Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography

[ToothlessFerret]

I have a cheap DSLR (7-yr old Pentax K100D), and always stick a digi-compact and a film compact in my pockets too, same as I'll put the same two types of compacts in my pocket if I'm taking a film SLR (or TLR etc) out with me. Sometimes you almost "need" fiilm, because you can pre-visualise a shot and know exactly how it'll look, especially with B & W film, and especially if you know the capabilities of the emulsion you're using.

I still use a Pentax K110D fitted with an old Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 mf lens from time to time, although Nita uses it more often these days. With that lens, the six Mp K110D delivers some cracking digital images. I sort of replaced it with a Sony A200 (with 35mm and 50mm primes) as my primary DSLR, but it doesn't deliver the same.

Thing is with film, as Johnny sort of says, I can't compete financially with those that use the latest top end digital gear. I have no intention of spending several hundred pounds or more on a lens or camera. If I was to go macro, I'd have to spend a fortune. If I was to go Nature, I'd have to spend a fortune. However, using old film technology, I can use some cracking cameras from years gone by, that I could only have dreamed of buying new back then.

Ok, ok, I know fully well that online viewing rates on sites such as Flickr are no measure of worth (and more than a bit sad to chase), but I recently received 20,000 views and over 300 faves on a photo taken on my trusty XA2 loaded with Firstcall budget b/w film, and home developed. The camera cost me 50p at a car boot. It was a quick snap of Nita giving the bird to some love graffiti. Weird place is cyberspace.

By the way - when did this thread become the film V digital thread?

 

[fractionMan]

The Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 mf is a fantastic lens. I was using it on my Pentax DLSR before it got crushed. For 30 quid it's a bloody brilliant bit of kit. I like it so much I've ordered the pentax K adapter for my new fuji.

I had the autofocus version for just a few months but hardly used it. I was really excited to have it at first but the autofocus took away something magic and it became just-another-lens.

 

[ToothlessFerret]

The Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 mf is a fantastic lens. I was using it on my Pentax DLSR before it got crushed. For 30 quid it's a bloody brilliant bit of kit. I like it so much I've ordered the pentax K adapter for my new fuji.

I had the autofocus version for just a few months but hardly used it. I was really excited to have it at first but the autofocus took away something magic and it became just-another-lens.

My favourite all time lens. As well as on the K110D, I've also used it on a couple of Pentax ME Supers, where it was the kit lens. Nita has the Pentax-A version on her 35mm SLR. Really is beautiful glass.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Don't know about Bungle; but that's a very apt and well-put description of so much that's happening in photography these days in general.

It probably depends where you look. As ed suggests, the photography magazines will be full of it. Certain self-selecting groups and clubs and forums will be full of it. You'll probably see it in amateur photo competitions, etc. But I don't think that's all there is. It can certainly seem that way if you spend much time in those places. But it's like most things - there is rarely just one trend, but several. One might rise to the top as the most vocal, one might get the most mainstream press, one might attract the most people, but there's other stuff there if you want it.

 

[editor]

I take photos because I love doing so. And although I'm always ready to listen to and learn from others, ultimately if I like a picture I don't give much of a flying fuck what a self-styled Youtube expert or member of a private Facebook group thinks of it because I'm not doing it for them - I'm doing it for me.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I think digital has brought a fundamental change to photography. Film cameras are relatively simple to operate; also, the possible effects achievable via manipulation of negatives, is relatively limited. So, people either used their camera for family snapshots; or those who wanted to be creative, had to do it via attempts and novel or unusual observations of the world.

Digitization has turned photography into a graphics software project. Much greater ability to manipulate the image. I'm sure that a satisfaction comes with the ability to use that software well; but it's a different type of creativity. It's like a creativity without individuality, if that makes any sense.

As a rule, the great film photographers had recognizable styles that they worked at for years in perfecting. To me, it often seems that the technical masterpieces that people create with software can be beautiful to look at; but there's no way to distinguish the work of one photographer from another. The objective is different from the one that motivates me; which is a desire to create a body of work that reflects what it is that I see when I look out at the world. I want to suffuse my perspective into the images I create.

People can be plenty creative - with individuality - using digital processing techniques, even when pushing it past photography and into various forms of photo manipulation or whatever. I think rather than the process itself, it's the sheer accessibility of photography and processing that leads to the appearance of a lack of individuality. When everyone has access to something, it's harder to do something original. There are those who will rise to the top and manage to maintain their individuality, to be original, but it will appear that that almost never happens simply because there are so many people able to use a camera and some software now. I'd also say that the recent popularity of film photography - 'lo-fi' stuff - doesn't mean it will be original or particularly a show of individuality.

It's not the medium itself that hampers a certain kind of creativity, but rather the way the medium has widened access leads to the appearance that there is less originality/individuality, when in fact there's probably just about the same amount there always was - it's just hidden in a larger ocean.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. But I don't think that's all there is..

I agree. It just seems to becoming a larger force in the photographic community.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I take photos because I love doing so. And although I'm always ready to listen to and learn from others, ultimately, if I like a picture I don't give much of a flying fuck what a self-styled Youtube expert or member of a private Facebook group thinks of it because I'm not doing it for them - I'm doing it for me.

I agree with that, too. If you photograph to please others, it will never be totally satisfactory, because someone always won't like it or get it - because opinions on everything vary. I know what I'm going for, and when I manage to achieve it, it's satisfying to me.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's funny: I've been using a [not the best] digital for a few years now. It was starting to feel stale, and I was wincing at the prospect of trying to afford a really good full frame DSLR.

Then I started using my film camera again - and I feel like a kid in the candy store. It's become fresh again for me [Not to say that the quality is anything to write home about at the moment! ]

 

[ToothlessFerret]

Film has become alternative - especially hybrid film/digital, not because it has any more value or because it's in any way "better", but because it can be a little bit like dropping out of the Canikon Arms Race.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Film has become alternative - especially hybrid film/digital, not because it has any more value or because it's in any way "better", but because it can be a little bit like dropping out of the Canikon Arms Race.

There's an equally elitist arms race with film too though. It has a different flavour to it, I'll give you that, and it seems to be populated by people who are more in touch with their 'I'm an arteeeest' side than those whose main focus is 'my megapixels are bigger than your megapixels'. But there's still the whole 'ermahgerd leica' thing, or which 1960s budget rangefinder in mint condition from a little jumble sale in San Francisco is the most hip, etc.

 

[ToothlessFerret]

Too bloody right it can be elitist. Film has it's analogue purist fundamentalists. Shit. I buy most of my gear from car boots. Am I hip? I'm not interested in promoting anything or telling others how to do it. I'm too novice and crap a photographer for that. No, it's just an observation that there is sort of an arms race in the DSLR World that can be a turn off if like myself, you are an amateur with a limited budget.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My favourite all time lens. As well as on the K110D, I've also used it on a couple of Pentax ME Supers, where it was the kit lens. Nita has the Pentax-A version on her 35mm SLR. Really is beautiful glass.

Apparently it was a modern (for the '70s!) re-jigging of Zeiss's Tessar formula, based on measurements taken from old lenses, rather than worked out in a computer program (as happens nowadays). Doesn't surprise me, as loads of great primes "paid homage" to the old Zeiss lens formulas.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Too bloody right it can be elitist. .

Definitely. How else can 'lomography' be explained?

 

[weltweit]

Some of my camera club friends are too competitive, but not so much on megapixels, they care if they are going to win or come second (whatever) in competitions! I just don't get that at all.

 

[ViolentPanda]

People can be plenty creative - with individuality - using digital processing techniques, even when pushing it past photography and into various forms of photo manipulation or whatever. I think rather than the process itself, it's the sheer accessibility of photography and processing that leads to the appearance of a lack of individuality. When everyone has access to something, it's harder to do something original. There are those who will rise to the top and manage to maintain their individuality, to be original, but it will appear that that almost never happens simply because there are so many people able to use a camera and some software now. I'd also say that the recent popularity of film photography - 'lo-fi' stuff - doesn't mean it will be original or particularly a show of individuality.

I often use lomography to illustrate this - the original movement was about utilising limitations in an original way, but within a couple of years it had become a near-ubiquitous style of photography that software provided filters for, as with all that cross-processing of film that some of us enjoyed in the '80s.

It's not the medium itself that hampers a certain kind of creativity, but rather the way the medium has widened access leads to the appearance that there is less originality/individuality, when in fact there's probably just about the same amount there always was - it's just hidden in a larger ocean.

May I just say, by the way, "great post!"?
It reminds me (tangentially) of what I was taught by one of the teachers on my "Graphic Art" course at school, which was that the possibilities are endless until you press the shutter, at which time you limit the possibilities to what you've pre-visualised as "what you want" from a shot. Then, at the processing stage, you're presented with another set of possibilities - possibilities to modify - but with each possibility comes attendant limitations.
To him the "skill" or "art" (he reckoned the two were interchangeable when applied to stills and film photography!) mostly resided in being aware of the possibilities, and using them to produce the image you saw in the viewfinder originally (as opposed to the image that was in the viewfinder, IYSWIM?). There are always going to be some routes that produce more similar results than others, and that's not a bad thing, just a sign that some representations have a broader appeal.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Definitely. How else can 'lomography' be explained?

Millions of cheap cameras loitering in Russian and Ukrainian warehouses, in need of a marketing genius or two?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

"Lomography", as far as it can be described as a thing, is not elitist. The company called Lomography is interested in getting your money of course, but even their forums and user blogs have lots of people talking about using cheap products that are nothing to do with them. Tbh even their cameras are not absurdly overpriced - it costs money to make new things, particularly in small batches with relatively low sales, and prices on eBay for film cameras do not reflect actual manufacturing costs.

If anything, "Lomography" is deliberately anti-elitist by attacking traditional concepts of what a "good" photo is, or whether there is such a thing at all.

 

[Badgers]

LOLography

 

[Bungle73]

I'm sorry, that doesn't makes sense. What has YouTube got to do with this. And what clique am I supposedly part of?

Um, because every time I say I saw, or learnt, something on YT, you and the others start pooh poohing it. It seems to me as far as you're concerned all YT is good for is cat videos, when the reality is there is a lot of good and informative content on it. I can tell you've never watched any of this content, because if you had you'd know how useful it is. But you're just not interested are you?

Not entirely sure how you can calculate the comparative worth of photographers,

You would say that wouldn't you? Seeing as you are nobody in the photography world.

but you banging on about how everyone loves you on a private FB group someplace else reeks of insecurity

Only person who is "insecure" here is you. What I said was that I showed it them and they liked it. Show me where "banged on". The FB group is dedicated to helping people with their photography. You seem to have a big, big problem with anything to do with FB or YT. Insecure are we?

I don't recall actually saying that.

You don't recall much of what you say do you? I posted my picture because you said you'd critique it, and then you started on a rediculous rant about how it didn't measure up to your standards and was therefore no good.
And I quote

Anyone can knock out a pretty picture of Tower Bridge but so fucking what?

Would you go up to someone who was learning to paint, look at their picture, and say "so fucking what"? You would, because it's the kind of person you are.

It's also a shame you chose to ignore everything else I wrote too because I think there was some good advice in there.

If there was any good "advice" is was burried in you constant desire to put me and everything I do down.

Your credibility really falls apart when you start posting up clearly dishonest nonsense like that.

The only person being dishonest here is you. You are so two faced. Everything I said is true.

Right there is your problem. You selectively choose which photographers you decide are the ones you want to listen to and then completely ignore or put down the ones you decide you don't like. Or weirdly slag off how a photographer chooses to carry their lens hood because you feel it's the 'wrong' way.

Who am I "ignoring"? You and your clique?

 

[fractionMan]

Would you go up to someone who was learning to paint, look at their picture, and say "so fucking what"? You would, because it's the kind of person you are.

I can tell you've never been to art college.

You know why?

Because you spend three years having people saying exactly that to people who are learning how to paint. Or sculpt, or illustrate or take photos.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This was definitely worth a bump, mm hmm.

 

[editor]

You would say that wouldn't you? Seeing as you are nobody in the photography world.

I make no bold claims about my photography - it's a hobby really, although I have worked professionally - but I do sell thousands of pounds worth of photos every year and you can see my work on the walls of an international airport, so I guess I know which way to put my lens hood. How about you?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

"Knows which way round to put his lens hood" is the new "really knows where his towel is".

 

[Bungle73]

I make no bold claims about my photography - it's a hobby really, although I have worked professionally - but I do sell thousands of pounds worth of photos every year and you can see my work on the walls of an international airport, so I guess I know which way to put my lens hood. How about you?

Oh really? If that's the case then why do you continue to deny a DSLR's advantages over a camera phone, like you don't even know what they are?

 

[editor]

Oh really? If that's the case then why do you continue to deny a DSLR's advantages over a camera phone, like you don't even know what they are?

Find me a single quote where I say that a dSLR has no advantages over a camera phone. Off you go now!

 

[Bungle73]

Find me a single quote where I say that a dSLR has no advantages over a camera phone. Off you go now!

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...tos-with-their-lens-hood-on-backwards.321675/

And no doubt you will continue to deny it. Like I said, two-faced.

 

[editor]

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...tos-with-their-lens-hood-on-backwards.321675/

And no doubt you will continue to deny it. Like I said, two-faced.

Where is this quote? And quit the abuse.

 

[Bungle73]

Where is this quote? And quit the abuse.

Do I really need to quote the 24 pages you spent arguing with me about it? What would be the point? You would still continue to deny ever saying it, even though there are 24 pages for all to see do where you do.

Oh, and "abuse"? That's rich coming from you. I've had non-stop abuse from you ever since the FM incident. Accusing me of "harassing" you for PMing you about the way you were treating me. It truly is pathetic.

And it's not "abuse", it's the truth, as clearly demonstrated again here.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Yeah, it was definitely the ed who bumped this thread after nearly three weeks to add a load of insults. The damn stalker.