My Fujifilm digital camera has a fun personality - it likes to play jokes on me, like changing from single-focus to manual, or adding exposure compensation without me noticing!
My LF lenses have significantly higher resolution power than any of the lenses for my digital cameras. Additionally, the lenses for my Mamiya can have the same said of them. They lie between my "new" glass and the LF glass. When I want precision and sharpness I turn to film. That comes at a price, mind you. It takes considerable effort to achive focus correctly - first using the standards, then the aperture (yes!), and then a combination of lens and loupe. Frequently, the last glance I get of my subject will be a blur when I slide in the film holder. I will expect sharpness when I develop the sheet, though.I agree, but that "character" is mainly just nostalgia. Compared with today, most old lenses were extremely poor and were incapable of producing a sharp image at any aperture. The lenses for 5"x4" for example, usually needed to be stopped down to at least f/16. and some were so poor that they produced a specific and valued soft focus portraiture look, i.e., blurred.
We shouldn't be too nostalgic about old cameras either. The "Russian" cameras, actually made in a weapons factory in the Ukraine, were made down to the normal soviet standard, the Infamous Hasselblad copy, the Corfield 66, was made in Ireland, now very valuable becasue very few were sold and they all broke, the most memorable thing about it was the mirror system, which worked (very briefly) on a pulley system and a bit of twine. And there were the British Wray and Reid copies of old Leicas, again very rare and valuable for the same reason. The story at the time was that the factories were given copies of the Leitz blueprints, as part of the war reparations, but good old British companies couldn't be expected to work to foreign metric measurements, so they converted everything to imperial, and didn't work.
Good point, by my superb Nikon F90 is worth almost nothing on the second-hand market, probably too good and too reliable
Are they?
Oh dear, I have ventured into rather deep waters ... Different people have different tastes and approaches.
I am just a humble amateur. My LEICA DNGs (raws) are simply processed by DXO and resized by Photoshop Elements for tp.
A slight output variation is caused by different lens renderings of my M mount lenses from LEICA, VOIGTLÄNDER and ZEISS.
I have a rather purist - some might say simplistic - approach.
But nomen est omen : justpix ...
I disagree with what you say about LF lenses, certainly they're good enough for the purpose (minimal enlargement) but their superpower is their area of coverage, image circle, allowing camera movements, not their resolution.
I agree.
Their resolving power is measured at thse higher levels I mention in MFT charts . I do a lot of architectural photography and really need that sharpness.I disagree with what you say about LF lenses, certainly they're good enough for the purpose (minimal enlargement) but their superpower is their area of coverage, image circle, allowing camera movements, not their resolution.
Not that my opinion matters, what matters is that you're happy with them
It's a hellish topic to dive into. I'm pretty demanding of my LF lenses - mainly in the requirement for maintaining the sharpness edge-to-edge. Thankfully, the image circle is generally way beyond that required for the format - I think that any of my lenses can by used on 8 x 10 with barely any vignetting.
I read years ago, in connection with cars, that ascribing such terms as "personality" onto objects is a form of what some psychoanalysts call "object personification".
daily.jstor.org
I don't think this is the context in which personality or character is being used in this instance. Certainly not by me.I read years ago, in connection with cars, that ascribing such terms as "personality" onto objects is a form of what some psychoanalysts call "object personification".
Despite being forced to read a textbook on psychology in the sixth form (please don't ask, as a loud scream in your ear can cause offence) I really don't know what psychoanalysts mean by the term. Then again, I'm not really sure that psychoanalysts know what they mean most of the time, anyway.
If you're still reading, you can always look at this article on personification...
Personification Is Your Friend: The Language of Inanimate Objects - JSTOR Daily
Studies have shown that anthropomorphizing not only helps us learn. It also serves a social function, helping us feel connected.
I have never ever paid anything like that for film. If the inference is that digital is cheaper, consider this, the proliferation of new cameras promising that it will be the nirvana and the answer to all your problems - at what cost? Individual films may seem expensive but the new cameras from the likes of Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji are just 'click bait' for the customer to splash out and buy.But, do they have £20.00 a roll personality?
That phrase "it all depends", comes in here.
Agreed.
I agree, but that "character" is mainly just nostalgia. Compared with today, most old lenses were extremely poor and were incapable of producing a sharp image at any aperture. The lenses for 5"x4" for example, usually needed to be stopped down to at least f/16. and some were so poor that they produced a specific and valued soft focus portraiture look, i.e., blurred.
We shouldn't be too nostalgic about old cameras either. The "Russian" cameras, actually made in a weapons factory in the Ukraine, were made down to the normal soviet standard, the Infamous Hasselblad copy, the Corfield 66, was made in Ireland, now very valuable becasue very few were sold and they all broke, the most memorable thing about it was the mirror system, which worked (very briefly) on a pulley system and a bit of twine. And there were the British Wray and Reid copies of old Leicas, again very rare and valuable for the same reason. The story at the time was that the factories were given copies of the Leitz blueprints, as part of the war reparations, but good old British companies couldn't be expected to work to foreign metric measurements, so they converted everything to imperial, and didn't work.
Good point, by my superb Nikon F90 is worth almost nothing on the second-hand market, probably too good and too reliable
theres definitely something in the understanding of what makes a good photo. As you say, these days photos are very disposable in that you can take many, and being able to save them digitally mean that they all just get buried. That coupled with the whole being vilified for suggesting someones photo isn't actually that good has led to a sea of bland "snaps" that end up masquerading as 'great' photos because they get 1000 likes and comments like 'you should do this professionally'. The actual great photos get diluted within this sea and end up being drowned out.
I'd swap 20Mp on mine for a locking button on the EV dial.My Fujifilm digital camera has a fun personality - it likes to play jokes on me, like changing from single-focus to manual, or adding exposure compensation without me noticing!
Anything and everything can have personality, that's yer English language for yer.
One man's "great work of art" is another woman's "Ghastly waste of space" and of course, vice versa.
Thats just what poor photographer say to make themselves feel better about their mediocre work.
One man's "mediocre work" is also another woman's "great art".
Everything that everyone does is based on what people have done before. One particularly honest ancient scholar wrote, long before Christianity appeared: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
Cream always rises to the top.
Maybe I’m more romantic than you, but I think trees clinging to rocks, vegetation springing up in the most dreary urban environment, old cars and cameras, houses and even China all can have ‘personality’.
