View Single Post
  #10  
Old 25th April 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 9,661
Thanks: 389
Thanked 551 Times in 466 Posts
Likes: 3,354
Liked 2,324 Times in 1,531 Posts
Re: An army of clones

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdk42 View Post
I shot film for years and now also have an OM1 which I use very occasionally. When I do there is no epiphany. I find the process clunky and the output disappointing. We all have different needs and I think there's a certain snobbery emerging about film - a sort of "real photographers use film" attitude. I know that Steve and Simon don't fall into this category, but it's an opinion out there.

Like the author says, camera types and brands can become the object of tribalism. We should all judge photographers by their output - nothing else.
I'm not so sure about snobbery; I would say that film is gaining something of a cult following amongst those who didn't use it back in the day, and who I suspect don't really understand it very well now either.

This was confirmed to me by one of the lecturers when our son was studying for his photography degree. Most of their first year was spent working with B&W, starting with 5 x 4 then MF and 35 mm, developing and printing their own work. When I asked at an open evening what they taught about the use of colour filters with B&W I was told that 'nobody does that anymore; we do all that in Photoshop'.

I tried to push the point but it was obvious that the lecturer just didn't get it, and couldn't see how coloured filters could ever work when capturing B&W images.

I would agree that 35 mm film cameras are a bit clunky compared with digital, but more to the point, the image quality achievable from 35 mm colour films is poor compared with current digital cameras; although 35 mm black and white is much more acceptable in my experience.

However, medium format is on another level. Not only is the image quality at least as good if not better than digital, but I find the waist level finder so much better for composition and much more enjoyable to use too. In fact I really enjoy the whole process.

By contrast I am frequently disappointed and underwhelmed by the images that I see online taken with medium format cameras; and especially with the RZ67 as it happens.

Now I fully accept that the RZ is a bit of a beast to carry very far, and that strict discipline is required when choosing lenses for an outing; but far too many of the images that I see are of poor quality and totally lacking in imagination. This seems to be nothing more than a way of saying 'look I have got this fantastic camera which cost me a lot of money and here are some pictures from it'.

The RZ is capable of truly stunning results so why else are most of the images posted online of such poor artistic and technical quality?
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote