Shelk - it's good to have you back, and I totally agree with you! Last amble (too slow to call it a walk!) I took with a camera, I had a Spotmatic loaded with mono on my shoulder, 50mm lens fitted, 2xTc in my pocket - so refreshing!
And I _think_ (won't know until I dev the film myself) I got some nice moody around-town shots. aaah, takes me right back - but then at the next function where I'm doing the shots of speeches and presentations, I'll be back with the MZ-S, 330AFTZ, honking zoom lens, and laser printing of the results! I guess that's horses for courses? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:47 PM Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston > Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday > morning. > > I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to > find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had > little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that > I've come to know photography over these past four decades or so. Bits, > bytes, EXIF's, and all sorts of jargon that is arcane and which I cannot > see, except in a rather tangential way, as having much to do with > traditional photography. By that I mean making photographs, not digi v > film. Now, don't get me wrong - I use a digital camera, and am very > much interested in how I can use pixels to make my photographs, yet I > believe there's far too much talk about the intricacies and subtleties > of how a RAW becomes a TIFF, for example, and far too little discussion > - or action - about the art and skill of making a photograph. > > Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about all the crap that goes on inside > a digital camera, or what and where the headers are in some TIFF or JPEG > file, the ebb and flow of electrons, the size of the sensor, who Bayer > is and why he interpolated red green and blue pixels. Show me the > picture, the final image, if you will. Show me the interplay of light > and shadow, the smile caught in a sly glance, or a story written in > light, whether with a silver or an electronic brush. That is what > photography is. That is the tradition. > > I've been having a lot of fun with my digital camera, and it's been > exciting to learn Photoshop, but hanging out here for the past couple of > weeks has made me nauseous from all the digital hyperbole. I got so > tired of hearing about the technical strengths and failings of software, > the dissection of file formats, complaints about sensor size (It's that > age old question: Does size matter? Or is what you do with your tool > more important?), analyzing and supposing why one size shall prevail > over another ... so, since I'm off my antidepressants for a while I had > to find something to elevate my mood. I grabbed my old Leica M3 - no > batteries, no light meter, no auto anything except for the nerves, > dendrites, and synapses that connect my eye, brain, and shutter release > finger - stuck on a 90mm lens, and went out an made some photographs in > the old fashioned way. What a lovely experience ... > > I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus > upon!), not where some sensor told me to; I decided if the focus was > correct or not, not some sensor that glows in the viewfinder; I could > over or under expose without changing modes; I could even make a double > exposure without too much trouble, although the Leica is not the best > camera for that. A good, ol' Spottie or MX, or some such similar relic > makes doing that a (literal) snap. I guess with a digital camera one > would make a double exposure using post processing techniques <LOL> > > I'm hesitant to suggest that everyone go out and use an old camera. > There are many people here, and elsewhere, who are wedded to the new > technologies, and far too many who wouldn't even know how to use a > camera such as a Leica or a Pentax H3v. Mind you, that's not a slur ... > I have trouble with many of the newer cameras. It's just what one has > become accustomed to. Just the idea that I have to turn it on and get > into a shooting mode gives me apoplectic fits. Oh, I know that it won't > take long to figure out how to get one of these high-tech image > processors up and running, and that with most it's just a quick read of > the manual to learn how to make the camera do what I want it to do, > which is generally nothing but take the picture at the aperture and > shutter speed that I choose. And I know that all you dudes who grew up > on video games and have great eye-hand coordination can probably switch > modes before I could even figure out what mode I should be in. Maybe I > should just find a nice sunny spot in the park, sit on a bench, and feed > the squirrels. > > So, for those of you who haven't tried it yet, grab an old camera, grab > some film, and go out and make pictures in the fashion of a by gone > era. And for those of you who have an old Spottie around, or an MX, or > some such silly paperweight, it may be time to take it for a walk around > the neighborhood before all the gears and levers fuse together from lack > of use. You'll have a wonderful story to tell your grandchildren ... > "Billie Jean, come sit with grandpa in the garden and I'll tell you > about film. And if you're good, I'll tell you that story you like so > much about developers." > > Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for > beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why? > > shel >
