[rburgoss]

A lot has being discussed about what our gear can do or cannot, compared to the competition and such.

Being an "old timer" from the film days, I remember well when there were only a few facts that we cared about our gear.

1) Hardware reliability: Camera bodies with consistent results from shutter speeds, durability, trusty light meters and above all, value retainabilty.

2) Glass quality: Image quality was above all. Sharpness, bokeh, color rendition and of course, glass speed and mechanics reliability. I sure miss all those "brass & glass" lenses.

3) Film quality: Grain, resolution and of course, quality proccessing and printing (when used negative film).

We learned to maximize the situations, by taking good care of all photo details and especially, about those 36 exp film rolls that were expensive to buy and more expensive to develop.

The ghosts from the past were a few: Battery failure (loose the light meter and in some cameras, loose operability. Negative scratch during proccessing.... AAAGGG! that was my worst nighmare and a few others not worth mentioning.

But with time, then technology appeared to make our lifes a little easier:

First came autowinders: Never again had to push a rapid wind lever. Then autorewinders... never again had to rewind film back into spool.

Then came autofocus: So we started relying on the camera's AF and never cared to manual focus again.

Then came matrix metering: So we never again had to use our brain to evaluate image and to compensate for less than ideal light situations.

Along the way, multiple modes of auto exposure also showed up, so never again, we had to "pay attention" on what was going on with the exposure.

Then digital came, so we could forget about film and about proccessing.

Of course, there are other tech thingies that had showed up and about the mentioned ones, it is not important which came first or last. My point is that now we are complaining and/or demanding better "performance" from gadgets we didn't have back then and were completely dependant on the photographers ability.

Good exposure in less than ideal conditions. Good focus with fast moving things. Getting the right picture in sporting events, when we had to crank every frame and rewind every 36 frames. Good proccessing in our own darkrooms or being confident enough on external labs, etc.

This is the time I say: Hell with technology! Stop complaining about the hardware! Do your homework and start taking pictures.

For once, I would love to read a thread in which photo shooting technique is discussed instead of what or which gadget/brand can make us lazier.

What to you think?

[Isaac314]

I think digital distances us from our pictures. Instead of having the only things between the scene and the film being the lens and shutter we now have more software than the first few moon missions to translate our press of the button and various settings into a flick of the shutter.

I think whereas in the past if you took a bad picture you had only yourself to blame now you have £1000 of gadgetry doing god knows what which could go wrong.

So to sum up, a good photographer will behave in the same way with film or digital as he knows that the picture is about his vision and not the technical quality, but the 90% of bad* photographers out there will take the opportunity, as you say, to put more emphasis on technology than photography

*(i dont mean bad in the conventional sense, i mean the kind of photographer who say 2 thirds, depth of field, leading lines, perfect exposure... but have nothing real to say with their photographs)

Also, the reason i chose pentax is because it feels like there is less between me and the picture. Obviously it wont compare to my old MX, but the tunnely viewfinders in canon and the busy digital displays and menus in nikon just leave me concentrating more on the settings than on just taking the photos.

[bnishanth]

I second you Rob

This holds good in every other area,where you had better control, knew things in and out and in the end learn a lot out of it. Today technology makes things easy for you, equally making you lazy.

I realised this sometime back & have picked up a ME Super and loaded with Ilford HP5 on it. Lets see how it turns out.

Cheers
Nish

[Isaac314]

I dont find digital easier than film. They are equal but digital seems to have more needless complication.

[séamuis]

I dont find digital easier than film. They are equal but digital seems to have more needless complication.

I thought that is what everybody wanted?

[CalendarGuy]

My first "real camera" was a K1000. At the time I thought it would be the only camera I would ever need. I spent all of my time focused on learning photography, and didn't waste a minute worrying if I made the right choice in equipment. I won't say that's the only way to learn photography, but it certainly worked for me.

[losecontrol]

A lot has being discussed about what our gear can do or cannot, compared to the competition and such.

Being an "old timer" from the film days, I remember well when there were only a few facts that we cared about our gear.

1) Hardware reliability: Camera bodies with consistent results from shutter speeds, durability, trusty light meters and above all, value retainabilty.

2) Glass quality: Image quality was above all. Sharpness, bokeh, color rendition and of course, glass speed and mechanics reliability. I sure miss all those "brass & glass" lenses.

3) Film quality: Grain, resolution and of course, quality proccessing and printing (when used negative film).

We learned to maximize the situations, by taking good care of all photo details and especially, about those 36 exp film rolls that were expensive to buy and more expensive to develop.

The ghosts from the past were a few: Battery failure (loose the light meter and in some cameras, loose operability. Negative scratch during proccessing.... AAAGGG! that was my worst nighmare and a few others not worth mentioning.

But with time, then technology appeared to make our lifes a little easier:

First came autowinders: Never again had to push a rapid wind lever. Then autorewinders... never again had to rewind film back into spool.

Then came autofocus: So we started relying on the camera's AF and never cared to manual focus again.

Then came matrix metering: So we never again had to use our brain to evaluate image and to compensate for less than ideal light situations.

Along the way, multiple modes of auto exposure also showed up, so never again, we had to "pay attention" on what was going on with the exposure.

Then digital came, so we could forget about film and about proccessing.

Of course, there are other tech thingies that had showed up and about the mentioned ones, it is not important which came first or last. My point is that now we are complaining and/or demanding better "performance" from gadgets we didn't have back then and were completely dependant on the photographers ability.

Good exposure in less than ideal conditions. Good focus with fast moving things. Getting the right picture in sporting events, when we had to crank every frame and rewind every 36 frames. Good proccessing in our own darkrooms or being confident enough on external labs, etc.

This is the time I say: Hell with technology! Stop complaining about the hardware! Do your homework and start taking pictures.

For once, I would love to read a thread in which photo shooting technique is discussed instead of what or which gadget/brand can make us lazier.

What to you think?

I think that you are saing the the truest thing I ever read.

I do exactly think the same as you. I am 20year old and shooting with film.

I bought a k20d last week and i like it, but it's not the same as taking film pics and go down to the darkroom.

I feel that digital makes the pictures less personal. I feel that everyone could do the picts tha I do with the same camera. (being on the same place at the same time)

Just like you said before you had to think a lot and got a lot of studies.

Today one 10 year old kid can take master-sports-pics on a game, with a D3 in his hands. He just have to press the button. All the time, and the autofokus and frame-rate do the rest.

It's a different thing. Sad but true. Digital have a lot of positive sides, but you lose the feeling for the hand-work and the real photography.

Maybe could you take the big critic with a little bit of salt, but still I say what I belive in. Digital makes you lazy

You are very right! good post!

Why did I bought a k20d? Well, first I have never shoot with digital before and I wanted to know how it is. and 2, It's very usefull in some cases, for example when you need a picture very quick.

I don't give critic to digital cameras, and I don't think this post is about that. I just agree with RBURGOSS in his statement that we care a lot too much about the gear these days.
I told it in my first post ever here in the forum, and I see that we are many people thinking the same.

The day film die, photography will die.

R.I.P.

Best
Regards Emil

[kenyee]

didn't waist a minute worrying if I made the right choice in equipment

But how many of you kept reading reviews of different types of *film* and trying them out?
I remember trying different stuff like Velvia for landscapes because it oversaturated so much but was slow as hell. I remember getting excited when ISO400 films *finally* had as little grain as ISO100.

The camera body nowadays *is* the film. I thought that before getting into DSLRs again and that was reinforced by going from the K10D to K20D (note that both bodies have all the wizzbang features like multiexposure, fancy metering, etc. from the really expensive film days).

Man, I feel old

[ukbluetooth]

One thing you did not mention rburgoss - That magical feeling watching the photographic paper slowly darken in the developing tray. Having to fix it, then start to wash it before turning on the main light - the anticipation....

Beats chimping the LCD and downloading onto a computer anyday.

But then what you loose with the roundabouts ....

[rburgoss]

My first "real camera" was a K1000. At the time I thought it would be the only camera I would ever need. I spent all of my time focused on learning photography, and didn't waist a minute worrying if I made the right choice in equipment. I won't say that's the only way to learn photography, but it certainly worked for me.

That is exactly my point. Most of us started SLR photography with a K1000. Then upgraded later to more featured bodies but the basics were still the same. You had to figure out the photo and rely on good glass. That´s it.

A friend of mine once asked me (in regards about which camera to purchase...) which camera would I take to a Safari in Africa, to a dessert or to the Antartica?

I inmediately replied: A Pentax k1000 or a Pentax MX, with a 50/1.4 lens on it. That's it.

He asked my why not a more modern full of gadgets body, and I told him that those two Pentax bodies were about the only ones that I knew off that could work fully (except for light meter) without a battery. Both were very well built and reliable as a tank. The more gadgets in, the more chances something can go wrong. The more gadgets, the more battery dependant. With a K1000 or an MX, I can rely on everything and make good judgment of the "sunny 16 rule". And if using negative film, I am sure I can get very good results.

I remember many year ago, while on a hiking trip (Boy Scouts Troop), three of us were carrying K1000's with 50/1.7 lenses, and this other guy was carrying a brand new Canon AE-1 body with an impressive (those days) Vivitar Series 1 70/210 macro zoom lens. To make a long story short, the guy with the Canon had a problem with the battery and could not shoot a single picture during the trip. Two days later, I sold him my K1000 (and I upgraded to an MX) and by today, he is still a happy Pentax user. BTW, he is still in film using a PZ1P and several primes.

[monochrome]

My first real camera was a KX. I never mastered the KX beyound making the needle match the blue aperture indicator.

Then I got a MESuper. I did better with aperture priority, but enver tried anything more complex and artistic than vacation shots.

My wife did better with a string of Canon P&S film cameras.

Interestingly, I have yet to use the capabilities of my K10D beyond chimping the histogram, and even that only rarely.

Recently I have recognized and posted about the drudgery of previewing and PP'ing several hundred pef files to get a few good images.

My own experience has led me to the conclusion that I should slow down, try to make each shot count, only use autofocus where it really helps (sports/action), focus with the back button, sometimes shoot manual and meter externally, etc.

Sort of like using a mechanical film body without buying film.

[rburgoss]

One thing you did not mention rburgoss - That magical feeling watching the photographic paper slowly darken in the developing tank. Having to fix it, then start to wash it before turning on the main light - the anticipation....

Beats chimping the LCD and downloading onto a computer anyday.

But then what you loose with the roundabouts ....

To be honest, that's de "magic" that got me into photography. A friend of mine (back in 1970) had his own darkroom (bathroom with black out cardboard over the window) and he showed me the magic. I got hooked up since and two years later, I had my darkroom and purchased my first 35mm camera, which was a Fujica rangefinder.

[losecontrol]

That is exactly my point. Most of us started SLR photography with a K1000. Then upgraded later to more featured bodies but the basics were still the same. You had to figure out the photo and rely on good glass. That´s it.

A friend of mine once asked me (in regards about which camera to purchase...) which camera would I take to a Safari in Africa, to a dessert or to the Antartica?

I inmediately replied: A Pentax k1000 or a Pentax MX, with a 50/1.4 lens on it. That's it.

He asked my why not a more modern full of gadgets body, and I told him that those two Pentax bodies were about the only ones that I knew off that could work fully (except for light meter) without a battery. Both were very well built and reliable as a tank. The more gadgets in, the more chances something can go wrong. The more gadgets, the more battery dependant. With a K1000 or an MX, I can rely on everything and make good judgment of the "sunny 16 rule". And if using negative film, I am sure I can get very good results.

I remember many year ago, while on a hiking trip (Boy Scouts Troop), three of us were carrying K1000's with 50/1.7 lenses, and this other guy was carrying a brand new Canon AE-1 body with an impressive (those days) Vivitar Series 1 70/210 macro zoom lens. To make a long story short, the guy with the Canon had a problem with the battery and could not shoot a single picture during the trip. Two days later, I sold him my K1000 (and I upgraded to an MX) and by today, he is still a happy Pentax user. BTW, he is still in film using a PZ1P and several primes.

A beautiful history.

I think a lot of buy a pentax 6x7 and use it as my first camera.

Anyone have one to sell?

But it's true. I have never seen so much problems before. Today we have a lot of problems with the gear. Before, everything was work perfect and you always got a very good result.

[Tana]

I guess that you all use Pentax for long time... I just got the first Pentax a month ago and it is film camera. Of course, I prefer to get DSRL one than film but film can bring us a different feeling... When shooting, I excite to watch how it look like... and even in 1 roll, I just get some picture but the feeling is so much different from digital one. We have to wait some time before to see how your kids... LOL.

[grainbelt]

I bought a K200D last summer. Took some nice photos, but between exposure bracketing and putzing with composition, my keeper rate was pitiful

Over the winter I bought a Pentax ME that came with a few primes. First roll went in for development last weekend. I'm excited to see how it turned out. It was fantastic to just focus, compose, select aperture, and shoot. Fixed focal length, no autofocus or metering options to consider, really quite enjoyable.

I actually shoot very similarly with the K200D - Av, evaluative metering, custom setting jpgs. I think we tend to want to fuss with every possible option and setting, rather than just shooting and getting comfortable within one set of parameters. The discipline to do that is something I'm trying to find.