Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Crisis Of Faith





Penguin #41 (The Voyage Of The Discovery) Surveys The Future



Morning folks - that sounds a bit melodramatic and (as they say around these parts) up himself, but to be honest, it's not so much a crisis but more of an affirmation of intent.
I think the time has come for me and 35mm photogaphy to part company (almost).

Y'see, the thing is whilst I appreciate the convenience and portability of the medium, I've never really been a 36 or 24 frame snapper.
Yeah I could load my own cassettes and take say 12 or 15 at a time, but really, what would be the point in that?
For more ease, I could just fit a 645 back on the Hasselblad, or use the Rollei T's 16-on kit. And for all that there's some remarkably good 645 cameras still out there, you really would be hard-pressed to beat the Rollei for compact quality. 
And anyway, I find myself quite happy with 12 frames of 6x6.
And when I think about what I have just said, I have started to wonder why I actually need:

1 x Nikon F
1 x Nikon F 2
1 x Nikon F 3
1 x Original Nikomat
1 x Leica M2
1 x Olympus Trip (sorry Steve - you can have it back if you want)
1 x Olympus XA 2 (ditto to Bruce!)
1 x Nikon AF600 (legendary cult camera with outstanding 28mm lens)
1 x Olympus OM 10
1 x Pentax PC35AF (world's first autofocus compact camera)

And that's before we get started on lenses:

Nikkor 300mm f 4.5 (pre-Ai)
Nikkor 80-200mm Zoom (pre-Ai)
Nikkor 105mm (pre-Ai)
Nikkor 55mm Macro (pre-Ai - Self Compensating Type)
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (pre-Ai)
Nikkor 50mm f1.8 (Ai)
Nikkor 35mm f2 'O' (pre-Ai)
Nikkor 35mm f3.5 (pre-Ai - K-Series)
Nikkor 28mm f3.5 (pre-Ai - K-Series)
Nikkor 28mm f2.8 (Ai-S - second version)
Nikkor 24mm f2.8 (pre-Ai)
Leitz 35mm f3.5 Summaron (M3 'specs' version)
Leitz 50mm f3.5 Elmar (made in 1932)
Leitz 90mm f4 Elmar (M version)
Canon Rangefinder 50mm f1.8 
Canon Rangefinder 28mm f3.5
Zuiko 50mm f1.8 

And then there's the accessories - lens hoods, filters, cases, bags etc etc etc.

See what I mean - along the way, things have got totally out of hand, and seeing as it is rare these days to lift a 35mm camera, let alone take a picture, something has to give.

The really sad thing is, I won't say it hasn't been Fun acquiring all this stuff!
There's nothing like the excitement of getting a real bargain of a lens (most recent was the Ai-S 28mm f2.8 Nikkor [late model] for £100) - given the prices on these things these days, I just couldn't resist.
But, at the end of the day, does it not just distract from the most important thing?

Er, which is Sheepy???

Image Making.

It's like in musical terms:
2 weeks to make an album or 2 years to make an album?
You get distracted along the way and at the end of it, for all the extra stuff that has gone into making that album, does it have the sense of immediacy and urgency that makes a great album truly great? Having more of everything thrown at something, doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be any better than a bare bones approach.

In image making terms, for me, I have a solid and versatile Medium Format collection.
I still can't do it justice, and even my long daliance with Large Format (in the form of hundreds of 5x4" negatives and TWO 5x4 cameras [!!!!!!!]) has not really equalled (to my eyes) the images I have made with that kit (be it 'professional' Hasselblad or 'amateur' Rolleiflex T).
So when I throw 35mm into that mix, I am way off the mark of where I want to be.
Not only that, I am dedicating time to making 35mm images, that to be totally honest, I would rather be making on 120 film.

So is this the last 35mm film ever from me?
Well no, simply because I can't ditch it all.
As Steve said to me with regard to collecting anything, you always have to ask yourself:

"Do They Make Them Anymore?"

And in the case of film cameras the answer is pretty much a resounding NO.

Certainly ditching the lot would be foolhardy should I wish to go back further down the line, but for the moment, how do I thin the herd?
Well, my Nikons I will keep forever - emotional and ergonomic attachment, ease of use and that 100% viewfinder - but the lenses?
Well as you can see, there's a ton of those, but for me in practical terms the longer ones can go.
Not the 105mm - it has, unusually for a Nikkor, separation, but strangely still takes an ultra-sharp, ultra-smooth photograph.
On the wide front I actually like them all, but how many wide-angle lenses does a man need?
So, I think maybe the 35mm f3.5 and the 28mm f3.5 should go.
They're both fine - the 35mm is a K-Series (basically the last iteration of a pre-Ai Nikkor . . . very highly regarded and apparently the wide if you like digital IR photography).
The 28mm f3.5 is fine too, but I am hoping the 28mm f2.8 (CRC, late Ai-S version) is better.

So, here's some pics from a film that has sat in the camera for a good few months - that just shows how inspired I am to shoot 35mm these days.
The first 2 were made with the 24mm f2.8 (pre-Ai) - it is an utterly superb lens.
The final 4 were made with the 28mm f3.5 (the lens that McCullin shot Vietnam with) - certainly no slouch either.





The Selling Of Myth




A Warm Spring Day At A Quiet Place




Penguin #3 (Mr. Sofishsticated) Fans




Penguin #3 (Mr. Sofishsticated) Alone (for once)




Penguin #57 (Touchy) Post Vandalism




Penguin #7 (Sid The Penguin)


"Yes, we know all this sheepy, where does that leave the Leica?"

Well, y'know, whilst I have enjoyed and often actually loved using that camera, it needs to be used more.
Mine saw a proper professional life before it reached me - ever seen brassing in a film chamber? Yeah, exactly. It still works like a total dream though - smooth as silk - but to be honest I've never truly clicked with the rangefinder as I find the 100% view I get through the Nikon's viewfinders suits me more. 
Leica's are wonderfully quiet in use, they really are - everyone should try one at some point (though you could experience the same with any of the great old rangefinders tbh -try a Canon or Nikon) . . . 
But here's the thing with Leicas . . . 
OK, this is a big one, because, contrary to popular belief:

OWNING A LEICA DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER.

Yes, they are wonderful, intuitive, image making machines, but no more so than say a Nikon F from the same period.
And the thing with Leicas, is that you are sort of are inducted into a club, where it often seems that keeping up with the Jones' is the only thing you can do:

"You what? You've ONLY got a 35 f3.5 Summaron? . . Oh you poor boy! Well you'd better go and get a Summicron hadn't you!"

It is mad actually, quite MAD
The madness has been cemented in my mind by the new Leica M10-P - no doubt a wonderful camera, but £7000 for just a camera body. I'm sorry, but even if you do go and buy it, it won't make you a better photographer. You could have the road trip of a lifetime (with a Rollei) for that money and come back with arguably better photographs.
So, and I find it hard to be typing this, because I thought I never would . . . the M2 will be going.
What will I keep from my Leica 'system'?
Well . . . strangely the humble Table Top Tripod and ballhead, simply because they are arguably one of the most wonderfully useful photographic accessories ever made.

So, that's a big chunk of aspiration and dreaming cut away
And the rest of the 35mm stuff will go too, or else just get filed away somewhere.

I'll put a full stop on this now before I say too much, but I'll leave my last 35mm image to the one below.

It was made, as were the rest of the ones on this post, with a Nikon - in this case, my old F with a 24mm Nikkor. The film was Tri-X rated at 200 EI and it was developed in Pyrocat-HD.
There's something about the look of this that reminds me of some Japanese horror films of the 60's . . maybe it's the lens  -I doubt I could have achieved anything better with any amount of expensive Leitz glass . . .


Seed Heads, Fife


Oh, nearly forgot . . . the Penguins? 
Maggie's Penguin Parade (plenty of info here) - a huge piece of public art in Dundee and Angus, encompassing 80 Penguins, all decorated differently, and all in aid of Maggie's Cancer Centres. 
It is probably the best, most engaging thing I have seen for a long time - there's always people collecting 'photos' of them . . . young, old, doesn't matter, they're all walking away with a smile on their face. 
It really is quite something.

Over and oot the noo.

Oh and if you have read this far, and have subscribed to Fblog before, sorry - you need to do it again as Blogger has lost all your email addresses!






18 comments:

  1. "Owning a Leica does not make you a better photographer."
    How DARE you, sir? I don't own a Leica and my photos are crap. Ergo, I would make great photos if I had a Leica. There. Crushed you with logic.
    Stupidness aside, I understand your urge to part with things you don't use anymore. I've done this in the past and although I sometimes wish I had such-and-such camera, I think I made the right decision. For example, I sold my Contax 645 kit and sometimes, when loooking at slides, have a longing for that beautiful machine and the excellent lenses. But then I think about the weight of the body and three lenses and I don't feel so bad anymore. And maybe I just miss Kodak E100 film (it's coming back!).
    I also find 36 frames on a roll of film a bit much. There's a pressure to use up a whole roll when out and about and that leads to rushed photographs. I'm only using 35mm these days and I have to train myself to slow down and not worry about getting to magic frame number 36.
    Although you don't want to use 35mm anymore, all the photos you posted here are really strong. Especially the first one and the last one. More, please! Whatever the camera.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Marcus - nice to hear from you again - are you still abroad (as it were)?

    Right as for Leicas - I would honestly say that for anyone reading this who does want a bit of the old Leica experience either try one of the modern variants (like a Voigtlander) or else get the time machine and hit an old style screw mount Leica, or, because they're plentiful and relatively cheap a Canon.
    Optically, unless you are spending hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pounds/dollars etc, you'll not notice much difference. In fact when I was using a screw mount Leica, the nicest lens I had for it was a 50mm Russian one - that had 'the look'.
    But like I said, for me from now on in, I think I'll just continue with the Nikkors - get the right one, and you have a wonderful lens the equal (or better) of anything. And at the end of the day, seeing as it is all about making photographs, for myself I'll take the 100% totally controllable scene I get from the Nikon F viewfinders over the loosey-goosey view I got with the M2.
    It's a shame, the M2 is a great camera, but it is a lot of money to be tied up doing nothing when it could be being used. This being said, apart from needing to take a 35mm with me for something soon, I really am going to get my head down and see what I can pick up with 'The Square'!

    And thank you for the kind comments - always appreciated - looking forward to seeing some of yours when you get back.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Keep the Nikons. Everything else is paperweights. You might want to prune the duplicate focal lengths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Paperweights" . . please go on the rangefinder forum and state that ';0)

      But yes, excess stuff - definitely keeping the Nikons.

      Delete
  4. I am back in Korea and glad. Canada is a foreign country to me now. Familiar, but foreign. I had to ask someone how tipping works now.
    My Zeiss Ikon rangefinder will be back in my loving hands by the end of next week, weather willing. My main camera will remain the Nikon F6 because of the spot meter, 100% viewfinder, etc etc, but the Zeiss is great for walkabout.
    I've stopped posting things online. Perhaps I can send you a few of my decent photos by email.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please feel free to send Marcus - how come you've stopped?

    Hope the Zeiss behaves itself - if it doesn't this time, sell it and get a Nikon Fm2N, or 3N - light, well metered, and great for walkabouts!

    Funny you should find somewhere like Canada a foreign country . . . sounds to me like you've "gone native"!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, as always, there's the devil in the detail. We all know that medium and larger format negatives contain so much more detail than 35mm. Ergo 35mm is much less sinful.

    I'm fortunate in having a Leica with 2 nice lenses. And I have to say that I do think it makes me a better photographer. In as much as it seems to make me produce better photographs. I think all sorts of factors come into play, especially where you're essentially composing with the frame of the image superimposed over the scene. Things that used to slow me down like metering and focussing using the ra(n)gefinder, now not so much. Only the perpetual nightmare of did I remove the lens cap for the last photo? Generally I did, but it's so automatic, I can't remember.

    This weekend we've had visitors so I've been hiding in the darkroom. And I've noticed that all the hard to print images have come from the Olympus and its associated Zuiko optics. To be fair, I guess I'll need to check to see whether that's due to naff auto exposure decisions before pronouncing further.

    There is an allure with medium format and larger images. The sheer amount of information recorded. Even when printed by a lower resolution process in books I can see the difference. I'm wondering whether that's an extension of the laws of physics whereby small sensors in digital cameras are inherently limited by their size rather than pixel quantity.

    Give me 12 images of 6x6 or 15 of 6x4.5 and I've already sold my soul! With a little 35mm on the side...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Julian - hope you are well and thanks for commenting!
      You have a couple of exemplar lenses for your Leica though don't you, which always helps. I wasn't making a comment per se about it not making you a better photographer, I just feel that a lot of people genuinely believe (myself included when I wanted one) that owning one automatically makes them better . . and it didn't work in my case. Practice works, same with a format and an image ratio you like, but owning a certain brand doesn't necessarly do that, UNLESS the pressure you self-impose upon yourself (as in "well, Gibson or so-and-so or whatsisname used one of these and made images I think are the greatest ever" [et al]) makes you more focused to try even harder to make something you think lives up to the work of your heroes.
      Or else maybe it's because there really is nothing quite like that quiet Leica snick is there?
      Maybe that emboldens you to make photographs you wouldn't normally have chanced.
      I've felt the same with a meterless Nikon F though, and I could see exactly what i was getting on the negative too . . . so who knows.
      I suppose what counts is that we are all still using film.

      Delete
    2. I do have 2 great lenses. And I'm pleased to be able to see the difference they make. Which is good because otherwise someone somewhere along the line would have wasted his money on a fashion statement.

      I completely agree that owning a "brand" isn't the way. You can't buy "it", you have to work at it and practice. However good equipment helps. For an example of a waste of great gear on no talent I think we need look no further than Br**klyn B**kham. I could have wept when I read what lenses he's got...

      There is something about the Leica, but the (expensive highly rated) glass isn't all perfect. Wide open, the 35mm 1.4, is soft and prone to flare so I never use it thus. I'd prefer, if necessary, to go a stop underexposed and deal with it in the darkroom. Maybe I'm being a little harsh on the Zuiko optics because I've used them wide open to get a hand held (auto) shutter speed and ended up with a contrastless soft image. I could be cutting the Leica more slack and making more effort to learn and accommodate its foibles because of its reputation? Like one would with a diva?

      As you say, we're all using film. My film consumption is about 1/3 120, the rest 35mm. I have an unending and growing fascination for the square which I find entrancing and easy and difficult!

      Delete
  7. Yes, lenses maketh not the man as it were!
    Know nothing about BB, maybe he is alright, don't know. The expression 'You can't polish a turd' comes to mind, but there's a lot of turd out there, which brings to mind the perfect riposte to that statement 'No, but you can roll it in glitter' . . . .

    Square is really quite easy, but on the surface maybe seems difficult, only because you aren't encouraged to look at anything square at all in the modern world . .

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't know there was a paperweight forum, so thank you.
    Leica lens caps are first class. None better.
    The plain-prism Nikon F is a really excellent tool. I wish I'd kept mine, but I exchanged it for an F3. I have no complaints about the F3.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like the 'Plug' (as in Bash Street Kids) Nikon lens caps - got a couple of them.
    Leica caps are lovely thing true . . ever tried a Hasselblad?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, Hasselblad lens caps are very well thought out. They have the advantage of being attached to a really fine camera.
    I once borrowed a rangefinder Leica. The lens was first-class, and I liked it. Didn't think much of the heavy clockwork body, although it did sit nicely on the sternum in the display position. Didn't get the legendary feeling of smugness that infects some Leica owners. Didn't buy one.
    Since then, we've had the iPhone. The weight/quality, noise/quality and price/quality ratios favour the iPhone. Other people will certainly have different requirements and different opinions.
    There's no reason why Mr Sheephouse shouldn't keep one and take it out for walkies from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi David - pretty cemented into the M2 going - not that bothered by lightness, have used piephone, it's fine but not for me.
    Still think Rollei's have the weight/quality ratio about right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rolleiflexes are excellent tools.
    Not for everybody, but what is? Going up in price again, I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes they are - never 'cheap' in my experience - blame whats-her-face for current price increases . . .

      Delete
  13. Just for once, I'll try to be fair the woman.
    I think they've stopped making them and we have people like Sir Joshua Ramkennel encouraging people to carry on using old-fashioned film cameras.
    We should really blame Adam Smith, another troublesome fellow who wrote in Scotland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well yes, demand and supply are rather off-kilter these days - a great shame, but even 15 years ago they were relatively expensive, even from MXV who used to price fairly.
      And I still blame her . . .

      Delete

Hello!
Feel Free To Chat,
But Remember,
"Anonymous" Comments WILL NOT Be Published