Gripes.

[distant.star]

.
Kerouac was one hell of a typist though!!

 

[Tinky]

I switch my EOS DLRs to M mode, I often use centre weighted metering as a guide, rather than an ev scale based on evaluative metering, I prefer my ovf to live view for many situations, and I still hanker after an FM2 or an OM4ti.

My images are 14 bit RAW, 18MP, analogue at the sensor but digitally sampled and processed.

I use MF lenses, AF lenses switched to MF as well as AiServo when it suits the subject?

Am I a retro photographer? Do I care? Does antbody?

Somebody with a rangefinder will get images I couldn't, and I will get images they couldn't. I've used many rangefinders through previously working in a camera shop (I'd take a Hexar, A contax or a Minolta CLE over a Leica body, for my budget) but I've only ever owned a film GR-S, An original GR-D and a powershot s40, which are rangefinder derived designs, much like some of the powershot s and g ranges,mand in fact any canon powershot or ixus compact with an optical non ttl viewfinder.

Yes, its true! Canon still make rangefinders to this day!

Am I a retro photograppher, or one of these sad folks who cares more about the inages produced than the kit ysed to produce them?

I can be as anorakky, as pedantic, as stubbornly semantic as anybody.

And once again I can state, with evidence, that the bold sweeping statement that SLRs KILLED or SUPERCEDED rangefinders is demonstrably incorrect.

No smoke and mirrors or facile analogies.

 

[AvTvM]

Is referring to "retro photographers" as "machine operators" much different from Truman Capote's dismissal of Kerouac as "typing, not writing"?

hehe ;D
but no, not at all. Although some "machine operators" are as occupied with their "retro gear" as many of the digital natives with their latest and greatest electronic toys - leading to both being "more typists than writers".
But as I wrote already: no insult intended.

I see little if any correlation in "quality of images created" between photographers who prefer "electronic gear with mechanical components and retro-styling" vs. those who prefer to use "electronic gear with as little movable parts as possible inside and touchscreens on the outside".

Certain types of sujets may be captured in higher TECHNICAL image quality by the retro types who (I believe!) tend to control and set all photographic parameters with great care and conscious consideration. "Action shots" on the other hand may not be that group's forte, they may not be quick enough to focus that MF Biogon wide open and set all the knurled dials fast enough ... although i am fully aware of the fact, that many great action images were captured using fully mechanical, non-electronic gear. Back then however, it usually was the latest, greatest and most advanced and definitely not "retro". Oscar Barnack certainly did not put a block cloth on the Leica 1 just in order to celebrate "many decades of past photographical tradition" or the 10.000th camera produced in the history of mankind.

No gripes here. 8)

 

[sanj]

Sanj: Love this thread; thought provoking! But I have no gripes. Well, OK, maybe one, but I’ve said all I’ll say about that one.

AvTvM: I am intrigued; with what would you replace glass lenses? Surely not plastic or corundum. Neutronium? Nah, too heavy and expensive with which to work. Gravity lensing with quantum mechanical black holes? Please don’t be offended; I am curious as to where you are going with this.

John

Thank you John.

 

[Tinky]

and yet photographers managed, using things like anticipating the shutter speed they might use for say a sports shot, or by using prefocusing and letting the subject hit the spot/mark, or zone focusing...

All useful skills that can enhance the af shooters lot, rather than just depending on the camera, thinking about the physics of it, thinking sbout timing, about not shooting everything wide open...

These can make everybodies work better.

Autimatic images often jump out a mile.

 

[sanj]

Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.

 

[scyrene]

Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.

UH-OH!

I hear another can of worms being opened...

 

[AvTvM]

Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.

even worse than that: it means FAKING REALITY! ;D

 

[Northstar]

Using Photoshop (or such) software to enhance a photo is wrong and bad.

Uh oh, you caught me.

 

[slclick]

"Waaaaaaaa, you didn't make the camera like I wanted!"

 

[zim]

"Waaaaaaaa, you made the camera exactly like I wanted and I can't afford it!"

;D

 

[rfdesigner]

Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera.

Not to get too far off topic. But by the same reasoning, one could say that whatever can be done by simple physics (light reflected by a mirror) should be done so. After all, physics is a lot more reliable and durable than solid state electronics.

+1

I spend all day playing with antennas, radio silicon, processors, embedded code and so on.

When it works it's brilliant

When it goes wrong it's a nightmare... and it never gives you a heads up it's about to fail, which is the huge problem I have with electronics.

My old unreliable 1984 vauxhall cavalier never left me stranded as every fault gave me plenty of notice... since '99 I've only driven mercs... I've been left stranded 3 times becasue things have gone totally and utterly wrong without notice... all three times (in about 500k miles) it was electrical faults, or faults masked by electronics until it couldn't be masked any more.

I adore purely mechanical solutions to problems.