Wow...! or just What?

[DG Phototraining]

Prices in the £80-£90 for kit that was 'state of the art' - what happened?

I'm shocked too !!!

That anyone would pay that much for old tat, though I suppose as ornaments they'd be worth a fiver - maybe

We don't have anything old in our house - except me lol

Dave

 

[sk66]

It's not that the medium has no soul, it's the gear...

It's an "emotional connection" like some (I) have with old bikes/cars, or hand tools. It's like loving your SO in spite of/because of their imperfections as opposed to lusting after someone due to their beauty (and they would drive you insane).
I think some of it comes down to age/experience, maybe some don't know the difference... there's a kind of thrill that comes from running and old car/bike at the edge which is missing in a modern vehicle that can do the same (or better) with complete aplomb. There's a sense of satisfaction from doing fine craftsmanship with basic hand tools... And the same could be said for old film equipment.

But that doesn't make it "better." A CNC can do a better/more accurate/more consistent job than any craftsman with hand tools... I won't be trading in my modern vehicle for some cool old antique, and I won't be trading my digital gear to go back to film (I still have my F3, but it hasn't seen the light of day in ages).

 

[Ed Sutton]

It's not that the medium has no soul, it's the gear...

That's what lovers of bamboo rods say about carbon fibre. They're deluded too.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Film, digital, all the same to me. It's the pictures that interest me.

Absolutely, which is why I love digital. It's ease and simplicity doesn't get in the way of the primary goal... the subject. However... When you can bring both together - a great project, and the challenge of analogue, then photography becomes truly magical for me.

I do wonder what that Eugene Smith image woudl have looked like shot today on a digital camera though. Somehow I think it wouldn't be quite as magical.

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.

Who's this "we" you speak of? I'm bored of easy actually.

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.

I don't have a smart phone.

Digital makes people try to hard to get a good shot.

I disagree. It makes them lazy. I teach photography for a living, and I know first hand how lazy digital has made people.

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!

So it forces you to rely on skills you mean. Yes. You're correct.

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.

Absolutely. All the technical skill in the world will amount to nothing if you have the creativity of a house brick.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Oi Pookeyhead!!!!!!!!! Get your quotes right.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Oi Pookeyhead!!!!!!!!! Get your quotes right.

LOL..... sorry.... will correct in a minute... went on a ctrl-v fest


[edit]

Fixed

 

[Ed Sutton]

Ta.

 

[JJ!]

I disagree. It makes them lazy. I teach photography for a living, and I know first hand how lazy digital has made people.

I did say earlier it makes people lazy lol

 

[sk66]

I think digital *can* make people lazy *in the beginning.* That's because you don't have to learn/know much to get reasonable results. But as you advance and become more demanding of your results, digital becomes just as demanding... the only way it's "easier" is that you get to see/refine in real time (without shooting polaroids/using rush development).

Back in the day, if there was a shot you *had to get* you shot a bunch of rolls... it wasn't one shot and job done. Digital hasn't really changed that either, it's just made it more accessible to the average joe (and overused).

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think digital *can* make people lazy *in the beginning.* That's because you don't have to learn/know much to get reasonable results. But as you advance

And there's the problem. Many don't advance because it starts to become hard work.

There's a reason students love "available light".

Back in the day, if there was a shot you *had to get* you shot a bunch of rolls.

What?

I didn't. I'd occasionally do a 1 stop bracket to make sure.. still do if I don't have an incident meter with me, but I've never shot a bunch of rolls to ensure I got a shot. I would suggest anyone who needs to shoot a bunch of rolls to ensure they get the shot is crap. Even with 6x7 there's 10 shots per roll... so let's say by bunch you mean 3 or more... that's at least 30 shots to ensure you got it right? LOL.

I often had a regular client I handed unprocessed E6 to. I did so with confidence. This idea you need to see the image you took in order to get it right is a new, digital age phenomenon. I find seeing the image a distraction. I have the auto preview image thing turned off on my digital cameras. They're used just as film cameras were.

 

[frod]

why am I reminded of Ken Rockwell all of a sudden

 

[Pookeyhead]

why am I reminded of Ken Rockwell all of a sudden

No idea... I hate the t**t.

 

[frod]

 

[RaglanSurf]

•
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!

Please don't just leave them sitting on a shelf, cameras die in display cabinets just like dogs die in hot cars, get those cameras out and use them or sell them on or even give them away, there's lots of charities out there that introduce disadvantaged children to photography and they're always looking for kit.

 

[Ed Sutton]

This idea you need to see the image you took in order to get it right is a new, digital age phenomenon.

So what were Polaroid backs for?

 

[Steve Smith]

No idea... I hate the t**t.

I like him... but mainly because everyone else hates him!


Steve.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Please don't just leave them sitting on a shelf, cameras die in display cabinets just like dogs die in hot cars, get those cameras out and use them or sell them on or even give them away, there's lots of charities out there that introduce disadvantaged children to photography and they're always looking for kit.

•
In fact Nick, I don't think I will ever give those away! I occasionally us them when in
a research field trip where electricity is not available or reliable. These trips are the
only times I will use film.

 

[Pookeyhead]

So what were Polaroid backs for?

Quick proofs for styling, make up, lighting balance - quick rushes for art directors (remember, they want to see something... they're present at the shoot... they can't wait 6 hours to see if they're happy with what you're doing. Then of course, it's for lighting proofs too. Generally though, it's because people need to see a result straight away, and usually it wasn't the photographer.

 

[The23rdman]

Digital has no soul but film does? What utter tosh. The PHOTOGRAPHER and SUBJECT have soul - a piece of metal or plastic has no soul. They're all just tools.

 

[Steve Smith]

^ But some tools are nicer to use than others.


Steve.

 

[The23rdman]

^ But some tools are nicer to use than others.


Steve.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with soul.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Digital has no soul but film does? What utter tosh. The PHOTOGRAPHER and SUBJECT have soul - a piece of metal or plastic has no soul. They're all just tools.

I've already acknowledged this Dean. You're perfectly correct. I'm talking about the medium itself here. I think if you've ever read anything else by me on the subject of subject, then you'll realise this. It is perfectly possible to produce WORK with soul with any medium you choose. I'm talking about the medium itself... how it operates, how it demands certain things from you. I'm not saying everything shot on film has soul. If you're crap, you'll produce crap with whatever medium you choose, but digital, as a medium... as a process, is transparent - you can do anything with it, and be in full control at all times. Film cannot. It adds inherent characteristics that YOU have to work AROUND. It adds materiality.

Many people in this thread seem to be misunderstanding me. This is not an anti-digital rant, and nor am I saying that work on digital has no soul. Why would I? The vast majority of stuff I shoot is on digital.

 

[The23rdman]

I've already acknowledged this Dean. You're perfectly correct. I'm talking about the medium itself here. I think if you've ever read anything else by me on the subject of subject, then you'll realise this. It is perfectly possible to produce WORK with soul with any medium you choose. I'm talking about the medium itself... how it operates, how it demands certain things from you. I'm not saying everything shot on film has soul. If you're crap, you'll produce crap with whatever medium you choose, but digital, as a medium... as a process, is transparent - you can do anything with it, and be in full control at all times. Film cannot. It adds inherent characteristics that YOU have to work AROUND. It adds materiality.

Many people in this thread seem to be misunderstanding me. This is not an anti-digital rant, and nor am I saying that work on digital has no soul. Why would I? The vast majority of stuff I shoot is on digital.

Okay, I think that I get what you mean. I'd put it like this: working with film requires more attention and mindfulness, which often leads to an output that reflects this. Digital, on the other hand, allows one to shoot with almost complete freedom and abandon. Now, the interesting thing to consider is whether there is a way to shoot without mindfulness that can open the doorway to something other? As you know, I've been profoundly influenced by Phil Perkis of late. Perhaps the reason that he is not as popular as his peers is that he often encourages his students to shoot without planning - to be utterly spontaneous and unconscious, and allow something other than the Western model of intelligence take over.

Saying all of this, he would likely agree with you about film - he still shoots exclusively on film today. I guess that the reason I like digital for experimental work is that there is no risk - we can be free to shoot a lot of crap knowing that there is no financial cost, which encourages experimentation.

On the other hand, I am attracted to MF and LF film for some of my work so exactly to reasons mentioned earlier in this post - they encourage a more mindful and meditative approach, making each frame rather sacred.

I wonder if a decent experiment would be to go out with your digital body with a single very small CF or SD card only...

Edit: I'll ask my partner what Phil's thoughts were on this subject. She was taught by him for several years.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Okay, I think that I get what you mean. I'd put it like this: working with film requires more attention and mindfulness, which often leads to an output that reflects this. Digital, on the other hand, allows one to shoot with almost complete freedom and abandon. Now, the interesting thing to consider is whether there is a way to shoot without mindfulness that can open the doorway to something other?

Almost certainly. It's one of the things I've discussed in this thread. That very transparency allows me to work almost on auto pilot with regard to the technical process, as it's so easy these days. Wide dynamic range, the ability to easily control contrast etc... even without additional lighting. It still needs skill of course, but a skill level that's easy to attain, whereas film requires a wholly different level of discipline. Digital is however, a marvellous thing in most cases.

As you know, I've been profoundly influenced by Phil Perkis of late. Perhaps the reason that he is not as popular as his peers is that he often encourages his students to shoot without planning - to be utterly spontaneous and unconscious, and allow something other than the Western model of intelligence take over.

I would agree with this. Know your subject, love your subject, and just react to it in a way that feel intuitive. Go in with a prescriptive idea of how you're going to react and your effectively ignoring your subject. A lot to recommend this.

Saying all of this, he would likely agree with you about film - he still shoots exclusively on film today. I guess that the reason I like digital for experimental work is that there is no risk - we can be free to shoot a lot of crap knowing that there is no financial cost, which encourages experimentation.

Absolutely... every time I press the shutter, it costs me 50p... then add processing costs... then add the cost of paper, which for 20x24 FB is close to £230 for 50 sheets these days, and it promotes a totally different way of working, and it DOES show if you know what you're doing. The sad things these days is that even those who shoot on film always scan it. I do with colour now, but I'm still very much in favour of printing B&W the traditional way.

I wonder if a decent experiment would be to go out with your digital body with a single very small CF or SD card only...

Working with film for years has made this unnecessary. I always shoot the same way. If I don't see what I want in the viewfinder, I will not press the shutter. I can't recall the last time I went on a shoot for a project and took more than 50 images.. usually a lot less.

 

[The23rdman]

Almost certainly. It's one of the things I've discussed in this thread. That very transparency allows me to work almost on auto pilot with regard to the technical process, as it's so easy these days. Wide dynamic range, the ability to easily control contrast etc... even without additional lighting. It still needs skill of course, but a skill level that's easy to attain, whereas film requires a wholly different level of discipline. Digital is however, a marvellous thing in most cases.





I would agree with this. Know your subject, love your subject, and just react to it in a way that feel intuitive. Go in with a prescriptive idea of how you're going to react and your effectively ignoring your subject. A lot to recommend this.




Absolutely... every time I press the shutter, it costs me 50p... then add processing costs... then add the cost of paper, which for 20x24 FB is close to £230 for 50 sheets these days, and it promotes a totally different way of working, and it DOES show if you know what you're doing. The sad things these days is that even those who shoot on film always scan it. I do with colour now, but I'm still very much in favour of printing B&W the traditional way.




Working with film for years has made this unnecessary. I always shoot the same way. If I don't see what I want in the viewfinder, I will not press the shutter. I can't recall the last time I went on a shoot for a project and tool more than 50 images.. usually a lot less.

I was really referring to everyone when I suggested the little experiment at the end. Maybe I'll start a thread about it and see how many people are game.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I was really referring to everyone when I suggested the little experiment at the end. Maybe I'll start a thread about it and see how many people are game.

Why not? an old 500MB card.

 

[Steve Smith]

The sad things these days is that even those who shoot on film always scan it. I do with colour now, but I'm still very much in favour of printing B&W the traditional way.

I'm in the same situation. I have a 5x4 enlarger at home but I have no interest in trying colour printing again.

Working with film for years has made this unnecessary. I always shoot the same way. If I don't see what I want in the viewfinder, I will not press the shutter. I can't recall the last time I went on a shoot for a project and took more than 50 images.. usually a lot less.

When I first had a digital camera (D100) it had a 512MB card which could hold 76 JPGs or about 32 RAWs. I usually came home with space still on the card. I find that a 24 or 36 exposure roll of 35mm film is usually enough and if I am using 120, one roll with twelve exposures is enough. I rarely start a second roll.


Steve.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I wonder if a decent experiment would be to go out with your digital body with a single very small CF or SD card only...

Don't forget to tape over the rear screen.

 

[Steve Smith]

Don't forget to tape over the rear screen.

Or just turn it off. I have never had preview activated on a digital camera.


Steve.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Or just turn it off. I have never had preview activated on a digital camera.

I don't have it on either. And I don't check every frame, but...

I've done the small card thing and there's a little button you can press which will prove too tempting if the screen isn't taped over.

 

[hobodan]

There is nothing stopping anyone giving the time and attention to digital shooting that is required in film shooting, it's just self discipline - if someone doesn't have that discipline, it's not the cameras fault. If you need to restrict yourself to manual focus, small SD cards, putting tape over the lcd screen? Then that's what you have to do. Or you could just have a little discipline and shoot the way that makes you feel more involved (soul?). I do understand the attraction of using older manual gear, heck I'd love a Leica but I would rather an M240 than M6. Digital is far more convenient, that doesn't mean it has to be a less involved, technical, shooting experience.

 

[sk66]

What?

I didn't. I'd occasionally do a 1 stop bracket to make sure.. still do if I don't have an incident meter with me, but I've never shot a bunch of rolls to ensure I got a shot. I would suggest anyone who needs to shoot a bunch of rolls to ensure they get the shot is crap.

I guess it depends on if your subject was moving. And maybe how "particular" the shot requirements were. But yeah, 30+ shots was not uncommon.
If things were less demanding, then you would use a polaroid... or maybe not.

My auto preview is also disabled... it just wastes batteries.

 

[sk66]

Yesterday I spent 7hrs sitting at the edge of a river photographing bald eagles... I took 19 pictures.
At one point I was near another small group of photographers... they were all shooting at least 100 pics/hr (best guess).

But, I have to admit that if I'm doing a difficult product type shot with refined lighting I might very well take 30 pics before I get to the final result I like...