| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
My good friend Gordon is a very good railway photographer and has published some very high-quality railway books and is still very happy with hid Nikon D300. This is his interesting e-mail he sent me about then and now ie Rolleiflex-V-Modern DSLR (also used Rollei in the early days):
Hi Graham,
I suspect that publishing digital images on hi-def screens has brought 'perfect detail' to all - and somehow this is unsettling.
It may be that the Mk1 eyeball leads us astray. The DSLR reveals things that we didn't know are there.
Looking at those WW2 reconnaissance pictures reveals that the normal limits we accepted could be exceeded.
Liking old camera qualities allows some delightful variability and restores some room for our likes and dislikes and artistic interpretations. As someone who uses images to publish all the time, the new digital setup allows undreamed of precision (if that's what you want).
The old camera would probably do that with a digital back, but I wouldn't want to lose the digital precision of what we have, yet I wouldn't part with the artistic impressions available from film. However the WW1 images we saw, coloured, detailed and with sound (researched) and added were amazing.
I advance the answer: the optics are good, the shutters are tricky; exposure needs expertise - the film was limiting. Reality from the old blurry pics my family took was that if you wanted photos, go to a professional. Today 'point and press' gives you the dream on a plate.
Gordon.
Fair comments.
There is no doubt that the quality of the Rollei stands the test of time, as I am sure will all serious professional equipment of that period. We are however spoilt with modern DSLRs.
Using the old cameras now feels awkward. They are heavier, less ergonomic and without previews, (ok you might still be able to get Polaroid film or even Digital backs ....assuming someone else is paying for it!) which means the user needs to be precise in set up to guarantee the result.
That's not a bad thing. But in the rush and bustle of modern day life we probably don't take as much time 'previsualising' as we used to do. Well I know I don't.
I am reminded of Ansel Adams' reply when asked his opinion on the 'new' 35mm format. He said something along the lines of... the capability of the smaller film was potentially still very good but “....the biggest obstacle to quality is the ease and speed of use (of the equipment)â€.
The other part of 'film photography' was the darkroom. I enjoyed developing and printing my own photos. In fact it was a significant part of the pleasure in taking photos. This had to be sidelined when working professionally in favour of commercial labs for speed and reproducibility. So when I switched to a DSLR for my work, it brought with it the added bonus of being able to reclaim the 'processing and darkroom' for myself.
In fact, with Photoshop, I was also able to carry out post shoot corrections and additions that to some extent reduced the amount of time spent setting up the scenes. For example, in hotel bedroom shoots I've 'digitally ironed' pillow creases and bedding misalignments rather than waiting for housekeeping to fix; I've put stock painting on walls to better compose and beautify the room (or hide wall defects) without having to carry props with me; I've retrospectively added images on projection screens when meeting room equipment failed. In kitchens, I've cleaned oven fronts, tiles and equipment....without getting my hands dirty.
Yes there is arguably a degree of laziness that creeps in at the time of taking the photograph when you know it can be adjusted later. But even Ansel Adams with his Previsualising and Zone system factored in necessary darkroom work back home ...for every one of his images.
So yes, the quality is there in medium /large format film ...but the taking and subsequent processing of the photos would never entice me back to it.
Last edited on Tue Sep 8th, 2020 07:00 by Eric
____________________
Eric