View Full Version : The Empty Mind -- film vs. digital
Steve Williams
03-10-2008, 07:50
Since the end of November I have committed myself (along with a friend) to shoot two rolls of film each week, process, and make three silver prints. At the end of January I started posting the results on my Vespa blog (a Vespa and Leica are similar) and until this past week was quite satisfied with the process.
You can see the 3 Prints Project posts HERE (http://vespalx150.blogspot.com/2008/02/3-prints-project-index.html)
The key word for this post is process.
Another friend and serious photographer cautioned me about becoming enamored with process and suggested that passion for what I see should be driving me and not the warm fuzzy feelings I get being in the darkroom (yes...*sigh*).
And he went on to suggest that not only might I be hobbled by the process but shooting film might keep me from reaching the Empty Mind, the place where I can let go of my expectations and preconceptions and really begin to see.
Words from him are not something I take lightly. And I have considered carefully how I work with film. Looking at my contact sheets it's obvious that I am careful tripping the shutter and work with what is familiar and comfortable. I don't take risks and don't push. He could see it. (*******)
Ever the rationalizer I suggested that if I wasn't getting the warm fuzzies from the camera and process I wouldn't be shooting. He conceded my point but told me that it did not remedy my careful view of things.
So I have been second-guessing myself for the past week. I parked the M6 in the Domke bag and have been carrying the Nikon D200 with a 20mm lens around. I use it professionally but never much personally. It's a beast in comparison and I don't feel comfortable with it. Strange considering how much I use it otherwise. But there is no doubt that I am face to face with my narrow approach and predisposition with the Leica.
I can't turn this around in my head any longer. (Well, I could but don't want to). So aside from venting existentially I was wondering if any of you have run into a similar fork in the road?
Have any of you long time informal shooters made the transition to a digital SLR and found new freedom? Or new paths?
I carried the Leica everywhere. The D200 is a pig but carry it I do. But I feel myself hating it.
Will this pass?
Roger Hicks
03-10-2008, 07:57
Dear Steve,
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but, um... M8?
Though for black and white, well, I'd stick with film (as I do).
Edit: Then again, I'm no believer in 'Empty Mind' in photography. Buddhist practice, yes. Photography... no. And in any case, I strongly suspect that hating the camera you're using is completely incompatible with 'empty mind' anyway.
Cheers,
R.
This would be a great post in a dSLR forum.
I've shot a few years with a Nikon FM and collected glass, it's now one year I got my D200 and shot a lot with it since I did a lot of travelling and events. A while ago I started shooting BW film again, and an M2 as well.
M2 serves for shooting for myself now, mostly in Black & White. D200 for color: nature, macros, parties, events, experiments, tasks for a magazine I shoot for,...
No idea what I'll do with my 2 FM's :)
Chris101
03-10-2008, 08:13
... Will this pass?Sure. You will become complacent and bored with it. :rolleyes:
Your friend motivates himself the way he does it, and you have your own separate motivation. If shooting with your DSLR is producing the type of work you like, then keep it up. If you want to go back to your Leica, do that. I don't really see the conflict. It seems as if you are trying to become The Photographer that your friend envisions.
Then he'll be happy with your work.
But what will make you happy with it?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but, um... M8?
The M8 isn't any more pocketable than the D200.
Try this on for size:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=9769
Interesting post Steve. I'm going to give you my view point from the other side.
When I started shooting seriously four years ago I went straight to digital and didn't even consider a film camera because I thought film was obsolete...
I began shooting and learned to composite elaborate photos in photoshop. The more I did it, the more I fell into the same routine. I was using all the same effects, sharpening techniques, etc. So about 6 months ago I got fed up and and bought an M3. Little did I know that shooting film instead of digital would open my mind to the potential of photography. Not because film is the conduit to my imagination but because it made me realize how much impact a picture has and not the camera it's been shot with.
Shooting film is like driving a manual transmission car in the days of automatic. It's mostly personal preference and it has zero effect on where you go.
Listen to Chris!
Me, all I can say is: M8
maybe not but I relate much to your experience. I have both rd1 och leica m and I found that I didn't get what I wanted from digital b&w due lack of dynamic range and pretty uggly pattern of noise and grain. This was clearly not better alternative to Trix with D76. But time consuming of developing films left me still undecided if I can get rid of digital stuffs. Probably not that I'm gonna abandon the digital arena but I see the digital medium as good choice to fool around and learn how to take better pictures after instant feedback in the lcd screen of camera or a computer. M8 sounds much nicer alternative to DSLR for professional use and this still can compete with Canon 1ds by judging quality of prints. I also owned nikon DSLR and I find the bulkiness of DSLR too big everytime. Olympus offerings have come close to OM classic body and Nikon fm2.
I'd feel glad to be able use expensive M mount lenses on not only on "hobby" cameras, also future digital or professional tools. So it is wise to mantain same system as possible if other applications don't require another system.
I shoot both, about equally, professionally.
I think digital is great, I do often take more risks and shoot more frames, but digital is not always the right fit. The fact you can see it right away can be very distracting and break up my way of seeing and assessing light.
With film, I make the judgement call, frame it, wait for the right moment, click and then move on to the next frame.....that is the key thing, with film, I make the current image and then I move on. I have faith in what I just did and don't even feel the need to chimp.
There is no right or wrong, worse or better, there is simply another option in photographic history.
One thing I have noticed is that the quality of images I see has not grown at the same rate that digital has taken the photography world. I see a ton more mediocrity because that is the limit of the user. The new fangled digital camera is not actually helping them to see better, just quicker.
So while your friend might be right in that if you are so enamored in the process of film that it might be preventing you from seeing more connectedly, the very same thing could be said if digital.
For every time you look at the back of the digital camera, it points your head downward, away from the world, the moment and the life that you live and places you in the past, not the present that will give you the best opportunities for meaningful images.
Steve Williams
03-10-2008, 08:20
Dear Steve,
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but, um... M8?
Though for black and white, well, I'd stick with film (as I do).
Edit: Then again, I'm no believer in 'Empty Mind' in photography. Buddhist practice, yes. Photography... no. And in any case, I strongly suspect that hating the camera you're using is completely incompatible with 'empty mind' anyway.
Cheers,
R.
Hello Roger,
The M8 has crossed my mind more than once. The cost still scares me though.
I am curious though about the Empty Mind not being compatible with photography. Seems as if a visual release could be beneficial. I just finished reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Albert Einstein and it seemed obvious that Einstein sort of lived a non-stop Empty Mind approach that allowed him to see things others could not.
When I look at my personal photos I can see a repeating of things. I just can't get my head emptied of "this is good composition, this is worth shooting, Cartier-Bresson already did this, blah and blah..."
I do appreciate the feedback though.
when I checked your gallery, I can tell that you're not gonna to get same rich tonality with any digital available within 35mm. So stick with film for art 's sake. I love your art ;)
I just finished reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Albert Einstein and it seemed obvious that Einstein sort of lived a non-stop Empty Mind approach that allowed him to see things others could not.
When I look at my personal photos I can see a repeating of things. I just can't get my head emptied of "this is good composition, this is worth shooting, Cartier-Bresson already did this, blah and blah...
Great book, Walter is a friend and neighbor of mine.
As fun as it is to look at other's work, I actually try to avoided it for the most part. I never want to be concerned if another photographer has already made an image. If I think it is a good image, I should make it.
It seems like your helpful friend now occupies your mind and you are, therefore unable to empty it. Shoot something he would no like and see how it feels. I don't think film/digi is the problem.
Roger Hicks
03-10-2008, 09:01
Hello Roger,
The M8 has crossed my mind more than once. The cost still scares me though.
I am curious though about the Empty Mind not being compatible with photography. Seems as if a visual release could be beneficial. I just finished reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Albert Einstein and it seemed obvious that Einstein sort of lived a non-stop Empty Mind approach that allowed him to see things others could not.
When I look at my personal photos I can see a repeating of things. I just can't get my head emptied of "this is good composition, this is worth shooting, Cartier-Bresson already did this, blah and blah..."
I do appreciate the feedback though.
Dear Steve,
The problem I have is with 'empty mind' and 'prepared mind'. In photography (as in Buddhist practice) you need to have a framework for what you are going to see, and 'empty mind' is as much a framework as slavish following of the 'rules of composition' or the excessive analysis you describe.
My most original thoughts generally come unexpectedly, from a vast range of sources. For example, I've just written a piece for my AP column in the UK which was prompted by something I read in a book about folk song: about how the historical accuracy or factuality of a folk song is substantially irrelevant to its success and impact.
In photography, I'm much inclined to shoot first and ask questions afterwards, which may be why I am happier with 35mm than with 8x10 inch. What happens, increasingly, is that I see something and then 'shoot around' it. Sometimes my favourite shots are not the ones I expected, and I can't even explain why I like them. At least, not to myself, though I can always do the Empty Artspeak if someone is interested.
Maybe 40 years ago I wrote a poem that began, "I see everything twice today," about that special intensity that comes when you see things as if for the first time. Today, I try to remember always to look at things, for themselves, for their beauty, not as potential subjects for pictures. Often I forget to shoot; only later do I think, "Oh, bugger, I could have photographed that." Sometimes, at the time, I think, "That's too hard to photograph." But sometimes I get pictures.
This is why, FOR ME, your approach of 'X films per week' would be counterproductive -- and why I don't want to use a camera I don't like. I'm not saying you will feel the same way; just suggesting it as an alternative.
There's a wonderful phrase, 'hardening of the categories'. Ask yourself, "Am I doing it this way because I have always done it this way? How else could I do it?" And even if the new way doesn't sound as good, give it a try. It might surprise you.
Cheers,
Roger
nightfly
03-10-2008, 09:08
Shoot faster. Think less, react more. Don't put things in the center of the frame so much. Use the ability to see the edges to your advantage.
Camera doesn't matter unless it's a hindrance to above.
Many people, myself included, came to the Leica not so much because of what if offers feature wise but because everything else feels like a hindrance to shooting. I avoided it for as long as I could shooting with point and shoots, small SLRs etc till I tried one and realized it has just the stuff I want and nothing else to get in the way of seeing and shooting.
Jonathan R
03-10-2008, 09:29
Fascinating question, Steve. Your response to your friend is much as mine would have been.
I don't know the Empty Mind concept, but it sounds a child-like state in which the filters that adults use are inoperative. I don't know whether that's something to aspire to or not. My own childhood was a time of visual and olfactory wonder, but with hindsight it seems that it was chiefly 'macro' in perspective, much more obsessed with detail than my adult senses. I could be fascinated by the iridescent patterns of oil on a rainwater puddle, and neither notice the passage of time nor hear the lorry approaching.
WoolenMammoth
03-10-2008, 09:35
The whole concept of the "empty mind" for me, is what is at the core of any art, suggesting that you need to use this or that tool to achieve that zen is a highly pedestrian view of things... I rarely see digital photos that move me. Not because they are digital but because they somehow lack comittment one way or another. If there was any foundation to what your friend was telling you, for the amount of digital cameras that are now out there in the world, we'd be INUNDATED with amazing photography and I simply dont see it.
Your freedom as an artist comes from within. The only thing whatever tool you hold in your hand to realize it should do, primarily, is not get in the way. If you have a tool you arent comfortable with that tiny bit of angst for it is always going to be somehow, part of the equation when you use it. For some people this is a film camera or a digital camera or this kind of guitar or that kind of brush. If you, as the artist, cant overcome and fluidly work with the tool, you arent much of an artist. Perhaps for your friend, that was a digital camera. Its not going to be the same for everyone. To suggest a digital camera will somehow set you free is among the more absurd things Ive heard in quite a while and really goes to the core of what for me, will always be wrong with nonlinear storage systems and their interaction with the creative process.
kipkeston
03-10-2008, 09:38
I have no qualms with risking a frame on film. I don't think the film/digital has anything at all whatsoever to do with such a thing.
This sounds like over-intellectualised, pretentious claptrap to me. You have set yourself a task which has now become a chore. You have allowed yourself to doubt your own eye and your own mind because you have listened and given weight to the opinions of another. Now you are doing it again by airing your "concerns" here.
For goodness' sake abandon the artspeak, and walk away from your project for a while. The kit is not important - it is just a tool. If the tool comes between you and your vision, it is the wrong tool. Go back to your project when you feel motivated to do so. The rest will follow.
Regards,
Bill
Steve Williams
03-10-2008, 09:52
...Go back to your project when you feel motivated to do so. The rest will follow.
Regards,
Bill
Waiting for motivation spells certain doom for me. Motivation only arrives for me in the doing, especially with photography. I don't want you to think that shooting film has become a chore. Quite the contrary, it is a pleasure. And in that pleasure hides the danger of going through the motions of shooting pictures purely for the enjoyment of the process. And that is what my friend has cautioned.
Artspeak. I love that word. Fear of that kept me out of school for decades. I wish I would have found out sooner it was just a different language like all others. But let's save that for another day and another post...
bmattock
03-10-2008, 10:00
Ask me, there's a few too many empty minds running around the landscape. Most of them seem to be in traffic with me at any given time.
Before I gave up engineering for Apple a decade ago, I asked myself a question: I spend much of my time using computers for the sake of computers: testing them, finding their limitations etc... When do I use them to create? I fell into a common pattern, which is to contemplate the tool rather than use the tool to create. I'm a gadget guy, and often am enamored with equipment. However, when I left that world I vowed not to use a tool for the sake of itself, but to focus on what it can do for me artistically. I don't "covet" my cameras as possessions, nor keep those things that don't provide artistic utility for me. This may be extreme, but it has helped me to focus on the output rather than the tool.
That said, I often find myself asking "When should I take my 5D and when should I take my MP?" The answer boils down to "what's the job at hand?". If I *need* to get the picture - to trust that I'm not going to miss the shot... If I need a quick process that results in the best images in the shortest amount of time, I carry the 5D. Sure, it's big with that 85mm 1.2 lens - but that's the right tool for me. If I want to experience the analog photo process for art reasons, or work quietly, or am going to a place without plugs for recharging, I grab the MP. No one camera can solve both issues for me (yet). The M8 is great, but it's just not yielding the results that my 5D does (please note: this is not a dig on the M8 at all! for me, maybe it's totally the tool for others!!)...
So, I feel your angst. Fight the urge to get caught up in using a camera for the sake of itself and grab whatever gets the job done for you. For a while, carry them both... You'll know based on what gives you the best images in the end.
I've noted that the Leica's are an amazing object unto themselves. They feel good - they're built so well - I enjoy using them due to this. But (again, this is just for me!) if compared purely in terms of the images they give, I grab the 5D for it's sheer reliability, full frame and low light brilliance and to "get the job done without worry".
Don't grab a camera based on how much you've spent on it or how it feels in your hand, or even how much space it takes up in your bag (within reason, of course). Grab it because you utterly enjoy the images it produces.
This is a totally subjective opinion - there's nothing wrong with using a tool for the sake of itself - and for many, Leica IS the best tool for the job.
These days, I just want to create great images and tell my story - I don't really care what tool gets it done as long as one of them does :-)
The M8 is the first camera and lens combo that made me consider a break from my current tool. But I can't get the same images out of it that I can with the 5D/85 combo - and I can't replace it overnight if it breaks.
I hope this helps a little in your search - good luck in your creation!
-Dan
... I don't want you to think that shooting film has become a chore. Quite the contrary, it is a pleasure. And in that pleasure hides the danger of going through the motions of shooting pictures purely for the enjoyment of the process. And that is what my friend has cautioned....
I think, in the nicest possible way, you should ignore your friend. Doing something purely for enjoyment is enough. In fact, it's the height of good sense. It's the best use of your time.
Having looked at your project posts, I'd say it's working. Your work is good and you enjoy what you're doing. Good for you. I think we all should become more like you.
My recommendation would be to get a nice cheap fixed lens rangefinder (Konica auto s2, Olympus 35LC or SP or RD, Minolta 7s2) and take all that money and burn through some serious film. That's the only way, I think, that PJs felt free, they just burned thorugh film like it was there own sweat. I think there's a lot to be said about being free and some of these cameras offer comparable image quality and function to your leica, but freeing you up to buy lots of film and to also throw your camera at your friend and not worry about the expense when it breaks his face. I'm just kidding about that, I think your friend is on to something worth thinking about!
Actually those RFs above are not "cheap" in the fixed-lens universe. But they're not leica expensive either.
I found moving from a DSLR to an analogue RF made me a better shooter, gave me more freedom, and made me happier. I gave my Nikon to my Dad.
Morca007
03-10-2008, 10:48
Doing something purely for enjoyment is enough.
I couldn't agree more. As appealing as it is to overcomplicate things, and look for elaborate frameworks, it all comes down to doing what you enjoy, nothing more, nothing less.
Shooting film is like driving a manual transmission car in the days of automatic. It's mostly personal preference and it has zero effect on where you go.
Exactly! So if the day ever comes where you can afford a Porsche 911SC or similar just get an automatic. There's not difference, you'll get to the same place...
I found moving from a DSLR to an analogue RF made me a better shooter, gave me more freedom, and made me happier. I gave my Nikon to my Dad.
Me too. My hit ratio is much higher even though logically it should not make any sense. That plus I cannot get the lookl I want in digital for B&W. I need B&W emulsions for that and digital simply cannot replace it, for me anyway.
bmattock
03-10-2008, 10:57
Exactly! So if the day ever comes where you can afford a Porsche 911SC or similar just get an automatic. There's not difference, you'll get to the same place...
Try sitting in Chicago traffic with the clutch shoved in, let out. Shoved in, let out. Etc. You'll cry for an automatic.
Roger Hicks
03-10-2008, 11:13
Try sitting in Chicago traffic with the clutch shoved in, let out. Shoved in, let out. Etc. You'll cry for an automatic.
Dear Bill,
This is not an argument against Porsche manual gearboxes; it is an argument against going to Chicago. Worse still, going to Chicago with the wrong car.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Vadim
03-10-2008, 11:22
Really interesting musings from the OP - and an interesting thread. Although not completely in line with the empty mind concept, it definetely points to one of the core problems of photographing, and that is to avoid visual clichés. If the "emptynes" works for you to get rid of visual preconceptions - fine. I tend to go another route (which you can see as a kind of"simmilar opposite").
I try to shoot two sheets of 4x5 film in my old Speed Graphic each day (one holder). Nice as a document of the daily routine, but, more important, a e reallly good lesson of judging the (personally) right from the wrong. The awkwardness of the 4x5, the slow composing (you can shoot handheld with the Speed), and the limitations of two sheets all help in bringing a certain aesthetic judgement upfront - which is helping me clearing the vision.
As a sideeffect I love to shoot grainy Tri-x in Rodinal again;)
-Michael
This is close to my view on this subject.
Different people have different motivations & working methods, e.g., Mozart v. Beethoven.
Not everybody has to achieve this so-called "Empty Mind" to be creative.
Sure. You will become complacent and bored with it. :rolleyes:
Your friend motivates himself the way he does it, and you have your own separate motivation. If shooting with your DSLR is producing the type of work you like, then keep it up. If you want to go back to your Leica, do that. I don't really see the conflict. It seems as if you are trying to become The Photographer that your friend envisions.
Then he'll be happy with your work.
But what will make you happy with it?
Neither is pocketable, but surely you don't believe that the M8 is the same size & weight as the D200 (even assuming each has a comparable prime attached)?
However, I do agree that a compact digital like the Caplio might be more "mind-emptying" than a D200 & be a lot easier to carry around.
The M8 isn't any more pocketable than the D200.
Try this on for size:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=9769
For every time you look at the back of the digital camera, it points your head downward, away from the world, the moment and the life that you live and places you in the past, not the present that will give you the best opportunities for meaningful images.
Love this paragraph !!! Why do poeple immediately feel the urge to check the picture they have just taken with their digital toy ? Keep focussing on your subject and take another shot. When you shoot film you also can't check it before development.
I got myself a Lumix LZ7 just for some documentation purpose where it's really incovinient to wait until the film is exposed and developed. And this little toy is just that, a toy, gadget that is full of features that had me cracking up [Baby 1 , Baby 2 scene modes with automatic age display once you did the programming of the birthdates: ROFL-MBO] For the purpose I bought it for it's a great value for money ($129 +S&H). But not for taking pictures to capture the decisive moment - that will be gone during the shutter lag anyway :D .
There clearly is a perceivable difference in the barrier before you press the shutter. This is of course much lower because you just fire away and may delete 95% later. With film you are more careful, more observant and you may ask yourself. Do I have to take this shot? - Maybe not. You make a selective decision before the shot not afterwards.
Maybe you are more "empty" with a digital camera but for me that would be unselectively sucking up everything infront of the lens/sensor/memory chip. I prefer being open but selective with film.
bmattock
03-10-2008, 11:58
Dear Bill,
This is not an argument against Porsche manual gearboxes; it is an argument against going to Chicago. Worse still, going to Chicago with the wrong car.
Cheers,
R.
Ah, so if a person finds themselves in a situation that favors the use of a digital SLR over a rangefinder, the problem is not the camera - the problem is that they are taking photographs of the wrong things. I get it now, thanks.
literiter
03-10-2008, 12:08
My recommendation would be to get a nice cheap fixed lens rangefinder
There is value in this comment. At first I considered it to be rather flippant (sorry) but I realize that is isn't.
When I was about 15 I was given a cheap 35mm rangefinder, I think a Supra. The lady at the store where I bought it had to show me how to load film and how to figure out exposure etc. I knew nothing, absolutey nothing.
I really enjoyed that camera and I used it 'til I was 21. I think I took some of my best work, in many ways, back then because I had no expectations of myself or the camera. I didn't consider the limitations of my camera or my abilities, I just went blindly on and did what I did.
Later I got well caught up in the gear aquisition, what are the good lenses, the best films, bodies and all that. My photography really suffered.
What has stayed with me is the realization that to free my mind it is helpful to be totally comfortable with my tools whatever they may be. Because of this I've stayed with the film cameras I've owned for so long. I don't have to second guess technology I can just work with what I know.
Steve Williams
03-10-2008, 19:29
First, I want to thank everyone for their insights and suggestions. Even though some of you suggested following my own intuition my personal experience has proven that insight is best tempered by a few external insights. Despite being a loner by temperment I have found great worth in the views of others. But in the end I have to figure out what to do.
A few things have jumped out in the discussion that are worth thinking about.
It's not about cameras, it's about what I see.
Keep working.
Keep things simple.
Have fun.
Tragically hip... that's funny!
myoptic3
03-10-2008, 20:24
Why the arbitrary 2 rolls a week and 3 prints. It IS arbitrary. Just shoot whenever there is a shot worth taking (you would be surprised how few shots you will take) and print only the great shots (not the good or very, very good ones). The empty mind comes from not, not thinking. Not from not thinking. Or, just shoot. However, Buddhist practice is one thing and photography another. You may actually want to think MORE and shoot less.
I am reminded of a commercial stock photographer who shot, according to him, over 2,000 rolls of film a year. Figuring it was just 24 exp per roll, that's , mmm, lets see....that's a LOT of pics! And he got 4 or 5 a year that paid the bills. So I wouldn't be worried about printing. I can sometimes get several printable shots a month, then not get any in a year. Edit, edit, edit.
Chris101
03-10-2008, 23:11
... It's not about cameras, it's about what I see. ...Seeing it without a camera is just plain frustrating.
Steve Williams
03-11-2008, 03:54
Seeing it without a camera is just plain frustrating. That's what has prompted me more than once to consider drawing lessons....
mfunnell
03-11-2008, 03:59
I've tried to have an empty mind, but I'm not really cut out for executive management :(
...Mike
Steve Williams
03-11-2008, 04:03
Why the arbitrary 2 rolls a week and 3 prints. It IS arbitrary. Just shoot whenever there is a shot worth taking (you would be surprised how few shots you will take) and print only the great shots (not the good or very, very good ones). The empty mind comes from not, not thinking. Not from not thinking. Or, just shoot. However, Buddhist practice is one thing and photography another. You may actually want to think MORE and shoot less.
I am reminded of a commercial stock photographer who shot, according to him, over 2,000 rolls of film a year. Figuring it was just 24 exp per roll, that's , mmm, lets see....that's a LOT of pics! And he got 4 or 5 a year that paid the bills. So I wouldn't be worried about printing. I can sometimes get several printable shots a month, then not get any in a year. Edit, edit, edit.
I didn't set out shooting the two rolls with any thought or concern about the end products. I did it to assure that I would continue shooting personal work. Photography not connected with my professional life.
For me I know that if I keep shooting something good will happen. It may mean I sell a print, make a new friend, find a new place to eat my lunch, or have a great ride on my Vespa. It has never worked for me to just shoot when I feel like it. The inertia of sitting still is too great. And waiting for motivation and inspiration to touch me too unreliable.
Once I am in motion though I am a different person. So I need the arbitrary two rolls a week. It is obvious though from reading all the responses here that were are all different in what works for us. And what works for me could quite possibly be the worst for someone else. But I keep looking and listening for new ideas and paths.
I do understand your comments about printing and "printable" negatives. I'm printing for different ends though. And like almost all of my prints they are short lived. I show them to a few people and they go into a box and may never be seen again. Still, printing them has value to me. Just not monetary value...
Michiel Fokkema
03-11-2008, 04:20
For me it works the other way around.
With an M I'm less bothered with the technical side of the process. I can concentrate much more on the image. Only a few controls and I can predict the outcome. Same with my Leicaflex SL2.
With the Canon 20D I'm much more busy with the controls and checking the exposure etc. It keeps me from getting into the flow. I might need more practice with it but I just don't trust the camera to get the result I'm looking for. I use the 20D less and less in favour for film.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Neither is pocketable, but surely you don't believe that the M8 is the same size & weight as the D200 (even assuming each has a comparable prime attached)?
The Leica is smaller, but not by much. Either camera is too damned big to carry around in a pocket. Unless you consider a Domke 803 your pocket. :D
However, I do agree that a compact digital like the Caplio might be more "mind-emptying" than a D200 & be a lot easier to carry around.
The notion that a Leica M is small enough to always have on you is largely a myth. It's smaller than an SLR, but still too big. These new small sensor digital cameras like the Ricoh's are truely pocketable and they have very good manual controls. Is their image quality equal to an M8 or even scanned film. No, but so what? There's something to be said for always having a camera on your person, and there's more to be said about a camera so innocuous that no one takes it seriously. I think the images being posted on the GET DPI small sensor forum certainly prove that.
The Ricoh GR-D and GX-100 ARE the Barnack Leicas of our time. Yes, I'm serious. :) Too bad no one at Leica recognizes that.
Geez! I carry Leica + 40mm f2 lens in pockets. It even fits in ANY cargo pants pockets.
Kevin, why are you so stubborn?
Well, having handled both, I think an M8 is considerably smaller (& lighter) & much easier to carry around. Besides, I don't think the OP mentioned anything about pocketability, just that the D200 was "a pig to carry" compared to an M6; the M8 is just a bit thicker than an M6.
Personally, I think ultra-small cameras (e.g., Olympus XA) can be a pain to use because the controls are too small (same goes w/cellphones). Easy to carry, yes; easy to use, not so much. The typical "Barnack" body is about the smallest form factor I'd be willing to accept for daily use, so the Ricohs do qualify by that measure, I suppose.
The Leica is smaller, but not by much. Either camera is too damned big to carry around in a pocket. Unless you consider a Domke 803 your pocket. :D
The notion that a Leica M is small enough to always have on you is largely a myth. It's smaller than an SLR, but still too big. These new small sensor digital cameras like the Ricoh's are truely pocketable and they have very good manual controls. Is their image quality equal to an M8 or even scanned film. No, but so what? There's something to be said for always having a camera on your person, and there's more to be said about a camera so innocuous that no one takes it seriously. I think the images being posted on the GET DPI small sensor forum certainly prove that.
The Ricoh GR-D and GX-100 ARE the Barnack Leicas of our time. Yes, I'm serious. :) Too bad no one at Leica recognizes that.
Steve Williams
03-11-2008, 07:33
The Leica is smaller, but not by much. Either camera is too damned big to carry around in a pocket. Unless you consider a Domke 803 your pocket. :D
The notion that a Leica M is small enough to always have on you is largely a myth.
Carrying a camera around with you all the time is something that you just decide to do. Even if I have the Domke satchel with me the camera is always around my neck (M6). Traveling light I just have the camera around my neck with an extra roll of film in my pocket.
With the Nikon D200 I carry it with me around my neck. It's bigger and heavier but you get used to it. It becomes invisible unless you feel self conscious. I have had smaller cameras, point and shoots, that fit in my pocket but I use them less. Around the neck works best. Even at work in meetings I arrive with a camera.
I suppose after years of hauling an 8x10 around everything else is tiny...
I deliberately don't carry a camera with me all the time so that I enjoy what else life has to offer apart from photography.
My simple philosophy is live to photograph, not photograph to live.
I'm willing to wager a rather large sum of money that the majority of people who say they "always" have their M body with them are engaging in a form of deception. Self-deception at the very least. The M is not small; it's only smaller than an SLR. It's not light, either, and it's not water-resistant. Plus, it's a rather valuable item, and there's the understandable tendency to want to keep valuable things out of harms way.
Those factors combined mean that while the M is a very fine tool, it's often not THERE to do the job. And any tool that's not there is a rather useless in its roll as a tool.
Sure, the M is lighter and smaller than a DSLR. But if your real aim is to have a camera on your person at all times, there are some real "no excuses" choices out there nowadays.
I always carry my m mount body with me, though theres no way its fitting into my pockets. :) I just wear it bandolero with a neckstrap and pull it up to shoot whenever i see something interesting.
I could never get comfortable carrying the camera around my neck. I always ended up bringing the Domke 803 with me. And if I was bringing THAT, then I might as well bring the second body, too....and the 90....and the flash, because you never know.... :D
Same here. I've never understood those who insist on going strapless & carrying their camera in their hand(s) all the time. What if they don't have a bag & need to hold a drink or something? :p
I always carry my m mount body with me, though theres no way its fitting into my pockets. :) I just wear it bandolero with a neckstrap and pull it up to shoot whenever i see something interesting.
After have tried Rollei 35, I think that Barnack and M bodies are perfectly balanced for taking shoots. Especially M when it is about take sharper pictures with slower shutter timings. I don't even manage 1/30 on rollei 35 due very sticky shutter and too unstable body.
I had backaches after using d70 with 17-70 zoom kit. It is not definitely light setup. Nikor af 50/1.8 feels quite large when I compare it with summicron:)
Steve Williams
03-11-2008, 08:56
I deliberately don't carry a camera with me all the time so that I enjoy what else life has to offer apart from photography.
My simple philosophy is live to photograph, not photograph to live.
My God! That's it. Except I am closer to being you're polar opposite. For good or ill I don't pay as close attention when I am not photographing. The camera parallels a hearing aid.
I have gone for long periods not making photos and that's when things get generally messed up for me.
Carrying the camera is not a burden though. And I don't fret anymore about having all the right equipment along just in case.
We are one varied bunch of people...
I remember how many times I regret at last few years not having a camera with me when good occasions appeared. Recently I have decided to put rollei or barnack in my pocket when I go to work or outside every time.
sonofdanang
03-11-2008, 09:01
When I look at my personal photos I can see a repeating of things. I just can't get my head emptied of "this is good composition, this is worth shooting, Cartier-Bresson already did this, blah and blah..."
As we invoke 'empty mind', consider that there are essentially three ego-states: Superior to, inferior to, and equal to.
Consider the 'unique'.
When you hear that 'blah and blah...' in your head, ignore it as you would chatter at a gallery and keep looking at the photograph. There is something else there. You took the picture. Follow the threads. As a famous writer once said, 'Just get the words down. You will always re-write, following alleys previously unrevealed".
Just keep working. The process is just the boat that gets you across the river. Once you're on the other shore, you gonna carry that thing on your head for the rest of the journey?
As we invoke 'empty mind', consider that there are essentially three ego-states: Superior to, inferior to, and equal to.
Consider the 'unique'.
When you hear that 'blah and blah...' in your head, ignore it as you would chatter at a gallery and keep looking at the photograph. There is something else there. You took the picture. Follow the threads. As a famous writer once said, 'Just get the words down. You will always re-write, following alleys previously unrevealed".
Just keep working. The process is just the boat that gets you across the river. Once you're on the other shore, you gonna carry that thing on your head for the rest of the journey?
it is called zen mode :)
I remember how many times I regret at last few years not having a camera with me when good occasions appeared. Recently I have decided to put rollei or barnack in my pocket when I go to work or outside every time.
Me too. I think it's been at least 4-5 years since I've started carrying a camera everywhere. When I go out specifically to shoot it can be any number of cameras I have. If I'm in casual dress mode I typically carry my Contax T2 or Rollei 35T in a coat pocket. But even on a day like today where I'm in my business suit the light-weight yet very sharp and capable Olympus XA is in one of the inner suit pockets....
PhotoMat
03-11-2008, 09:26
it is called zen mode :)
Is that located on the function dial of my DSLR?
Hi Steve,
I can only suggest you the exercise our teacher gave us during the reportage (photo-journalist) course.
Since he saw our way to shoot too "rational" and "far" from the subject, he suggested us to stroll along with our camera, whatever it was, and one or two friends that should have taken us in a secret / unknown place with OUR EYES COVERED, so basing our shooting only on our ears, smell and tact (our feet, mostly, when sensing you're passing through a different terrain / road) and shoot. Blindingly. Well, don't ask me why or how, but it worked. A lot of us (unfortunately me not since I was ill and couldn't do the exercise, and my wife felt ashamed to do such thing (!)) improved significantly and suddenly. Their shots were now more intense and interesting than when shooting only with eyes, and this doesn't mean necessarily they should be "straight" (horizontal). It worked like a removed lock from our minds. Try it and see if your way to shoot is later more pleasant to your eyes. The aim is making your other senses more important in the shooting process, not leaving to eyes the 100% of your shutter tripping decision.
Best wishes for your shooting.
I'm willing to wager a rather large sum of money that the majority of people who say they "always" have their M body with them are engaging in a form of deception. Self-deception at the very least. The M is not small; it's only smaller than an SLR. It's not light, either, and it's not water-resistant. Plus, it's a rather valuable item, and there's the understandable tendency to want to keep valuable things out of harms way.
Those factors combined mean that while the M is a very fine tool, it's often not THERE to do the job. And any tool that's not there is a rather useless in its roll as a tool.
Sure, the M is lighter and smaller than a DSLR. But if your real aim is to have a camera on your person at all times, there are some real "no excuses" choices out there nowadays.
But from where do you dig out these pathetic conclusions? Kevin, I'm starting to think you only like to stir a debate for the sake of doing so.
The M system is VERY small. Like you say, it's only smaller then SLRs, but please don't forget the SLRs are created to be a small alternative to bigger formats. This is where the M system gained its reputation: its size and build.
Please visit this link (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55773)and PM me so I can tell you where to send the LARGE sum of money you are talking about.
I'm willing to wager a rather large sum of money that the majority of people who say they "always" have their M body with them are engaging in a form of deception. Self-deception at the very least. The M is not small; it's only smaller than an SLR. It's not light, either, and it's not water-resistant. Plus, it's a rather valuable item, and there's the understandable tendency to want to keep valuable things out of harms way.
Those factors combined mean that while the M is a very fine tool, it's often not THERE to do the job. And any tool that's not there is a rather useless in its roll as a tool.
Sure, the M is lighter and smaller than a DSLR. But if your real aim is to have a camera on your person at all times, there are some real "no excuses" choices out there nowadays.
I have carried an M everywhere for years. M6 originally, then M7. In briefcase, in belt pouch, or in shoulder bag. Now I carry a Barnack, but because I like the experience, not because I couldn't stand the weight of the M anymore. Collapsible lenses are our friends, in both M and LTM mount
Enough with the sweeping generalisations, eh?
Regards,
Bill
This is where the M system gained its reputation: its size and build.
Ned, you're an exception to the general rule, that's for sure. In fact, I thought of you while I was typing. But the M gained its reputation in 1954, and it ain't 1954 anymore. The M isn't that small, it weighs alot for its size, and it doesn't like water. Which is why we see so many pics shot in "safe" locations, I guess.
I have carried an M everywhere for years.
Really? Everywhere? Are you sure this isn't just a figure of speech?
Out in the rain? In a Kayak? When you're wearing nothing but a pair of cut off shorts and flip flops chasing the kids while they play on the lawn? That kind of "everywhere?" Those are the situations where my M bodies normally got left in the car, in the hotel room, or back in the house.
Well, with the digital M8, I think we're going to see a surge. If I was a war photographer, I'd be shooting the M8 instead of any other camera. But then again, with technology being what it is, even Cell Phones can do a good job over Leica, Nikon and Canon.
I think it's only personal... Depends on the photographer. The world is big and we represent a microcosm. Leicas are Tanks and they don't fear water, IMO.
Ned, you're an exception to the general rule, that's for sure. In fact, I thought of you while I was typing. But the M gained its reputation in 1954, and it ain't 1954 anymore. The M isn't that small, it weighs alot for its size, and it doesn't like water. Which is why we see so many pics shot in "safe" locations, I guess.
Really? Everywhere? Are you sure this isn't just a figure of speech?
Out in the rain? In a Kayak? When you're wearing nothing but a pair of cut off shorts and flip flops chasing the kids while they play on the lawn? That kind of "everywhere?" Those are the situations where my M bodies normally got left in the car, in the hotel room, or back in the house.
Yes. Unequivocally. Except the Kayak bit, of course, since I am English and have some modicum of decorum. Once it becomes part of you, it is not a chore. If it is not in my briefcase, belt pouch or shoulder bag it is on the floor, desk, seat, coat pocket, or what-have-you, close at hand. Now, as I have already said, my IID occupies that position, but because I'm having fun with it, not because it's necessarily smaller.
Y'know, it's ok to have a different opinion. There's no need to grind everyone to your point of view.
Regards,
Bill
Ned, you're an exception to the general rule, that's for sure.
If you really believe that you speak for the general, why not see that that belief is one exception too. Recognize that between millions photo camera users exist very very few photographers who don't see any obstacles. Antic Leica M pieces might look as some bothersome obstacles for most people. It is very natural and at the opposite some find using m system as far liberating. Rules of sport, journalism photography don't apply to art and vice versa.
I don't get the "I don't take risks" approach with film.
Film is cheap. Especially B&W film. I buy in bulk, and shoot mindlessly if I want to.
If you need to work faster and like film, then by all means get AF and AE, VR, higher frame per sec, etc. There is great technology for doing so in film cameras. An F5 or an F6 is probably as humanly close as possible as a "no opportunity wasted" camera.
People who really like digital are as enamoured of the process as are people who are in love with film. It's not a trap to like the process: how else can you achieve pixelation than with digital? how else can you achieve grain but with film?
I don't see how shooting digital to prevent you from being "enamoured of the process" is anything good. What, you like film, and should shoot digital, and hate it, in order to make better photographs? Do you think any competent photographer hates their tools?
Yes it's important to see past the warm fuzzy feeling of handling a Leica or a Nikon, but if it wasn't there in the first place you wouldn't be taking pictures. At the same time it's important to get out of your comfort zone, but I really don't see how digital would get you out of your comfort zone. Most people I know who shoot both in fact find the stronger discipline required by film to be an asset for their digital shooting.
If you want to learn to see instead of playing with toys, then don't get new toys. Go read on art history, learn to draw, practice composition, get a portfolio review, engage in heated debates about aesthetics, set up an exhibit and try to convince galleries to show your stuff, but DON'T GO BUYING NEW GEAR!
It's not the gear that will make you learn how to see. It's the people you meet and their art.
Is that located on the function dial of my DSLR?
hehe good one. it might take thousands years for DSLR manufacurers to design zen mode
If you really want use zen mode, you can find one invisible on antic leica m cameras after a long time meditation:angel:
I'm usually a little skeptical of abstract phrasing especially when the said phrase sounds rather mysterious and philosophical yet it does not make any sense.
Let’s say ‘empty mind’, for one it is a priori conjecture which predicates an idealized mental state with certain criterion of action and thought etc... But if pondered closely it reveals itself as just another mind-game which tries to achieve the basic and automatic function of human brain and that is the ability of human mind to simply perform an action without actually 'thinking about', like fixing your hair or breathing.
:D
Steve Williams
03-13-2008, 02:55
I'm usually a little skeptical of abstract phrasing especially when the said phrase sounds rather mysterious and philosophical yet it does not make any sense.
You might be taking the term "Empty Mind" too literally. I think my friend intended in as a suggestion to me to let go of my rules, expectations, beliefs, and such as it related to photography. Just for a little while. And god knows I have a lot of them that have served me well until they got obsessive --- things like the search for the finest grain, perfect developer, best camera, best lens, best subject, best paper. And others even more sinister like no cropping. Or one induced by Fred Picker of always having the view camera at eye level.....*what's that about*.
Anyways, he has suggested I let go. And I have at times and that's usually when I move off the plateau and onto another level. Sometimes up, sometimes down.
Right now the one that stands out best for me as an example of letting go is related to my reactions to the work of the Starn Twins. When I first saw it I rejected it as utterly without worth. Bollocks as some would say. Bad technique, just another example of the terrible art crap bull**** that arrives in public.
And when I was able to let go and view it with the "Empty Mind" I was able to see things that were quite amazing on a lot of levels. Still not the kind of work I would do or be interested in but I was able to abandoned my narrow minded view of things.
And this appears in so many areas, not just photography. What is difficult for me though is letting go of my beliefs in how photography should be. And look at it like a little kid. The world is way more cooler through those eyes. And it doesn't cost a thing or hurt me one bit.
Until I have to go to work..... *grrr* :)
I appreciate your comments and everyone else's. It has kept me thinking all week!
Ara Ghajanian
03-13-2008, 07:19
My 2 cents: your friend is wrong. It has nothing to do with the camera. Digital has it's own processes also and you could get caught up in those too. The M8 won't solve it either (been down that road myself), the image quality is NOT better than film, I don't care what anyone says. Stick with film if you feel comfortable with the process.
It's your mind that needs to be emptied, not your camera. By asking this question on the forum, it is obvious that your mind has been filled even more with your friend's opinion and now all of ours. You need to forget everyone's opinion (except mine of course). Jjust shoot for pleasure, not to reach a particular goal. Only them will you enjoy what you produce.
Ara
literiter
03-13-2008, 07:35
Photography is far, far to important to be taken seriously.
Try to find what you like, then stay there.
Have to agree with Ara. It isn't about the camera.
Here is an interesting podcast in which photographer Henry Wessel discusses the importance of keeping the mind out of the shooting process...
http://www.sfmoma.org/podcasts/2007/february/sfmoma_artcast_feb07.m4a
Cheers,
Gary
You might be taking the term "Empty Mind" too literally. I think my friend intended in as a suggestion to me to let go of my rules, expectations, beliefs, and such as it related to photography. Just for a little while. And god knows I have a lot of them that have served me well until they got obsessive --- things like the search for the finest grain, perfect developer, best camera, best lens, best subject, best paper. And others even more sinister like no cropping. Or one induced by Fred Picker of always having the view camera at eye level.....*what's that about*.
Anyways, he has suggested I let go. And I have at times and that's usually when I move off the plateau and onto another level. Sometimes up, sometimes down.
Right now the one that stands out best for me as an example of letting go is related to my reactions to the work of the Starn Twins. When I first saw it I rejected it as utterly without worth. Bollocks as some would say. Bad technique, just another example of the terrible art crap bull**** that arrives in public.
And when I was able to let go and view it with the "Empty Mind" I was able to see things that were quite amazing on a lot of levels. Still not the kind of work I would do or be interested in but I was able to abandoned my narrow minded view of things.
And this appears in so many areas, not just photography. What is difficult for me though is letting go of my beliefs in how photography should be. And look at it like a little kid. The world is way more cooler through those eyes. And it doesn't cost a thing or hurt me one bit.
Until I have to go to work..... *grrr* :)
I appreciate your comments and everyone else's. It has kept me thinking all week!
You're welcome.
I actually felt burned-out after an extensive period of constant photography. During this period I was simply shooting clichés and trying to imitate the photographs that I had seen and admired - most of the time unconsciously. My shots were all over the place, basically trying to say everything in catchy one-liners instead of a cohesive paragraph or an essay... My memory was overloaded and I finally burned-out and lost motivation to shoot.
Now, there is nothing wrong in great one-liners, they could be more interesting than a paragraph but to my mind they got tiresome and their finiteness stifled my drive to be creative. So, I stopped shooting, instead I went and studied the great masters... The experience was a total revelation and a humbling experience. I also realized how truly complex serious photography is and how one can easily get lost if not careful. So, that's when actually my mind felt free of all the prepackaged ideas of photography and I did not felt the empty mind but I felt librated. So, I decided that if I'm considering photography as my only means of self-expression then I should make it as cohesive and structured as possible and avoid the one-liners and catch phrases.
Anyway, I want to be prepared and focused and wait for the right subject. So, I guess what you need is to findout the right subject for you and then give it all.
Anyway, I want to be prepared and focused and wait for the right subject. So, I guess what you need is to findout the right subject for you and then give it all.
It is not the way an empty mind works. But rather quite contrary. If you like preoccupied mind, that's fine too :)
i carry an m almost EVERYWHERE.
I used to carry mine "almost" everywhere, too. But then I discovered that I was missing alot of pictures I wanted to take in those "almosts." :)
I used to carry mine "almost" everywhere, too. But then I discovered that I was missing alot of pictures I wanted to take in those "almosts." :)
maybe you have better chance with plastic dslr ;)
maybe you have better chance with plastic dslr
The fact that I actually used a pair of Leica M's professionally means nothing, does it? All one has to do is simply question the myth of Leica's supremacy as a silent, compact, take-anywhere camera and the darts come flying. This place too often resembles a house of worship more than it does a forum.
My point is that if one's camera is too heavy/bulky, too fragile or too valuable to take EVERYWHERE, then perhaps that particular camera is a limitation on one's photography. If one's CAMERA is more precious than the images it takes, perhaps one has the cart leading the horse, n'est-ce pas?
It ain't 1954 anymore.
sonofdanang
03-13-2008, 16:36
Yes, I also am pretty tired of the plastic vs metal "real" camera thing. It's about the images you make, not how you make them - which, I think, is the theme of the post; about not getting caught in process.
NickTrop
03-13-2008, 17:22
It's the other way around.
It's not that shooting digital results in "empty mind" photography.
It's that you must have an "empty mind" to shoot digital photography.
amateriat
03-13-2008, 21:50
Free your mind, and your glass will follow.
- Barrett
mfunnell
03-13-2008, 23:55
It's the other way around.
It's not that shooting digital results in "empty mind" photography.
It's that you must have an "empty mind" to shoot digital photography.I see. Your preferences are deeply thought out, while those of others are unthinking. Right.
I hope you're joking. If you are, then I am :D But if you're not then I'm not :mad:
...Mike
The fact that I actually used a pair of Leica M's professionally means nothing, does it? All one has to do is simply question the myth of Leica's supremacy as a silent, compact, take-anywhere camera and the darts come flying. This place too often resembles a house of worship more than it does a forum.
My point is that if one's camera is too heavy/bulky, too fragile or too valuable to take EVERYWHERE, then perhaps that particular camera is a limitation on one's photography. If one's CAMERA is more precious than the images it takes, perhaps one has the cart leading the horse, n'est-ce pas?
It ain't 1954 anymore.
I agree. The camera should be seen as an usable tool. My M3 is beat up and I'm gonna modify this so I feel that this is no longer "valuable", precious for me. So it makes much easier for me to make photography without any compromises.
When I said plastic, I thought more about weather sealings.
Regarding weight, I found that a designated body of 600gram (like M) is optimal weight compared to smaller of 200gram especially when you take shoots at dark places. I don't think you can get usable images with slower shutter timings if you use 400gram Rolleiflex TLR either. So form follows function (remember saab advertisement?) :D
Steve Williams
03-16-2008, 18:05
For good or ill I have followed my friend's suggestion and put the M6 aside this past week in favor of the Nikon D200. I made around 100 exposures that I consider within the 3 Prints Project. It's definitely different and I will continue to alternate weekly between film and digital. There is really no way for me to predict where it will lead. Too much to consider right now as I look at them but I will post them on my blog late Monday.
I did drag the D200 around with me most of the week and was mostly happy I didn't break it. There is a lot more to bang around than with the Leica.
Thanks again for your input.
Tim Gray
03-23-2008, 08:56
I shoot both, about equally, professionally.
With film, I make the judgement call, frame it, wait for the right moment, click and then move on to the next frame.....that is the key thing, with film, I make the current image and then I move on. I have faith in what I just did and don't even feel the need to chimp.
...
For every time you look at the back of the digital camera, it points your head downward, away from the world, the moment and the life that you live and places you in the past, not the present that will give you the best opportunities for meaningful images.
It's interesting to hear a clearly experience professional photographer say this. One who has extensive experience with film.
My own journey from digital to film taught me how I was using digital (photoshop, RAW, and the LCD) as a crutch. Shooting film taught me to do away with that. I tell this to people and they say you could do the same with digital - set your camera to manual, turn of the LCD. Who actually does that though?
sonofdanang
03-23-2008, 10:37
- set your camera to manual, turn of the LCD. Who actually does that though?
Well, I do. And, from what I see at other events where I'm working with other photographers, so do many others. If your shooting action, looking at the LCD is a real liability - chimping = missing the shot. It's there at the press of a button if you need it, but for many reasons - battery life, distraction in dark environments etc, - it's generally left off. If your shooting studio, the process is more deliberate - maybe - and in 35, 6x7, 4x5, et al one often shot a polaroid to check. Now with tethering - or even without, you check your values, and then work.
nextreme
03-23-2008, 10:57
Since the end of November I have committed myself (along with a friend) to shoot two rolls of film each week, process, and make three silver prints. At the end of January I started posting the results on my Vespa blog (a Vespa and Leica are similar) and until this past week was quite satisfied with the process.
You can see the 3 Prints Project posts HERE (http://vespalx150.blogspot.com/2008/02/3-prints-project-index.html)
The key word for this post is process.
Another friend and serious photographer cautioned me about becoming enamored with process and suggested that passion for what I see should be driving me and not the warm fuzzy feelings I get being in the darkroom (yes...*sigh*).
And he went on to suggest that not only might I be hobbled by the process but shooting film might keep me from reaching the Empty Mind, the place where I can let go of my expectations and preconceptions and really begin to see.
Words from him are not something I take lightly. And I have considered carefully how I work with film. Looking at my contact sheets it's obvious that I am careful tripping the shutter and work with what is familiar and comfortable. I don't take risks and don't push. He could see it. (*******)
Ever the rationalizer I suggested that if I wasn't getting the warm fuzzies from the camera and process I wouldn't be shooting. He conceded my point but told me that it did not remedy my careful view of things.
So I have been second-guessing myself for the past week. I parked the M6 in the Domke bag and have been carrying the Nikon D200 with a 20mm lens around. I use it professionally but never much personally. It's a beast in comparison and I don't feel comfortable with it. Strange considering how much I use it otherwise. But there is no doubt that I am face to face with my narrow approach and predisposition with the Leica.
I can't turn this around in my head any longer. (Well, I could but don't want to). So aside from venting existentially I was wondering if any of you have run into a similar fork in the road?
Have any of you long time informal shooters made the transition to a digital SLR and found new freedom? Or new paths?
I carried the Leica everywhere. The D200 is a pig but carry it I do. But I feel myself hating it.
Will this pass?
I just can't find fault in your post, beside the fact that you're questioning yourself. What is wrong with process ? In today's day and age, is that not at least part of the reason why we choose to shoot film ? The fact of the matter is, that is what makes the two types of photography different from each other, why IMO, the question is not an either/or, but a when to use what.
Enjoy both.
Your friend is wrong to tell you how you should be thinking or feeling. If the process is what brings you to photography, and that's what makes you happy, then that's what you should do! I'm one of those process people, and I'm fine with it! Relax and enjoy.
Vic
larmarv916
03-23-2008, 21:25
My, My....My ! Well for what ever it's worth let me through another way of looking at this whole arugement. It is very similar to the Sail vs Power "boats" or another even better angle is the differentce between vintage vs modern propeller aircraft or Prop vs Jet. Digital is final step in the evoultion of the "groof proof" consumer markeing goal going back almost 50 years.
Film requires that you are "piloting" the creative concept every step of the way from take off to landing and the whole time you flying. Your totally responsible for eveything , tacking, sail management and it is all done by......"The Seat of your Pants" No ABS or Auto Pilot, no Crash Avoidanve Systems.
Digital is like playing a video racing game on you Wii or PS3 Back when I was a student,,,,not all that long ago. No one would ever think of claiming credit for a print that came off a automatic lab machine. Now days Digital is making it so the people who are really caught up in it feeling as if they are actually creating something. This is not true. For most of them can not even focus.!!
Auto Focus is really the biggest proof how far down on the passive free ride society the majority if the consumers have moved down. Hell even F-1 dropped traction control and computer conrtolled suspensions because the drivers were not actually responsible for their performance.
When you using film there is no safety net......Crap in Crap Out ! Your skill and Karama is what you get for your final print. It's a high wire act but failure is the best teacher.
Best regards.....Laurance
Tim Gray
03-24-2008, 05:35
Well, I do. And, from what I see at other events where I'm working with other photographers, so do many others. If your shooting action, looking at the LCD is a real liability - chimping = missing the shot.
Cool. I don't think I've ever seen someone do this...
Cool. I don't think I've ever seen someone do this...
Me neither. Never.
sonofdanang
03-24-2008, 09:25
#94 Laurance, I've been shooting for over 35 years - professionally and personally. Digital technology is simply a different 'emulsion', if you will. There have been AF/AE technologies on the pro/am market for years. Before digital. It's just a different tool. Did the camera get up and take the picture for you? No. The process - and that is what we are talking about here - is one of making images. The OP is examining his process and the gestalt of his participation in those processes. The tool is a factor in the process but it has no deterministic value due to the simple fact that a tool does not posses or impart consciousness. The conscious mind chooses the tool and directs it.
This reminds me of a comment made by an older view-camera user: "What, 'focusing' using a split-image range-finder? How could that possibly be focusing? He's not looking at the ground glass through the loupe. He's not seeing the light at the film plane. 35mm will never be a real medium."
Hmmm..
Or as a friend of mine who was covering the Tamil rebellion said, "One shouldn't hide behind sacred cows - they don't stop bullets. Or any other personal truths."
Odd guy, but on the money.
Enjoy the use and usefulness of your tools, try using them in different ways. But don't fall in love with them, they are only tools. Explore, explore, explore.
Chris101
03-24-2008, 18:52
My, My....My ! ...Back in the day, when we wanted to communicate ideas, we would type it up with our IBM Selectric, and then mimeo off a few hundred copies and mail them out to a bunch of friends and acquaintances. That would get the ideas across, because they could actually HOLD our words in their hands.
Any hack can do this internet stuff. We don't even have to use our real names. What kind of commitment or talent does this take?
larmarv916
03-24-2008, 21:03
Back when the IBM Selectric was in it's years of prime power as the communitaction tool of choice. Most of the memo's that went out the door were never seen by the intended target. The secratary of other office gard dogs. Filtered out the daily mail and maybe....it got to it's group of intended targets.
I do not have a problem with people choosing a particulart tool for gemeration of photo images. what Iam saying is that the medium is not the same. When all of the actual accountability or risk for the final image is handled by a software program that corrects for all of the actual faults of the lens or takes over the vast bulk of actual decisions for the end product.
If digital is the tool of choice for someone else that is fine but do not say that the process of creative birth or output is the same. A painter and a digital photographer do not have the same skill levels for reaching the similar final goal. That is lke saying a digital 3D sculpture from a cad scaned sample is the same as the one generated by one EYE and Hammer of a single artist.
I can remmeber many authors of paper memos that we negative reaction came back would disavow that the memo had been incorrectly released without their permission. Think back to Watergate and several other paper based scandals where the authors swore......"Hey man I didnt write. that" !!
When the human element is removed from the actual creative birth and delivery and the skill gets down to push this button and walk away....As in email your flash drive or FedEx it to some art director thousaands of miles away so they can choose 1 or 2 images from the 500 shot during a couple of hours...Well you get my point.
35mm was still a film media....digtal is almost a robotic simulation process. Iam not lossing sleep over this idea and for those who need it actually they enhance the world view of film as a art from.
omg dude. Wow. I read your page back in August when I was mulling over buying a vespa. Because of you I kept debating the merits of a GTS versus the LX. Weird to see you frequent another forum. I ended up getting a black LX 150 by the way. My ex ended up taking a photo 1 class and her personal project was on vespas. She was the one pushing hard for me to get one because she had one. And then because of her for some odd reason I end up taking shots of vespas whenever I pass by one.
As for film versus digital. However you shoot is how you shoot. Personally. I find myself in the opposite position. I often grab my M7 over my digital M8. The only time I use it is when I'm on a deadline, or just goofing around or when I know they're just going to be shots for the internet. Otherwise, it's always my M7 in the camera bag when I'm out the door. And I don't hesitate at all because it's film. I think that argument is just silly. No personal offense intended. But I simply don't think that way. There are times I'm checking over my fresh negs and it's like two rolls of the same thing. If it's cost prohibitive, I can understand that. Then maybe the D200 is best for you. If it's the time spent on processing. Maybe you should just start taking your stuff to a lab to get it processed. There's no shame in that.
Steve Williams
03-26-2008, 18:50
omg dude. Wow. I read your page back in August when I was mulling over buying a vespa. Because of you I kept debating the merits of a GTS versus the LX. Weird to see you frequent another forum. I ended up getting a black LX 150 by the way. My ex ended up taking a photo 1 class and her personal project was on vespas. She was the one pushing hard for me to get one because she had one. And then because of her for some odd reason I end up taking shots of vespas whenever I pass by one.
As for film versus digital. However you shoot is how you shoot. Personally. I find myself in the opposite position. I often grab my M7 over my digital M8. The only time I use it is when I'm on a deadline, or just goofing around or when I know they're just going to be shots for the internet. Otherwise, it's always my M7 in the camera bag when I'm out the door. And I don't hesitate at all because it's film. I think that argument is just silly. No personal offense intended. But I simply don't think that way. There are times I'm checking over my fresh negs and it's like two rolls of the same thing. If it's cost prohibitive, I can understand that. Then maybe the D200 is best for you. If it's the time spent on processing. Maybe you should just start taking your stuff to a lab to get it processed. There's no shame in that.
Definitely a small world.
The Vespa and the camera seem like a natural pairing, at least to me. Sorry to hear your inspiration for the Vespa is now your ex but at least you still have the scooter.
There is no time or money issue with film or digital. Whenever I struggle it's a mental issue that appears as sloth or laziness with roots too numerous to go into here. The book "Art and Fear" does a good job rounding them up. This week things are going much smoother. Shooting digital this week and have primarily been shooting with the Canon G9. Nice little camera.
Steve Williams
02-24-2009, 14:57
Anyway, I want to be prepared and focused and wait for the right subject. So, I guess what you need is to findout the right subject for you and then give it all.
NH3: I've read your post a number of times and it has a lot of things in it that resonate with me. Determining the what the right subject is for me is a real challenge. Waiting doesn't work for me. I just need to slog on and make pictures until something touches a creative chord.
Ah photography...
interesting read. I have gone from film to digital and back. I found firing the shutter was too easy with digital. Even though I would take shots I passed up on film, but I also put less thought into them. Film teaches you to think and therefore to see since you see with your mind, not your eyes....
Ara Ghajanian
02-25-2009, 05:52
Seriously, I used to hem and haw about which camera to use and had all these idealistic phases where Mamiya ruled, then Hasselblad ruled, then Nikon manual ruled, then Leica ruled, etc. I don't really think the camera matters at all, it's all in your mind. It's your mind's eye that captures the image initially. All the camera does is record it. Your skill refines it. My work hasn't gotten better or worse due to the camera I use, my mind just adapts to the medium and I have an image. How you work it (i.e. film, digital, photoshop, darkroom) is irrelevant to the final image.
I don't expect people on a film forum to be open to such a suggestion, in fact, most here would consider not putting a camera on a pedestal to be blasphemy. The camera is not important, the mind is the key. This is not to say that you shouldn't master your tools, but one tool is not the key to unlocking anything Zen-like. It's when you accept that these tools are just extensions of your mind, then you will become a photographer and not a camera stroker.
Steve Williams
02-25-2009, 06:27
Seriously, I used to hem and haw about which camera to use and had all these idealistic phases where Mamiya ruled, then Hasselblad ruled, then Nikon manual ruled, then Leica ruled, etc. I don't really think the camera matters at all, it's all in your mind. It's your mind's eye that captures the image initially. All the camera does is record it. Your skill refines it. My work hasn't gotten better or worse due to the camera I use, my mind just adapts to the medium and I have an image. How you work it (i.e. film, digital, photoshop, darkroom) is irrelevant to the final image.
I don't expect people on a film forum to be open to such a suggestion, in fact, most here would consider not putting a camera on a pedestal to be blasphemy. The camera is not important, the mind is the key. This is not to say that you shouldn't master your tools, but one tool is not the key to unlocking anything Zen-like. It's when you accept that these tools are just extensions of your mind, then you will become a photographer and not a camera stroker.
I'll respectfully disagree. I believe what works for you or me may have little bearing on what works for another. There are many paths to the same destination.
While I agree that the mind is the important part I do not think you can dismiss the tools as unimportant. Each brings it's own character to the creative process. If we were all equally emotion-free then perhaps you would be correct in your larger statement. The tools, environment, and media in which we work affects what we do. I've seen painters and photographers who can only function amidst chaos and materials that would drive me mad.
I don't think we disagree on how one becomes a photographer. We just see things differently on the affect tools might have on how we get there. What works for you might not for someone who is not you. The real challenge might be can they see if it's not working? And if it's not where do they look for the solution? The mind does not work in a vacuum or in absolutes.
Working professionally I work much like you do. I use whatever camera I need to render my vision. I will make mental leaps of technology and gear to achieve my goals. For personal work I am navigating the world differently and generally sketching with a camera and not producing images in the same manner as I do for money. And that process is just different.
Anyways, thanks for your thoughtful words Ara. There is much to consider.
Yammerman
02-25-2009, 07:17
The digital process just doesn't excite me in the way a darkroom does. The whole experience of the wet process is just more enjoyable for me. I'm not against digital and shoot a fair amount but that whole post processing thing is just a bit dull. The fact you have to get so many parts of the process sorted from the monitor, the printer, software etc and then it all needs upgrading at some point.
I find it easier to get in the zone when out with a film camera and it seems to me a function of my character or personality. Each to his own and the realisation for me that its wasn't just about the picture was fine. I came late to photography, it has been a delight to find how it makes me think about the world and my view of it in a way that my music making never really did. Maybe its just because its new but for the moment I love the whole process and the way my interaction with it evolves.
It'll be a cold day in hell if I ever have to give up the darkroom but if I never touched Photoshop again it wouldn't bother me.
Great post Steve and its reassuring that other folks roll this stuff around there heads to.
Charlie Lemay
02-25-2009, 08:07
I don't understand why one would have to do one or the other. I make complex Photoshop art using scanned film and digital capture, and I shoot a roll of Acros every week on my M cameras. Roger, I think my straight black and white work is more like "empty mind," while the digital collage is more like "cluttered mind." I just got a G1 and am waiting for the Novaflex adapter to arrive from Germany. It's all rich! We make the rules, not to inhibit us, but to push creatively against. All that said, I still prefer film for most things and Leica M cameras.
If one is looking to examine their personal art photography using a buddhist framework such as the 'empty mind' concept, one might want to consider examining the "Noble Eightfold Path of Photography" first:
First, this assumes that photography is something that you find rewarding, and it makes you happy. Since this is obviously the case...
1. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to reflect what you feel is the right or correct vision, perspective, view, and understanding for your work?
2. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to reflect what you feel helps you execute the right or correct thought, resolve, and conception for your work?
3. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to assist you in producing images that are true to your style, and to yourself?
4. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to allow you to physically produce the images that are right or correct for you, your style, and your enjoyment?
5. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel most enables you to best engage in your livelihood? Note that this is not necessarily in terms of monetary income, but in the quality of your livelihood, and the enjoyment you derive from it.
6. Photographically, what do you feel is the right method or combination of methods that brings out your best effort?
7. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel helps you bring the right or correct attention and awareness to your work?
8. Photographically, what method or combination of methods helps you engage in the highest level of focus and concentration in your work?
Just as Buddists (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not) follow the noble eightfold path as a method of reducing suffering, you might be able to reduce a bit of the photographic angst you are experiencing by honestly answering these questions to yourself. Also, don't necessarily expect every one of those questions to only have one answer. Life and photography would be too easy if they did.
Charlie Lemay
02-25-2009, 08:23
Digital Image from 2008.
mojobebop
02-25-2009, 09:16
Seriously, I used to hem and haw about which camera to use and had all these idealistic phases where Mamiya ruled, then Hasselblad ruled, then Nikon manual ruled, then Leica ruled, etc. I don't really think the camera matters at all, it's all in your mind. It's your mind's eye that captures the image initially. All the camera does is record it. Your skill refines it. My work hasn't gotten better or worse due to the camera I use, my mind just adapts to the medium and I have an image. How you work it (i.e. film, digital, photoshop, darkroom) is irrelevant to the final image.
I don't expect people on a film forum to be open to such a suggestion, in fact, most here would consider not putting a camera on a pedestal to be blasphemy. The camera is not important, the mind is the key. This is not to say that you shouldn't master your tools, but one tool is not the key to unlocking anything Zen-like. It's when you accept that these tools are just extensions of your mind, then you will become a photographer and not a camera stroker.
---------------------------------------------
& what's so wrong w/camera stoking?
Steve Williams
02-25-2009, 09:34
If one is looking to examine their personal art photography using a buddhist framework such as the 'empty mind' concept, one might want to consider examining the "Noble Eightfold Path of Photography" first:
First, this assumes that photography is something that you find rewarding, and it makes you happy. Since this is obviously the case...
1. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to reflect what you feel is the right or correct vision, perspective, view, and understanding for your work?
2. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to reflect what you feel helps you execute the right or correct thought, resolve, and conception for your work?
3. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to assist you in producing images that are true to your style, and to yourself?
4. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel is most likely to allow you to physically produce the images that are right or correct for you, your style, and your enjoyment?
5. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel most enables you to best engage in your livelihood? Note that this is not necessarily in terms of monetary income, but in the quality of your livelihood, and the enjoyment you derive from it.
6. Photographically, what do you feel is the right method or combination of methods that brings out your best effort?
7. Photographically, what method or combination of methods do you feel helps you bring the right or correct attention and awareness to your work?
8. Photographically, what method or combination of methods helps you engage in the highest level of focus and concentration in your work?
Just as Buddists (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not) follow the noble eightfold path as a method of reducing suffering, you might be able to reduce a bit of the photographic angst you are experiencing by honestly answering these questions to yourself. Also, don't necessarily expect every one of those questions to only have one answer. Life and photography would be too easy if they did.
Oh no! Homework.;)
There is a lot of work and reflection in answering those questions. I appreciate you posting this and I will spend some time with them while I am in the darkroom, for me a great time to reflect on things.
Ara Ghajanian
02-25-2009, 09:35
---------------------------------------------
& what's so wrong w/camera stoking?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with camera stroking, there's just a big difference between being a visual artist and a camera lover. The original post seemed to me to be a struggle with creativity, not a struggle with which mediums to choose. I may be wrong. I'm sure someone will correct me.
Steve,
Just shoot and stop thinking about how a camera is going to make you a better photographer. Shoot both mediums. Draw, paint, sculpt. Write a short story. Stop thinking about it and just do it. The more time you spend on rangefinderforum means less time you spend behind any camera, film, digital or otherwise.
Ara Ghajanian
02-25-2009, 09:40
If you want a real perspective on Zen, read Zen in the Art of Archery. The point of the whole book is that when you do something so much, it becomes a part of you and you do it effortlessly without thinking. I don't think the archers in the story sat there and wondered which bow and arrow combination was going to make them a better archer. They just did it.
mojobebop
02-25-2009, 09:46
There is absolutely nothing wrong with camera stroking, there's just a big difference between being a visual artist and a camera lover. The original post seemed to me to be a struggle with creativity, not a struggle with which mediums to choose. I may be wrong. I'm sure someone will correct me.
Steve,
Just shoot and stop thinking about how a camera is going to make you a better photographer. Shoot both mediums. Draw, paint, sculpt. Write a short story. Stop thinking about it and just do it. The more time you spend on rangefinderforum means less time you spend behind any camera, film, digital or otherwise.
----------
i know. sorry, i was being facetious.
Not sure I agree the tools doesn't matter to the final output. For example when woodworking - I may finish the wood with a hand tools (smooth plane/scrapper) or use a power tool and sandpaper. Each result in two totally different finishes. I choose which to use depending on the finish I am after. The tool has attributes which I use to develop my vision.
This also is true for photography. The camera is important because the medium isn't perfect. However, I agree it is up to the user to decide when to use what tools to develop your vision.
Steve Williams
02-25-2009, 13:58
Just shoot and stop thinking about how a camera is going to make you a better photographer.
Hello Ara,
I smiled when I read that sentence. Your recent posts have pushed me ahead I think. For years I shot and shot and did not think a lot of what I was doing or why I was doing it.
Then graduate studies in an art school. An experience I carefully avoided for over two decades, something I dismissed as mindless mumblings and worse. There was no place in my life or in my thinking for artistic nonsense. It was, however, nothing like I thought it would be. I discovered so many more paths in front of me.
In school began intense, personal shooting, more than I was doing professionally, and on top of that a lot of thinking. They want to make teachers and professors there and really do embrace critical thought as much as art making. So it wasn't the craft experience I imagined.
I still work professionally and shoot constantly. And work is regular on personal projects. As you've said Ara it is absolutely essential to keep working. Nothing happens if you sit around thinking without any action. What I have found though is that the more I shoot the more questions I have. I don't shoot the way I did when I was 30 or 40 relying completely on technical skill and intuitive process. I still use those but I am more methodical and efficient. I can see pictures now in a way I could not before. But they arrive wrapped in ideas, questions and revelations. One of those personal revelations is the machinery does matter and at a level beyond what kind of image it can make. If I want to continue to improve I can't dismiss anything. And let go of ideas that don't help or don't make sense.
Like the camera not mattering. Or the computer. Or the chair I sit in. Or the glasses I wear. They all matter. It's just up to me to make the right choices for me.
It's been so long now since I first posted this thread and thinking back to my friend and the empty mind comment. He was right. I needed to let go. He just didn't know what letting go would mean for me. And it took me awhile to understand.
The camera is sitting in front of me. Time to work.
Jonnyfez
02-25-2009, 16:33
Hmmm...A Vespa enthusiast with an M6, a D200 and an existential crisis. I could be describing myself. I've used my Leica almost exclusively for the past 6 years. Love it. I recently picked up a used D200. Love that too. But my favorite PHOTOS of late have been made with my grandfather's Hawkeye Brownie. Go figure. So to build on Ara's thoughts - the practice of shooting, whatever the format, is key. Though there's nothing like a new or different piece of equipment to motivate oneself to get out and shoot.
Steve, I am currently taking pictures with both film and digital. Digital has got me taking many more chances that I would with film and I am enjoying this. It is also easier and cheaper to do this and post them on the net and it keeps me practicing photography. I use film in the M4 and Hasselblad when I think something wiil eventually make a good b&w print.
These are two shots in Paris which I would not have done using film. The flouro shot was whilst waiting in a queue so I borrowed my wife's digital point and shoot to pass the time. Sorry to talk about myself so much but hope it helps.
Regards,
Gary Haigh
Australia
Steve Williams
02-27-2009, 18:27
Hmmm...A Vespa enthusiast with an M6, a D200 and an existential crisis. I could be describing myself. I've used my Leica almost exclusively for the past 6 years. Love it. I recently picked up a used D200. Love that too. But my favorite PHOTOS of late have been made with my grandfather's Hawkeye Brownie. Go figure. So to build on Ara's thoughts - the practice of shooting, whatever the format, is key. Though there's nothing like a new or different piece of equipment to motivate oneself to get out and shoot.
So, what kind of Vespa are you riding?
A friend just dropped off a small box camera for me to admire and put on a shelf. He thought it required 620 film but when I opened it I was happy to see that it ate 120 instead. The camera seems to function fine so I hope to put it to good use for something.
I agree with you and others --- shooting is the key. And god knows I have pursued all shapes and forms of motivation including new cameras...
Steve Williams
02-27-2009, 18:29
Steve, I am currently taking pictures with both film and digital. Digital has got me taking many more chances that I would with film and I am enjoying this. It is also easier and cheaper to do this and post them on the net and it keeps me practicing photography. I use film in the M4 and Hasselblad when I think something wiil eventually make a good b&w print.
These are two shots in Paris which I would not have done using film. The flouro shot was whilst waiting in a queue so I borrowed my wife's digital point and shoot to pass the time. Sorry to talk about myself so much but hope it helps.
Regards,
Gary Haigh
Australia
I definitely take more chances with digitally. Or so I thought. What I found was I may just be taking more of the same pictures I do with film. At least compositionally. Big difference between the B&W film and digital color.
I will just keep shooting and see where I end up.
Thanks for your comments!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.