Your depiction of two cameras stacked on top of each other suggests you don't feel TLRs are a sound contemporary design. I'd suggest all cameras that take a roll of silver gelatin film are defunct, so we're splitting hairs about discontinued technology.Just a quick note, to think about: who said where that TLRs are bad cameras?
So no wonder that you fail to see a case (being made) for that.
Your depiction of two cameras stacked on top of each other suggests you don't feel TLRs are a sound contemporary design. I'd suggest all cameras that take a roll of silver gelatin film are defunct, so we're splitting hairs about discontinued technology.
(Some are though. Lubitels are the worst kind of camera you can ever come across. Seagulls are not a lot better.)
Don't knock Lubitels and Seagulls! They make excellent door stops, bookends and boat anchors!
The question is, who to believe? A clearly brilliant photographer who used a TLR masterfully and, so far as we know, was satisfied enough with what she found to buy a few Rolleis over the years - or someone sounding off about the camera design on an internet forum?Stacking two cameras on top of each other is indeed not something that could be called "a sound contemporary design". I have not only suggested that, but explicitedly said it (and explained why) quite a few times.
The question is, who to believe? A clearly brilliant photographer who used a TLR masterfully and, so far as we know, was satisfied enough with what she found to buy a few Rolleis over the years - or someone sounding off about the camera design on an internet forum?
Photos will always trump opinions.
The question is, who to believe? A clearly brilliant photographer who used a TLR masterfully and, so far as we know, was satisfied enough with what she found to buy a few Rolleis over the years - or someone sounding off about the camera design on an internet forum?
Photos will always trump opinions.
Today's Vivian is shooting a 5D, getting content that is just as good, and displaying skill just as well. Vivian's pictures are not evidence that a TLR is not an outmoded tool. They are evidence that she knew what she was doing as an artist, and used the quality tool best suited for her at the time.
You still don't get it.
Whether a camera design is or is not outdated has nothing to do with whether you can use it to good effect or not.
The idea behind the TLR design had its reasons for being. It circumvented problems, that at one time existed. Those problems no longer exist (haven't for about half a century now) so there's no reason for a solution.
A person who i'll not name and shame here said there's nothing archaic about TLRs. Well, there is. The entire TLR-concept is archaic. (That person doesn't like anyone disagreeing with him though. He even (the irony...) complains about trolls...)
That, by the way, is knowledge. Not an opinion.
You evidently have no knowledge, which makes your opinion so [bleep].
Now you too would perhaps be so kind to explain why archaic design cameras could not be used to produce great photography.
You must know, since it is the begin all end all of your opinionated post and crappy logic argumentation.
I did not mean 5D specifically. I just used it as an example of a nice-quality contemporary camera...one that someone like a Vivian today would be sold if they walked into a photography shop.
I don't agree with the importance of "ground glass composition" in the content of her work (and I think you mean waist-level viewing, as a ground glass is used for focusing even when a prism is used). Sure, it can make a difference in how you approach things and what you shoot. But it doesn't give you an eye where there was just a hole in your head before. FWIW, have you seen the new 60D with its flip out screen? Waist level viewing in a digital SLR. Let's see how much it changes the quality of people's work.......
The question is would Vivian Maier's work have been better if she'd had an 18 megapixel SLR?
All film cameras are archaic as has been stated by myself and others repeatedly. The last generation of medium format cameras were rangefinders, a reworking of 1950s design on an 1890s roll film format. There has been no development in roll film camera technology for years, so comparing relative arcana is like bragging about the merits of the Saturn V rocket over the Mk IV, or which steam train accelerates through the 100mph barrier quickest.
In that context [...]
The question I am talking about was raised by me: How does the fact that Vivian used a TLR to create her wonderful work mean that TLRs are not outmoded today? Additionally, how did waist-level viewing truly affect her work?
The last generation of medium format cameras are SLRs, by the way.
The current generation of those cameras that replace the "archaic" film cameras are too.
But don't let that bother you.
The last MF camera to be brought out was a SLR. And a rangefinder. Maybe something else too. What was the last camera, Blockend? And what does it say about whether or not a design is archaic?
The SLR is not yet outdated, Blockend.
It still does what it was intended to do, and (!) there was (nor is) nothing it left to be desired.
What would you like to develop further about it?
Put this ego thesis in the soap box. Maybe somebody will start a thread on Vivian's contribution to street photography.
Jim
You appear to be having an argument in your own head. Agfa got out of film, Fuji and Kodak are pulling lines month on month. Film is a medium for those who love the medium, artists, cranks, recidivists and dreamers of all kinds. In that reality, what in God's name does the fact that a camera has separate viewing and taking lens have to do with anything?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?