The Reason for Film and Vintage Cameras

[blockend]

Some people are not happy unless there is a problem

The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.

 

[4season]

I wanted to revisit film in order to explore stuff that I never got around to exploring the first time around. Like shooting high speed color, even in the daytime. Or trying silly things, like photos of my lunch (so easy to do digitally, but can be surprisingly tricky to do with film, especially handheld in a dimly-lit room with lenses that don't focus especially close). And colorful grain, I want to see what I can do with that! In the digital realm, one often isn't even given the option whether to retain the chroma noise, it's simply processed away by default.

Hardware-wise, film gear is a good way to satisfy my cravings for new toys without spending a lot of money (especially when buying items which need servicing), and if I get my new-toy fixes with someone else's old junk, so much the better: Much less resource-intensive to refurbish an old camera than purchase a new one.

 

[Helios 1984]

The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.

 

[keenmaster486]

#fakedigital
#governmentlies
#filmtruther

 

[E. von Hoegh]

For me it's all about comprehensibility and agency. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to be aware of what's going on and how things work. I am most comfortable with mechanical things and traditional tools and methods, but when I must use electronic devices I want to be in the loop as much as possible.

The appeal of mechanical film cameras is the same as that of any other type of machinery because I know that with enough study I could come to know how and why the entire mechanism works, and with some effort repair it or even fabricate new parts. Of course, this isn't necessarily a practical consideration, only philosophical.

Likewise with electronics, older devices with discrete components and wiring are entirely understandable if you know the nature of electrons and spend enough time tracing circuits. With microelectronics the direct connection between understanding and operation is effectively broken because the encapsulated circuitry is too small to see and too abstract and complex for any one person to easily comprehend.

Contemporary electronics designers and programmers understand their creations in a modular way whereby the basic hardware and software components are treated as indivisible building blocks or subroutines that can be linked together to work as parts of larger systems. The collective mind can know everything about a particular technology, but individuals are limited in their complete knowledge to their particular specialties.

In the field, a service technician or hobbyist operates at the user interface or sub-assembly level. There is no possibility of home-brew, handcrafted microchips, image sensors or disk drives because these are necessarily the products of a complex industrial supply chain and clean-room fabrication process. How it's made or how it works is considered to be none of your business. If it breaks, replace it with a new one.

The average end-user of a high-tech device is strictly limited to the capabilities built into the operating system, constrained to follow rigid instructions to get a range of pre-determined outputs, be they image captures, information displays or physical actions. Every person who owns a smart phone, digital camera or laptop computer swipes, taps or clicks in the same ways because if it's not in the program, it's not going to happen.

The next steps go down the path of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Already, the phone app can tell you what to buy, what to see, what to hear, where to eat and where to go, based on your previous inputs. The GPS can show you how to get there. Alexa and her friends can tell you what you should be wearing when you arrive. Soon the car will drive itself and the camera will learn what you are interested in and take pictures for you along the way.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not too eager to go down that road.

Thank you for stating that so accurately and eloquently.

 

[keenmaster486]

Thank you for stating that so accurately and eloquently.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

The irony is people bemoaning the intrusive digital future while sitting at a computer screen. It's like those YouTube rants about the purity of film that are videoed from a GH4 with digital sound. Let's hope tongues are firmly in cheeks.

No, I use film. The internet is a mode of communication, just as making a telephone call has nothing to do with photography. You must have a very confused life if you are unable to understand that different technologies and their individual components. <<wink>> <<wink>> <<nudge>> <<nudge>>

 

[keenmaster486]

The Internet is a different thing from a camera, and is an exclusively digital thing. No analog and/or "old school" method exists of accessing the Internet. Therefore the use of internet-specific technology does not apply to this discussion.

 

[jtk]

The Internet is a different thing from a camera, and is an exclusively digital thing. No analog and/or "old school" method exists of accessing the Internet. Therefore the use of internet-specific technology does not apply to this discussion.

The biology of our perception, the biology of our thinking, is closer to digital than it is to film. Biology is 3 dimensional, film is 2 dimensional.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The biology of our perception, the biology of our thinking, is closer to digital than it is to film. Biology is 3 dimensional, film is 2 dimensional.

Actually my thinking and being is in four dimensions. I live in a space time continuum.

 

[wyofilm]

The biology of our perception, the biology of our thinking, is closer to digital than it is to film. Biology is 3 dimensional, film is 2 dimensional.

Exactly how is the biology of our perception 'digital'? Or the biology of thinking?

 

[jtk]

Exactly how is the biology of our perception 'digital'? Or the biology of thinking?

re-read: I didn't claim biology "is" digital, I said the obvious, which is that thinking and perception are "closer to digital' than is film, which is merely 2 dimensional.

"The biology of our perception, the biology of our thinking, is closer to digital than it is to film. Biology is 3 dimensional, film is 2 dimensional."

Some futurists say a future microprocessor will be a biological chip because chemistry and neurons can be faster than silicon.

 

[keenmaster486]

How is digital not two-dimensional?

 

[wyofilm]

I asked for clarification. I didn't shout at you. You seem to have several thoughts trying to get out at the same time. Perhaps I can parse this out.

You write that thinking and perception is obviously 'closer to digital' than is film. Perception (I am assuming physical perception, since you are invoking dimensionality) by humans (and all life) is analogue. Here I am talking about our five senses and there is nothing digital about it. Even the synaptic transmission of these sensations are analogue.

Now regarding film being two dimensional, this is also hooey when the chemistry and physics of image formation are considered. It is thin, I'll grant you that film is thin, but the layers and dimensionality of the film is important to its function. I have no idea where you were going with 2d vs 3d, vis a vis film and digital. You seem to be suggesting that all things digital are three dimensional, while all things analogue are two dimensional. This is demonstratively false. Do sound wave exist only in a plane? No, of course not.

Perhaps to your larger point, which is that brains function like microprocessors. Well, this idea has been tried by neuroscientists and computer scientists working together. Conclusion: it doesn't work like a microprocessor - at least at our current understanding. Now can a microprocessor be made to interface directly with our brain? Yes. But this does not mean humans are anything other than analogue. What any of this has to do with film rests entirely with you.

 

[jtk]

How is digital not two-dimensional?

Film is plastic (for the most part). The image on film isn't as close to being a print as is the more popular alternative. Kinda obvious, right?

I like printing on paper, framing with glass.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... No analog and/or "old school" method exists of accessing the Internet. ...

No "old school", eh? Young grasshopper, let me tell you about USENET, uucp protocols, and newsgroups like rec.photo.misc ...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

No "old school", eh? Young grasshopper, let me tell you about USENET, uucp protocols, and newsgroups like rec.photo.misc ...

Which are still digital, not analog. Radio transmissions are analog, for instance.

 

[faberryman]

Who cares???

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.

Yes, this is true. Many of us here, though, also get wrapped up in the process and the enjoyment of that process and that's where issues such as the subject of this thread arise.

... You can place a ... camera in manual exposure mode, focus by hand and shoot ... and your control of the process is no different to someone shooting a Barnack ...

Technically, yes. The results should be essentially identical, but...

The continuous use of an old hand tool... well worn, much loved, and handed down from generation to generation... has a very basic emotional appeal. This applies to cameras as much as it does to hammers, screwdrivers and saws. ...

...and I think this is where the appeal of using an old camera lies.

 

[Martin Rickards]

I'm clueless at anything creative and find that film and the darkroom provide me with some sort of outlet. More of a craft than art, but it's something I can do to create more or less pleasing images.

 

[faberryman]

How does using your grandfather's camera make your images any better?

 

[jtk]

Perception (I am assuming physical perception, since you are invoking dimensionality) by humans (and all life) is analogue.

You are confusing "dimension" with "analog"..

Here I am talking about our five senses and there is nothing digital about it. Even the synaptic transmission of these sensations are analogue.

You're repetitively stating your personal absolute belief, not a fact.

Now regarding film being two dimensional, this is also hooey when the chemistry and physics of image formation are considered. It is thin, I'll grant you that film is thin, but the layers and dimensionality of the film is important to its function. I have no idea where you were going with 2d vs 3d, vis a vis film and digital.

Read again.

You seem to be suggesting that all things digital are three dimensional, while all things analogue are two dimensional.

"Things" are never digital NOR analog. Those words refer to a measurement system, not to things.

This is demonstratively false. Do sound wave exist only in a plane? No, of course not.

Waves are hypothetical measured phenomena, we don't hear waves...we hear

Perhaps to your larger point, which is that brains function like microprocessors. Well, this idea has been tried by neuroscientists and computer scientists working together. Conclusion: it doesn't work like a microprocessor - at least at our current understanding.

I didn't say "brains function like microprocessors" but we all know microprocessors are increasingly functioning like brains.

Now can a microprocessor be made to interface directly with our brain? Yes. But this does not mean humans are anything other than analogue.

Weird that your microprocessors think that humans are analog. Is that biblical?

What any of this has to do with film rests entirely with you.

We benefit by entertaining new ideas. Surely our idea of "good" is not "analogue".

Bold can sometimes be more courteous than redundant statements of absolute belief.

 

[removed account4]

Which are still digital, not analog. Radio transmissions are analog, for instance.

-.-- . ... / .. - / .. ... / .- .-.. .-.. / -.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. / ..- -. - .. .-.. / -.-- --- ..- / --. . - / - --- / -- --- .-. . ... . / -.-. --- -.. .

 

[removed account4]

How does using your grandfather's camera make your images any better?

for some people i guess it does, because it makes THEM feel better but to others
they are the same pix taken with a iPhone

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Which are still digital, not analog....

Yes. I was trying to avoid the digital vs analog aspect and merely tease the young grasshopper with how photo discussion forums &c existed back in the mid to late 1980's.

As for the "vintage cameras" origin of this thread, I had hoped that digital imaging hadn't entered into the discussion because cameras such as even an F4 or Rebel 2000 are sufficiently sophisticated to use in comparison to a Barnack Leica.