in this solidarity! ;-)
 
manualfocus-g said:
Hook that lens off and use it on another camera with an adapter :D It's very good stopped down a little ;)
Click to expand...

Why with an adapter? It'll work with any Nikon - the beauty of the long-lifed F-mount! You just an eye to focus it with :)

ETA - almost all Nikons (not many excluded)
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
•
Gentlemen,
I hereby, officially, declare you all a bunch of romantic, crying over gear nostalgia!
I recognize, as officially, that I find solace in this solidarity! ;-)
Click to expand...

Vive la fraternité !!!
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Why with an adapter? It'll work with any Nikon - the beauty of the long-lifed F-mount! You just an eye to focus it with :)

ETA - almost all Nikons (not many excluded)
Click to expand...

Just be careful if it's not been ai'd ;)

I had the same lens on my Canon 6D, the glass looks massive! As an aside, that's a beautiful looking camera/lens combo :)
 
I have used the 55mm f1.2 on M43 bodies and on certain Nikon DSLR's - the lens was a non Ai lens which I converted to Ai..... but even so if you look at the Nikon compatibility chart they do not recommend that even the Ai version be used on certain bodies .......... always refer to the Nikon compatibility chart
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
always refer to the Nikon compatibility chart
Click to expand...

Yes - that's true. There were some older lenses which have a deep rear element which could impact with the rising mirror.
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Now that's an awesome piece of engineering!
Click to expand...


Indeed. Full mechanical, small, light... 1/4000th shutter and 1/250th flash sync, which is still not too shabby even today! It's so easy to use fast as well, despite being full manual. If you've ever seen documentaries on Bill Cunningham, you'll see how fast you can use a FM2 once you get some practice in with a manual camera. I loved mine, and regret selling it.

Since getting back into shooting more film, and using 120 again, I realise how sterile and boring digital can be. I think it's digital that has made me hate cameras of late... they're just sterile, boring, utile things. My D800E is fantastic of course... as is my D600 and 610, but it has no soul. I'm not just talking about the cameras either.. digital photography has no soul.
 
Last edited:
Since getting back into shooting more film, and using 120 again, I realise how sterile and boring digital can be. I think it's digital that has made me hate cameras of late... they're just sterile, boring, utile things. My D800E is fantastic of course... as is my D600 and 610, but it has no soul. I'm not just talking about the cameras either.. digital photography has no soul.
Click to expand...

I think this every day.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Danm right. I'm on the lookout for a mint FM2n now.
Click to expand...

I have a very nice FE2 which was a gift from a member of another forum. It was given away as spares or repair as it had a dent in one of the shutter pieces. However, after a bit of pressing back into shape, it now works perfectly.

I was also given a Series E 50mm and a 28mm Nikkor by a member of yet another forum. Add the Series E 135mm lens I already had and there's a good setup for when I don't want to bother with a separate meter (when I do, a Nikon F will come with me).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Indeed. Full mechanical, small, light... 1/4000th shutter and 1/250th flash sync, which is still not too shabby even today! It's so easy to use fast as well, despite being full manual. If you've ever seen documentaries on Bill Cunningham, you'll see how fast you can use a FM2 once you get some practice in with a manual camera. I loved mine, and regret selling it.
Click to expand...

And with an MD12(?) you get a clean sensor 3.5 times a second!
 
Of course digital has soul, it has fewer or different shortcomings to film but that just means it has different soul, a different personality, and you can always add grain and scratches and anything else you fancy to a better digital image later.

Kit wise there's nothing wrong with liking old cameras, prefering knurled metal dials to plastic buttons or prefering the look of film but you can do these things without thinking digital has no soul, it's just different.
 
woof woof said:
Of course digital has soul, it has fewer or different shortcomings to film but that just means it has different soul, a different personality, and you can always add grain and scratches and anything else you fancy to a better digital image later.
Click to expand...


Is that what you think I mean by soul? Having scratches? Dear chap.. NONE of my analogue images have scratches, spots, hairs, or anything else.. they're as clean as my digital shots. If you get any of the above, then you need a clean darkroom.


woof woof said:
Kit wise there's nothing wrong with liking old cameras, prefering knurled metal dials to plastic buttons or prefering the look of film but you can do these things without thinking digital has no soul, it's just different.
Click to expand...

Nah... it's sterile. It's not about the cameras either really. It's about the love, care and attention you have to give in order to get the best from it. It rewards you. Digital is just too easy. Then there's the material aspect, particularly when considering black and white printing.

I love digital...(you may have noticed I use it all the time) but it definitely has no soul. That's not to say the PHOTOGRAPHY produced with it has no soul... just the medium itself. It's neutral. It's a means of transmission. It's a bit like a Kindle: You can read the same books on it equally as easily, but the device has no soul - it's transparent.... it does nothing to enhance the enjoyment of the book, whereas a real book FEELS better.... SMELLS better... LOOKS better. Same book... one is delivered via a sterile medium, the other via a medium with inherent qualities that make the experience better.

It's the same with photography. I can take an image on a digital camera, make it black and white, and print it on a 9900 on nice heavy paper, but it still doesn't compare to a real silver based negative, lovingly exposed, developed correctly with that exposure in mind, then beautifully printed on unglazed, gloss fibre based paper. There's just no comparison. It's not because of the image quality either. A D8xx is not far behind a decent 6x7 neg... it's like with the kindle... it's the materiality and experience.

Digital has no soul.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Is that what you think I mean by soul? Having scratches? Dear chap.. NONE of my analogue images have scratches, spots, hairs, or anything else.. they're as clean as my digital shots. If you get any of the above, then you need a clean darkroom.




Nah... it's sterile. It's not about the cameras either really. It's about the love, care and attention you have to give in order to get the best from it. It rewards you. Digital is just too easy. Then there's the material aspect, particularly when considering black and white printing.

I love digital...(you may have noticed I use it all the time) but it definitely has no soul. That's not to say the PHOTOGRAPHY produced with it has no soul... just the medium itself. It's neutral. It's a means of transmission. It's a bit like a Kindle: You can read the same books on it equally as easily, but the device has no soul - it's transparent.... it does nothing to enhance the enjoyment of the book, whereas a real book FEELS better.... SMELLS better... LOOKS better. Same book... one is delivered via a sterile medium, the other via a medium with inherent qualities that make the experience better.

It's the same with photography. I can take an image on a digital camera, make it black and white, and print it on a 9900 on nice heavy paper, but it still doesn't compare to a real silver based negative, lovingly exposed, developed correctly with that exposure in mind, then beautifully printed on unglazed, gloss fibre based paper. There's just no comparison. It's not because of the image quality either. A D8xx is not far behind a decent 6x7 neg... it's like with the kindle... it's the materiality and experience.

Digital has no soul.
Click to expand...
You old romantic ;)
 
I'm not too comfortable using the term "soul" but I'll try and run with it...

You make a good case and the love shines and I see where you're coming from but someone else may pour that care and love into a different tech and process. You don't have to use a digital point and shoot and direct print onto toilet paper but even if you do you can do it with passion and soul and it could be art, maybe.

I was in at (almost, I'm not quite old enough) the start of the digital age. I worked on kit during the transition from analogue to digital, from discrete components to gated through logic and on to processors and aplication specific and in my spare time I worked on cars with the simplest electrical systems. I'm sure for some it's easier to see the soul in an old MG than a circuit board but I got really sucked in to electronics and staying with a product from MK1 to MK10 over the years I saw the MK10 as a work of art and in fact it went on display in a nice case :D I saw beauty in that MK10 and for me it was art.

I do see and understand the appeal of film and old cars and other things that have soul and there's a place in my life and in my heart for these things but maybe because I was more immersed in digital than many I'm more willing to see more in it. For me it is more than transport, it's not a souless process and it does have something more but... as I said I'm not too comfortable with using the world "soul" about these things. Passion and love, yes.

You could if you wanted express your passion for film without denying digital a soul, as you put it. As often on this forum it's the certainty that phases me. For you it's a done deal and you're clear in your own mind. I'm not so sure and in fact I see the appeal of both. If you'd been as passionate without saying that digital has no soul I wouldn't have posted and I may have agreed but I do disagree with viewing digital as souless transport, maybe it is for you but digital too has its appeal (and soul but I don't like using that term) if you're the sort who can see and embrace it.

To be an old romantic you don't have to denigrate the new girl. She's lovely too.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I do see and understand the appeal of film and old cars and other things that have soul and there's a place in my life and in my heart for these things but maybe because I was more immersed in digital than many I'm more willing to see more in it. For me it is more than transport, it's not a souless process and it does have something more but... as I said I'm not too comfortable with using the world "soul" about these things. Passion and love, yes.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with the age, or simplicity of a system. Using cars as the analogy as you are, my Mustang is a modern car. It has a sophisticated engine management system, canbus system, audio system etc, variable electronically controlled valve timing... it has all that modern cars have, but it's got soul to me because it's not merely utile. It's got quirks and character. It's flawed, and you need to work at it to get the best from it. A Nissan GTR can get you around a corner really quickly because of all it's electronic driver aids... it's sterile (Yes, I've driven one... quickly). It's boring. There's no challenge. The Mustang, if treated with the same abandon, will kill you. You get that around a corner on a track quickly, in good shape and it's down to you, not electronic diffs, and computer controlled suspension. You did it... because the damned car is trying to kill you at every available opportunity.

It's the same with film for me. You get it wrong, or lack the skill, you end up with a load of crap that can't be recovered in post process. A bad negative is a bad negative... the end. I see this with students over and over again.. nice shiny portfolios, yet give them a film camera they turn in work dramatically less impressive. You basically do not need the same amount of technical skill with digital (except lighting - you always need good lighting no matter whether it's digital or analogue). If you did, then they'd be just as capable of getting the same good results with film, but they're not. This is even more the case when we're talking about processing and printing black and white. That takes a LOT of skill and practice to become masterful at that.

woof woof said:
You could if you wanted express your passion for film without denying digital a soul, as you put it. As often on this forum it's the certainty that phases me. For you it's a done deal and you're clear in your own mind. I'm not so sure and in fact I see the appeal of both. If you'd been as passionate without saying that digital has no soul I wouldn't have posted and I may have agreed but I do disagree with viewing digital as souless transport, maybe it is for you but digital too has its appeal (and soul but I don't like using that term) if you're the sort who can see and embrace it.
Click to expand...

You saying I don't embrace digital? How can you say that. I work almost exclusively with digital. It's not that often I shoot film actually. I love digital. I'm not saying it's bad... I'm saying it's sterile. There's nothing tangible... it's data.. there's nothing to literally get hold of. You're not making any things... just data. Even if you print it... it lacks the materiality that a fine black and white print has, or a beautiful colour slide on a light box. I do hate digital cameras though - just electronic goods... utile, ugly things.

woof woof said:
To be an old romantic you don't have to denigrate the new girl. She's lovely too.
Click to expand...

I have nothing bad to say about digital. Saying it's sterile and lacks soul is more a description than a major criticism. It's very transparency, and lack of materiality is a major plus to some people. It's ease of use and lack of barriers to access it has given many photographers the ability to produce interesting work that they would never have had the skill to do in the pre-digital age. It's done wonders for photography... but it's also killed so many things along the way. Technical skill being one of them. With film you had absolutely no choice in the matter: To raise your work above the mainstream family snap, you needed far more skill than you do now. I know this annoys the digital crowd, but it's true. If it wasn't, you'd be able to hand a film camera to any exclusively digital photographer, and they'd be able to get the same results as they do with a digital system. The reality is, most can't manage that. A camera is a camera... a shutter, an aperture and a lens, yet they can't produce the goods on film because all the work happens while they're sat on their arse at the computer. Take away their processing and they're screwed.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Is that what you think I mean by soul? Having scratches? Dear chap.. NONE of my analogue images have scratches, spots, hairs, or anything else.. they're as clean as my digital shots.
Click to expand...

It annoys me that a lot of people perceive 'the film look' to be scratched and/or faded.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It annoys me that a lot of people perceive 'the film look' to be scratched and/or faded. Steve.
Click to expand...
Just my clumsy way of stating that you can make a clinical and perfect digital image look like an old print that's been in your wallet 30 years.

Pookeyhead said:
You saying I don't embrace digital? How can you say that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. You made that bit up.

As is often the case with you it's your certainty that phases me. I don't see the need to make sweeping statements such as "digital has no soul" and when I read statements like that and the other sweeping generalisations you make about digital, I do wonder about the certainty behind them. Digital may have no soul to you but that doesn't make it universally so and I disagree with the view. I think it just has different soul.

But, instead of constant debating it with you I'll point you at a blog I often read. If you have the time and inclination you can search for the bits on digital printing and if after reading them you still believe that digital has no soul then I've done my best.... look for bits from Ctein, the guys is an artist, he's passionate and it's infectious and others on that site don't do bad either...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
 
woof woof said:
As is often the case with you it's your certainty that phases me.
Click to expand...

It's just my opinion. It can only be. I am certain of my own opinion, yes, but I'm aware that yours may differ from mine, of course. I am however, certain of my opinion. Why shouldn't I be? If you're bothered, it's your job to convince me otherwise... or just ignore me. That's up to you :)

I've read that blog before... as most people have. I'm not sure what's supposed to convince me on there. Some guy getting his geek on about printing? You seem to think I know nothing about digital printing. I do a great deal of it Alan, to exhibition standard,where I'm sitting on my arse at a computer. It has no soul. - Why do I need to read a blog about it?

Digital is easy. There's no challenge left. The challenge is in the work, and always should be - which is sometimes nice as I can just get on with it and have the photographic process taken care of by the auto pilot of experience, but it's nice to have to work hard at just achieving things on a technical level once in a while, and digital has long since stopped providing that challenge.

I have a huge music collection which I have been digitising for years. It's all in lovely lossless formats with high bitrates. Sounds fantastic, and to be honest, despite what audiophiles say, I can't hear the difference despite having excellent equipment, and hearing. However.... and here's the catch. With one I take a THING off a shelf... open the sleeve.. smell it.. touch it... feel it.... place it on a turntable... it's tangible.

The other.... I click an icon.

Now... that's an extreme. As with many photographers who have shot from the 80s right through until now, I'm as familiar with film as I am with digital, but even now when I shoot colour film, I am scanning negatives.. so even that hybrid method of producing work still has the tactile aspect. This is equivalent to the CD in my opinion. I still have to reach to the shelf... take down a THING... place it in the CD player.. from then on it's digital of course... but it's that idea that I have a THING that exists that's missing with digital for me. I have a physical thing I can look at, feel, touch, and still print the old fashion way if I choose.

Film responds differently. It has limitations, flaws and character. It has personality. You can recognise Ektar from Portra... you can see how well it's been exposed, and processed, or scanned... or even printed. Every negative is like a fossil record of how it was created when you've got enough experience. You can look at a black and white neg, and think, "Hmm... Pan F... looks a bit thin... but it prints fabulously, and there's shadow and highlight detail from a straight print... no extra work needed and no pre-flashing" and just KNOW that it was created by someone with skill who know that you can't just load up Pan F, go shooting on a sunny day, then give it 6.5 mins in stock ID11 and expect to get a decent negative.

Let's be honest. With a digital camera, you take a light reading, and you press the button, and you can pretty much do everything else at the computer, which is what the vast majority now do. That's fine. It's in many ways a good thing. It allows you concentrate on WHY you're there with a camera in the first place, so I'm all in favour of that. I do, genuinely love digital. I am absolutely certain in my mind however... that it is boring, too easy, sterile and utterly without soul as a medium.

 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Let's be honest. With a digital camera, you take a light reading, and you press the button, and you can pretty much do everything else at the computer
Click to expand...

Exactly the reason I went back to film not long after spending a fortune on a Nikon D100. It wasn't even a quality thing. I got some nice prints from its 6MP sensor and won a couple of competitions with it*. I just hated sitting at a computer adjusting things. I might as well have been at work using CAD.

(Charlie Waite judged one of them and I'm not going to argue with him!).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Film, digital, all the same to me. It's the pictures that interest me. That's where the 'soul' of a photograph lies. Not in the materials but in the image.

It doesn't matter a jot if a photograph like this is viewed as a fine gelatin print, on a screen or as a photocopy, it's power to move lies not in the medium of its presentation but in what you see.


:D
 
I don't think Digital has no soul, I just think its easy, some might say lazy. But that seems to be what we aim for. Making everything easy. For instance you can pretty much do anything with a mobile. Pay for things, do your banking, remote control anything. I'm pretty sure that is the future you rmobile will be your car key and your door key. But thats really moving away from photography and just giving examples or how we are producing a more lazy generation.

Digital makes people try to hard to get a good shot. You can keep trying and checking over and over. Half the joy or sadness of film is never knowing what you are going to see when you develop the shots!

One thing that film and digital share, is that if you don't have the eye for a good shot, you dont have an eye for a good shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top