Digital camera's have no personality.

[Garry Edwards]

I agree with the word character, and I've used it in earlier posts.

The problem with Hasselblads I remember, was the magazines failing: there was never a time when at least one wasn't off for repair. but we also had Mamiya RB67s. If I were to buy a film camera today, it would be a difficult choice between a Hasselblad or Mamiya RB/RZ67, but as I've mentioned in the past, it was the Fuji GX680 I lusted after,

I loved the Sinar P2, and that was comparing it against using Linhof, Cambo and Arca Swiss monorails., as well as Linhof Technikas.

You're making me nostalgic now !

Yes, you've reminded me, it was my Arca Swiss that wouldn't hold its movement settings, especially when I made full use of Scheimflugg. And yes, it was always the Hassie mags that failed.

 

[myotis]

Yes, you've reminded me, it was my Arca Swiss that wouldn't hold its movement settings, especially when I made full use of Scheimflugg. And yes, it was always the Hassie mags that failed.

I remember Arca Swiss going through several iterations, with the more recent versions becoming more Sinar P like,

The one I used was the type B

Arca Swiss B-Type 4×5 – Analogue Cameras

www.analoguecameras.co.uk

Very different from their current top of the line

M-Monolith

ARCA-SWISS is the recognized leader of modular camera systems, monoball® and geared precision tripod heads. With a dedication to innovative solutions and superior quality, we provide for the needs of professional photographers worldwide.

arca-swiss-usa.com

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Yes, you've reminded me, it was my Arca Swiss that wouldn't hold its movement settings, especially when I made full use of Scheimflugg. And yes, it was always the Hassie mags that failed.

I only had to do with monorails once, a very long time ago and then I was limited to getting it out of the case and putting it on the stand, one of those tree like affairs on four small wheels, then getting it off the stand and putting it back in the box.

The rest of my time was keeping the operator supplied with darkslides and writing the shot numbers in the log. Such an exciting life in "Swinging London" during the 1960s!

 

[Garry Edwards]

I only had to do with monorails once, a very long time ago and then I was limited to getting it out of the case and putting it on the stand, one of those tree like affairs on four small wheels, then getting it off the stand and putting it back in the box.

The rest of my time was keeping the operator supplied with darkslides and writing the shot numbers in the log. Such an exciting life in "Swinging London" during the 1960s!

I don't remember the "swinging 60's" that well, but as the saying goes, if you can remember that time then you weren't there . . .
I was a young photographer working mainly with fashion models, and at some music gigs, and what I remember was pretty good.

 

[Jelster]

But that’s what I enjoy about my Fuji X-T5, retro styling and I make sure the shutter snaps when I use it. It has appeal for me.

Absolutely. I haven't looked back since switching to Fuji, it's just like using an analogue SLR, but it gives you all the benefits of digital.....

 

[hunnymonster]

Nostalgia is a powerful emotion!

But it ain't what it used to be

 

[snerkler]

I used to think that older cameras and cameras like Fuji had character, and maybe they do depending on how you see it, but for me I think I like the 'idea' of them more than actually using them. I never gelled with Fuji, and last year I went back to using my 35mm Olympus OM-1 and whilst I enjoyed it for the first handful of shots it soon got tedious for me and it made me realise that I actually prefer shooting with digital.

I do think there's still something special about the look of film and I keep trying to develop my digital files in a way to replicate them but I've never settled on anything.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

I liken this a little to my other hobby/interest with watches. I have some mechanical/automatic watches that I absolutely love. To me, they are 'proper' watches, and on the models that have exhibition case backs, I love to look at the balance wheel oscillating back and forwards, and the tiny movements of the gears. Its a real fascination for me, and I have a huge amount of admiration for the way they are constructed.

However, I also know know that the most accurate watch I have is probably the Casio G Shock with Multiband 6, that syncs up with the atomic clock every evening

 

[Garry Edwards]

I liken this a little to my other hobby/interest with watches. I have some mechanical/automatic watches that I absolutely love. To me, they are 'proper' watches, and on the models that have exhibition case backs, I love to look at the balance wheel oscillating back and forwards, and the tiny movements of the gears. Its a real fascination for me, and I have a huge amount of admiration for the way they are constructed.

However, I also know know that the most accurate watch I have is probably the Casio G Shock with Multiband 6, that syncs up with the atomic clock every evening

Good parallel. I absolutely get it that some people like their expensive mechanical watches, but I just have a Smartwatch, dead accurate and incapable of being otherwise. I think it was about £20. For me, function trumps form, same with cameras, cars and everything else, I'm a Philistine

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

....I'm a Philistine

That's why it's all Greek to you, see here...

Philistines - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"There is compelling evidence to suggest that the Philistines originated from a Greek immigrant group from the Aegean."

 

[Erty]

Some digital cameras certainly have "character". I've got a Nikon D100, which is effectively the top and front of a F80 with an early digital sensor and screen bolted onto it. To change ISO you have to turn the top left dial to the ISO position, turn a dial on the right to make the adjustment and then turn the left dial back to shooting. I'm sure someone will love it- the white balance compensation for a bad IR filter makes pretty pictures. I got it as a cheap entry to IR photography. They go for about £50.

 

[justpix]

Some digital cameras certainly have "character". I've got a Nikon D100, which is effectively the top and front of a F80 with an early digital sensor and screen bolted onto it. To change ISO you have to turn the top left dial to the ISO position, turn a dial on the right to make the adjustment and then turn the left dial back to shooting. I'm sure someone will love it- the white balance compensation for a bad IR filter makes pretty pictures. I got it as a cheap entry to IR photography. They go for about £50.

Hi, this is true of my LEICA M9 :






It resembles my LEICA M6 I bought in 1989 :





And my first mirrorless , an OLYMPUS PEN EP1, I still use now and then. It feels valuable, and has a nice shutter sound :





(My NIKONs and my SONYs also have character, perhaps different character traits. Solidity, performance AF, high res ... )

 

[justpix]

Hi, which has more character ? ( )





I could not make up my mind. So, I bought both ... ---

Well, looks is one thing. What I like about my M9s, too, is the rendering due to the CCD sensors.

 

[Toxic]

I've recently returned to the fold and photography after an hiatus of a few years, sold all my digital Fuji gear but kept my Nikon F5 and 3 lenses plus my 500CM Hasselblad as I couldn't part with them, the F5 recently did some photos for work as my boss wanted some "old school" black and whites of his new Porsche .

Looking at new cameras I eventually settled back with Fuji as they feel and handle like film cameras, are less complicated than other brands, and to me they have a personality which suits me and my shooting style.

What I don't miss, is the hours spent in the darkroom, I much prefer the instant results of digital

 

[Compuwight]

You should try my old D600 it has personality and attitude in abundance, never quite sure of the results but I do enjoy a good walk with it and my 50mm pancake lens and everything is manual and guesswork ......

 

[GreenNinja67]

It's normally the photographer that has no personality.

Try a D700 and then say the output has no personality.

 

[Plain Nev]

I do think there's still something special about the look of film and I keep trying to develop my digital files in a way to replicate them but I've never settled on anything.

The holy grail! I suspect that if we ever did manage it, we'd think what's the point. I personally don't think it's doable. I have never seen a digital picture that has. Sure, you can recreate the colour pallete, but digital is inherently sharper. I think in the end you have to embrace it.

 

[Erty]

The holy grail! I suspect that if we ever did manage it, we'd think what's the point. I personally don't think it's doable. I have never seen a digital picture that has. Sure, you can recreate the colour pallete, but digital is inherently sharper. I think in the end you have to embrace it

Maybe less pixels and a film-era lens would help.

 

[Plain Nev]

Maybe less pixels and a film-era lens would help.

I use a lot of old lens. All combinations. I've shot with 6mp, in the past, as well.

 

[LeeRatters]

The holy grail! I suspect that if we ever did manage it, we'd think what's the point. I personally don't think it's doable. I have never seen a digital picture that has. Sure, you can recreate the colour pallete, but digital is inherently sharper. I think in the end you have to embrace it.

I've had comments in the past saying I've come pretty close. Others opinions obviously

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I use a lot of old lens. All combinations. I've shot with 6mp, in the past, as well.

I'm pleased with some of my 6MP shots, like this one of a passenger at Paddington Station, recorded with a Nikon S10 ...

 

[ancient_mariner]

TBH, to me, only a very small number of film shots ever actually look special, and I'm certain the film contribues a very tiny part to the specialness if anything at all. However I would be interested to see examples of what people mean by that kind of special, if it's even possible to do that online.

Having said that, I know some love Polaroid, but they have no charm for me at all.

 

[Erty]

Here's my attempt at a filmy look picture control on a D700.

 

[LeeRatters]

TBH, to me, only a very small number of film shots ever actually look special, and I'm certain the film contribues a very tiny part to the specialness if anything at all. However I would be interested to see examples of what people mean by that kind of special, if it's even possible to do that online.

Having said that, I know some love Polaroid, but they have no charm for me at all.

I think I've got some recent X100f and 35mm film shots of the same subject.

 

[Plain Nev]

Here's my attempt at a filmy look picture control on a D700.

View attachment 457575

It reminds me of an old postcard. So, you must be doing something right.

 

[snerkler]

The holy grail! I suspect that if we ever did manage it, we'd think what's the point. I personally don't think it's doable. I have never seen a digital picture that has. Sure, you can recreate the colour pallete, but digital is inherently sharper. I think in the end you have to embrace it.

I’ve seen some that are hard to distinguish from film, but I never manage it even with VSCO presets and similar. I think a lot of it is colour palette as you say, but I can’t even get that right/find something I like that I can settle on. I think one issue is that one style works for one type of shot and not for others, or maybe it works for a few styles but not everything. I therefore revert back to my ‘lifelike’ preset which works for everything whilst never having that je ne sais pas.

Lee Ratters has a style I very much like and has a film like quality.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I used to have a film plug in for DXO Optics pro that kinda did the film thing fairly well, but after a bit it became obvious I was just sodding up perfectly good pictures for a look that wasn't real.

 

[Sangoma]

Just by chance, I saw a photo on FB that I took in 1977.
It was probably one of the worst of the day, just about everything wrong that could be, but the people liked it.
I certainly don't want to go back to those days, nor do I want to cut the roof off my car to recreate the character of the first horse-less carriages

 

[justpix]

Hi, according to my nic justpix I try to avoid difficult, controversial topics ... ---

Here, we have the character of the cameras, of the pictures, and of the whole photographic experience.

A film pic from 2000 (slidescan 2005, Leica M6, Summicron 2/35):






An early digi-pic from 2003, taken with my MINOLTA Dimage 5MP :





Of course, there is no ceteris paribus, etc. ...

In the film days, my photographic experience was different. I took around 36 slide pics/day, had them developed and framed when I got home, and viewed them
using my LEICA Pradovit slide projector on a large screen. And the small number of pics got much attention (the family had to be quiet).

With my first digicam pics were immediately available and I viewed them on my PC.

I was quite happy with my first digi-pics. I never used film again after that, even threw slide-films and film rolls away ...

Today, I use LEICA, NIKON and SONY cameras depending on the application requirements. At vintage car events, I take 300 pics/day.

And I would not use film again although I still have around 8 film cameras, of which 2 are Medium Format... ---

 

[justpix]

Hi, above I showed a film pic taken with my LEICA M6 and one taken with my first MINOLTA 5MP digicam.

More comparable are pics taken with my LEICA M6 and my digital LEICA M9.

It was very difficult to find a pair of pics that might give a rough idea of their performance. But again, no ceteris paribus ...

(Both taken with the Leica Summicron 2/35, the rest of the settings I don't remember - )

LEICA M6 (1997, slidescan 2005):






LEICA M9 :





That's all I can do. As you can see, one can be quite happy with the rendering of the M9 ... ---

 

[trypdal]

Well, one could argue that you could have obtained the image above, the clean, colour-perfect, Minolta snapshot of a day on the hills, with any £150 Android phone camera.

The one you got with your M6 instead is only one of the many 'looks' you will be able to get from the film camera. With practice and the right film type, you can certainly achieve the colour grading of your digital image.

But the fun is somewhere else! You have myriads film+developer combination to play with, so hundreds or thousands of free 'sensors' in your film camera, essentially.

1. want to get ultra saturated, colourful positives? Try a roll of Velvia 100
2. want black and white, but a polished look, almost grainless, with a slight red sensitivity that makes the sky stand out? Try Acros 100 in Xtol!
3. As above, but you want it slightly more textured, with more evident grain? Try Acros 100 in Rodinal 1+25!
4. Want muted colours, some grain and great dynamic range? Try a roll of Kodak Colorplus
5. Want an old style Magnum documentary photography look, high contrast with a lot of grain? Try a roll of Ilford HP5+ in Microphen and overdevelop
6. As above, but strongly red sensitive and even more grainy? Try a roll of Foma 400
7. Want a classic B/W look that looks amazing wet printed? A roll of Tri-X exposed at 200 ISO and developed in D76 1:1

The possibilities are endless. It's fun.

And digital camera makers know people like the above aspect of film photography. All Fuji X digital cameras pack 'film presets' which try, and arguably fail, to give users some of the range of looks you can seamlessly get with a film camera and a range of film stock. They've even recently released a 'half frame' film camera to try and re-capture some of the sales they're losing to the recent, and great, Pentax 17 half frame camera (which is selling like hot cakes). I think they're playing catching up at this point, but that's just me.

Don't discount the endless possibilities you have with your M6.

Hi, above I showed a film pic taken with my LEICA M6 and one taken with my first MINOLTA 5MP digicam.

More comparable are pics taken with my LEICA M6 and my digital LEICA M9.

It was very difficult to find a pair of pics that might give a rough idea of their performance. But again, no ceteris paribus ...

(Both taken with the Leica Summicron 2/35, the rest of the settings I don't remember - )

LEICA M6 (1997, slidescan 2005):


View attachment 457675



LEICA M9 :


View attachment 457676


That's all I can do. As you can see, one can be quite happy with the rendering of the M9 ... ---

 

[ancient_mariner]

So to get each of your looks you would need to carry 7 cameras loaded with different films, and have 7 different chemistries at home to process. Possibly fun, but for most I think it would be too much trouble. It sounds like the hobby here is about the process rather than the results.

BTW please just accept Justpix results in the spirit they were intended, for comparison rather than argument.

 

[trypdal]

So to get each of your looks you would need to carry 7 cameras loaded with different films, and have 7 different chemistries at home to process.

You seem to assume one wants to get 'different looks' on the same photo trip.

is that what you do? That's bad practice. Take one film, one lens and one camera with you per project. Concentrate on getting the most out of those based on the light you find and plan you made before embarking on the trip.

For the next trip, decide to try something else.

It's not a russian roulette. It's called planning. Try it.

Also please stop attempting to contradict my own views on this topic and trying to pick a fight. These are just my views, If you don't like them, move along.

 

[Ed Sutton]

There's a phrase guitarists might know, great tone, no chops. That's the way I often think about the subject of 'the look' of films or lenses.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

When it comes to image manipulation (AKA "choosing a look") it seems to me that digital photography wins hands down against chemical photography.

Thinking of the hours spent in a darkroom, to achieve a particular effect, then compare that to selecting a few buttons and moving a pointer around, it seems clear to me that if special effects are your bag, a computer beats an enlarger every time. This is, of course, my opinion, which is neither more nor less valid than the opinion of anyone else.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You seem to assume one wants to get 'different looks' on the same photo trip.

You were suggesting many looks for an image were possible, but actually it's only one, and for that it's necessary to choose in advance. the thing is that this kind of work is not trivial, and I'm not sorry to no longer need to develop and print my own pictures with slightly unpredictable materials.

My reply was also somewhat defensive on Justpix behalf, who was kind enough to post images for comparison, not wanting to be involved in an argument. Suggesting his digital image was a snap was rude and uncalled for.

Please, continue enjoying your photography your way, but don't put down other people's work.

 

[trypdal]

Please, continue enjoying your photography your way, but don't put down other people's work.

Once again you manipulate, or try to manipulate, what I'm writing. I have never tried to put down other people's work, in spite of your attempts at red herrings. For me, 'snap' bears no negative connotations. I do apologise to @justpix if I came across as rude to them.

I'm just suggesting that some of the arguments (most, in fact) people are using to belittle or dismiss film photography as a thing of the past are moot, and that in fact many people get results they prefer with simple, old kit and a roll of film.

If you enjoy your digital cameras, I won't be the one to convince you to move to film, but don't belittle film photography and film images based purely on what you have been able to achieve with it.

 

[LeeRatters]

I should be going through some of my holiday photos soon from Devon. When I do, I'll also add them in this thread. I have a couple of the same subject, same time, slightly different compositions. I know I have one subject with 3 different cameras

I can assure you, the Fuji Portra (or whatever recipies) and the Lightroom Portra (or whatever profiles) don't match Portra (or whatever) film They might be close, they might give you a nice "film" look but they aren't the same. The best advice is to search/make an editing style you like and just use it. Don't waste hours and days at a PC when you could be outside

 

[ancient_mariner]

Once again you manipulate, or try to manipulate, what I'm writing. I have never tried to put down other people's work, in spite of your attempts at red herrings. For me, 'snap' bears no negative connotations.

I'm just suggesting that some of the arguments (most, in fact) people are using to belittle or dismiss film photography as a thing of the past are moot, and that in fact many people get results they prefer with simple, old kit and a roll of film.

If you enjoy your digital cameras, I won't be the one to convince you to move to film, but don't belittle film photography and film images based purely on what you have been able to achieve with it.

Let's stop this before it goes further. I apologise if I have misunderstood your intent regarding this subject. Let us see if we can get along constructively, okay?

 

[Dave Canon]

Only just seen this thread. I can see how a person might see a personality in their pet but not an inanimate item such as a camera. I understood that photography was about capturing pictures and in such a way to try to include the personality of the photographer.

Dave