Shel,
I've been thinking about this rant of yours, and why it doesn't ring true to
me. I think I have finally hit upon it. A brief parable is in order:
I know This Guy. He calls himself a feminist. The way he chooses to
express this feminism is to go down to the mall, watch couples entering and
exiting, and verbally berate every man who doesn't open the door for the
woman he's with, like so: "I'm a feminist, you son of a bitch, and no fair
woman like yours should have to open the door for herself." Is This Guy
really a feminist? He professes to be, but his words say otherwise.
Likewise, your rant pays lip service, in between episodes of extolling the
virtues of fully manual cameras, to the idea that the final image is the
most important thing in photography. I agree that this is so; most people
on this list would opine likewise. However, I also note that the topic you
return to most frequently is equipment: the Leica M3, the Spotmatic, the MX.
You talk about telling grandchildren not about beautiful pictures you have
made, but about developers and film. You may like the image just fine, but
you're *obsessed* with the equipment. Forgive me for saying so, but your
message reads as if written not by someone consumed with passion over making
beautiful images, but by an Equipment Snob.
You go on about the things that you can do with your old manual cameras and
your synapses, and every one of them, without exception, can be done with a
Z1p, or an *istD with at least as much control, often more (for instance, on
the *istD, one can change ISO for every frame, or go from daylight to
tungsten balanced medium in the blink of an eye). So what's the problem?
You clearly regard yourself as some sort of master of a bygone skill; I read
between the lines of your post to deduce that what really bugs you is that
cameras offering more automation make it easier for new shooters to get good
results more often without spending the time to learn the valuable basics of
manual exposure, allowing the Philistines to enter what was, at one time, a
much more exclusive hobby. That may be true to an extent, but I don't think
this photographic incpompetence is present among those on the PDML to any
significant degree, which is why your rant puzzles me. I am able to believe
that most people buying the Rebel-D and a packaged lens with it will use it
in auto mode most of the time. Perhaps this is true about the *istD, and
about the latest Nikon D-whatever-monster.
I simply don't see this as a problem.
If more people spend more time shooting more pictures and looking at the
world in new and exciting ways, we all benefit. I constantly find new ways
to look at my surroundings by seeing how others put it onto film ("film"
being used in the figurative sense). Exposing a shot correctly is never all
that hard, no matter what kind of camera you use - pinhole, medium format,
35mm, 110, full-manual or full-auto. The real test is producing an
emotionally involving or visually intriguing image. Look at some of
Gianfranco Irlanda's wonderful work on the PUG, or the sublime "Child", by
Luis Pinar, from a couple of years back (there are a number of other
impressive shooters I realize I have overlooked), and you will see shining
examples of photographers who have gotten the tough stuff right. I don't
give a shit what cameras, lenses, paper, software, developers, filters,
synapses or self-aggrandizing yackety-yack they may have employed in getting
those pictures; it is all immaterial in the face of the final product.
Digital darkrooms offer worlds of possibility that could never have been
realized in the traditional way. Does digital photography have limitations?
Most certainly. But they're no worse than the limitations imposed by
shooting E-6, or by dealing with grain at ISO, or waiting so long between
shooting and printing to see the result, or, dare I say it, by the damper
imposed by the fact that if I shoot 350 frames on a weekend, as I did last
weekend, it'll cost me over a hundred bucks and a lot of time just to see
the results (film, developing, printing, scanning, etc). The limitations
are just different. Some people love exercising the capacity to learn to
work with these new developments.
Discussing digital technology is embracing a new medium that has a lot of
potential, something which I find extremely moving and exciting. The
principal elements of getting the data onto the medium haven't changed
(much), but what you do with the data HAS changed. John Francis appears to
be considering creating a RAW to JPG converter (JF, if you were to come up
with such a product, I for one would buy it). This is the rough equivalent
of formulating your own developer. Have you ever done that? Talk about
control over the nuts and bolts of the process!
Anyway, as you say after ranting about digital cameras and those who use
them, this message is not meant as a slur; one good rant deserves another.
I think that there are any number of valid rasons to enjoy photography - the
act of going out for a day and shooting a bunch of images that please you is
a supremely satisfying act. Some do it for pretentious reasons - an
ex-girlfriend of mine was given an old AE-1 and wanted be to take her to get
some film and then "go take pictures of some homeless people". Others do it
for sheer creative outlet. Others still do it as a living, which may
involve elements of pretention and enjoyment, or not. If you enjoy the
snick of a mechanical shutter, great. I think that an interest in
mechanical cameras, akin to those orchestras that only play with period
instruments, is something many photographers share to varying degrees,
though I also think that, contrary to your assertion, most people, at least
on the PDML, could pick up an old manual camera and be shooting well with it
in no time flat, once they see where the controls are.
Happy shooting. I'm going out with the *istD, my lenses, and my dog to
shoot away the afternoon. I hope you can do the same, albeit no doubt with
a different body, and perhaps without a dog. Life surely can be grand.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14-Nov-03 04:47
> To: PDML
> Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston
>
>
> Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday
> morning.
>
