|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-11-2009, 07:10 PM
|
| |
I have a very difficult time understanding why people generally find using film-cameras and film to be much more expensive than digital. I find that the opposite is true!
Let's consider: - the extremely high rate of depreciation of digital equipment,
- the very short life-span of digital equipment (not just cameras/lenses but memory cards, computers, printers, storage media, etc.),
- the high cost of repairs (when they are possible)
- the high costs quality ink,
- the high cost of software,
- the environmental costs, which is a burden for everybody (any digital equipment will be in a landfill site long before my 40 year-old Spotmatic)
- the extremely high costs of maintaining a secure archive of digital photographs over time.
The last one is something that few people consider. I'm no luddite. I've studied/worked/taught in the field of computer science for the last 15 years. In general, information in a digital format is superior when it comes to duplication and transmission but it is relatively unreliable for long-term storage. Secure storage of any type of digital archive involves a lot of maintenance and a lot of money. It has been that way since the 1940's and, IMHO, it will continue to be that way in the foreseeable future. Please read the following article on a study conducted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on the costs of storing and maintenance digital movies vs movies shot on using film.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html
Most of my film equipment is over 40 years old. Everything still works perfectly with only regular CLA's once every 20 years or so. All my "analog" equipment has retained its value and most of it is worth significantly more than what I initially paid, including my Leica MP and Leica 24f2.8, 35f2 and 50f1.4 lenses that I bought new just three years ago. (But it is certainly the opposite for the Mac Pro, the Nikon and Artixscan scanners, the Epson printers and all the software that I bought for my "digital darkroom".) Tri-X costs me a bit over $2 per 36-exp roll. I can develop at least 50 rolls and it is possible to develop almost 100 rolls with a single 500mL bottle of Rodinal that costs around $15. I put the negs in sleeved sheets and store them in binders on a shelf. I end up with a good, high resolution image, in a readable format that can reliably last 100+ (perhaps 200+) years without requiring much in further maintenance.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-21-2011, 07:38 PM
|
| |
rt22306,
Sorry to hear about that your camera isn't working. Hopefully this won't be the end of shooting with an RF.
To add to the discussion about RF, first I only focus at wider apertures or when shooting close up. Most of the time when shooting outdoors, I set to my 35mm lens to f/16 and set the infinity mark to f/16 on the DOF scale. Everything from 1.2 meters on will be in focus. I then just use the camera like a point-and-shoot. When I do need to focus, I start turning the focusing ring before bringing the camera up to my eye and when it gets there, just a little adjustment is needed. Besides the smaller size, the quietness, etc. the other advantage of an RF has for street photography is one doesn't need to have their eyes glued to the camera for a very long time. Just bring it to your eye briefly to take the shot and then put the camera down again.
The main advantage of using an RF for me is that I'm not looking through the lens. I'm looking through a window with framelines and unlimited DOF. In other words, the view through the window is the same as the scene before my naked eye - no blurry foreground or background and almost as bright. I have the 35mm and 50mm framelines memorized and know how they'll sit when I'm looking at a scene. (This will only come with practice.). When I want to take a photo, I get into position, bring the camera to my eye, press the shutter and then bring the camera down again. That is the key for me. Photography here is a subtractive exercise. I see an image within the flux and chaos and I extract the image by placing a frame around it.
When I use an SLR (or my TLR or view camera), it is a completely different process because I'm looking through the lens. Looking through the lens for me is like looking through a telescope. I focus back and forth going from different stages of blurriness and sharpness. I am also moving left, right, up and down with my eye glued to the viewfinder seeking out an image or perhaps making an image in the viewfinder. Once I'm satisfied with the image I see in the viewfinder and then snap. This is more of a constructivist method of creating and image as opposed to a subtractive exercise. In turn, the type of photograph I take with my Pentaxes, TLR and view camera tend to have a similar look. However, they are different from the photographs that I take with my Leicas.
The RF (or a direct view camera like a Rollei 35) real advantage is that it promote a different way of seeing. Extracting (or taking) an image instead of creating an image.
I think that many SLR users often cannot adapt well to RF's because they treat them like SLR's. That's why there are complaints about inaccurate framelines, for example. As an RF user primarily, accuracy comes from knowing the lens on the camera and where to position yourself to take the shot. The framelines on my Leicas are accurate enough to serve as confirmation that I positioned myself correctly. With enough practice, one can become extremely precise. As an example, take a look a the following photograph taken by Henri Cartier- Bresson using a Leica. Taken from close up but he still managed to compose the scene to the golden triangles and golden sections with tremendous precision, with perfect focus and it is likely that HC-B just brought his camera to his eye for a second or two. Honestly, take a look at any of his photographs - only painters are more precise when it comes to adhering to classical geometry and composition.
The same is true for RF users going the other way - one can't use an SLR like an RF. I had tremendous difficulties dealing with the blur when looking looking through the lens. In particular, if the background is blurred how do I begin to compose a scene? I didn't like to use the DOF preview lever because the VF got too dark. In the beginning, I dealt with this problem by focussing on infinity first (quickly), then I focussed on my subject - I then tried to compute the two images in my head. Isn't that insane? Composing through an SLR's VF took too much time for me - I think I got myself down to about 3-4 seconds to compose and focus. Then I decided to regulate myself to only using wides like my 28mm Takumar, which I could set hyperfocal distance and everything in the VF would be sharp and I could use the camera like a point-and-shoot. But what's the point of that when I already do this with my RF's? In addition, because RF's lack the mirror-box, the wide-angles lenses are much smaller and offer better image quality. I drove myself nuts! I also used to get preoccupied with not knowing what his happening outside of the frame. Not so much with SLR's but very preoccupied when I was looking down (and not toward the scene) with my Rolleiflex or when I was under a dark cloth. I had to change the way I was seeing. I had to begin constructing an image with the camera when viewing through a lens instead of just taking an image that was already there. Does that make sense? Once I got past this, I started to enjoy through-the-lens cameras. I now have more through-the-lens cameras then RF's even though I still use RF's for the majority of my photographs.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Keep on truckin'!
|
