The Reason for Film and Vintage Cameras

[Sirius Glass]

I to am getting the error message:-

The following error occurred
The server responded with an error. The error message is in the JavaScript console.

It looks as if the error message is itself an error because the post of uploaded anyway.

I agree that you have evaluated that correctly as an error causing a report of a nonexistent error. Good call.

 

[moose10101]

The point of what I was saying was not that film is simpler than digital in general. Obviously, a great deal of complicated and intricate design goes into film and film cameras. My point was that, from an engineering and efficiency standpoint, using a digital computer to solve the problem of image creation is very convoluted compared to direct image capture with light-sensitive chemicals. It feels so much more right to take pictures with film... I stand by my assertion earlier that using a computer for every task seems like way overkill.

Here's another analogy: when I take a picture digitally, I feel like I'm going to a futuristic holodeck from Star Trek, firing up the system, and commmanding it to bring forth for me an incredible forest, filled with grandeur, so that I may take pictures of it - instead of just walking a few blocks west and taking pictures of the real forest.

You do it because it feels right. That's the most logical reason of all. But digital image creation, for the person creating the image, can be as simple or as complex as they want it to be.

A person can pull a small device from their pocket, take a photo, and share it in a matter of seconds, with a few taps on a screen. And they'd be carrying that device even if it didn't include a camera. That's minimalist. And efficient.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
A person can pull a small device from their pocket, take a photo, and share it in a matter of seconds, with a few taps on a screen. And they'd be carrying that device even if it didn't include a camera. That's minimalist. And efficient.

What you describe is minimalist in the sense of minimal equipment (there's no dedicated camera body plus lens plus film), it's minimalist in terms of operation, and it's minimalist in producing an image. However it is not minimalist in technological concept. Were you to be transported to Gilligan's Island, you wouldn't be able to recreate that device out of coconuts.

Ok, seriously, a Leica M3 is a precision device with a complex gear train and shutter, and it is manufactured to tight tolerances. So it's not minimalist in that sense. However, conceptually, it is very easy to grok the simple operation of an M3 (compared to a D850 or even an old F4) and it's very satisfying to use because one feels involved in making the image.

 

[Helios 1984]

Here's another analogy: when I take a picture digitally, I feel like I'm going to a futuristic holodeck from Star Trek, firing up the system, and commmanding it to bring forth for me an incredible forest, filled with grandeur, so that I may take pictures of it - instead of just walking a few blocks west and taking pictures of the real forest.

I get what you're trying to say, but that's one limping analogy if I ever read one loll Whether you're using a film or digital camera, the forest is real nonetheless. The difference between film & digital is like between a book & a PDF, I appreciate the later but I feel more connected with the book because I can feel the pages between my fingers.

Were you to be transported to Gilligan's Island, you wouldn't be able to recreate that device out of coconuts.

I shocked on my cup of tea haha

 

[Lee Rust]

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.

 

[BMbikerider]

Lee. Your post above this one is a very good assessment, I too don't care too much for what electronics may get up to in the future.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Well, I can't figure out how to get the top off my camera, which is probably a good thing, since I doubt I could diagnose and fix any problems once I got inside. I know I couldn't fabricate any parts that might need to be replaced. I do know a bit about electronics, but I don't think I have any electronic devices in my home which are not fabricated with SMDs, and I don't have the necessary specialized tools or soldering station for replacing SMD parts. I know I do not have the physical dexterity to work on the small circuits in a digital camera. So film or digital, it doesn't matter. If it breaks, I will need to rely on professional repairs. I expect the same applies to most of us out here.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why?

Because I want to. That is enough of a reason.​

 

[moose10101]

What you describe is minimalist in the sense of minimal equipment (there's no dedicated camera body plus lens plus film), it's minimalist in terms of operation, and it's minimalist in producing an image. However it is not minimalist in technological concept. Were you to be transported to Gilligan's Island, you wouldn't be able to recreate that device out of coconuts.

Well, I couldn’t, but maybe the Professor could.

 

[removed account4]

Yes real photography!

There is photography and then there is Digital Imaging. Semantics yes, but if the opinions of some ruffle feathers of others so be it. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion.
Yes I have used the digital thing and I can say that I get very little satisfaction from it. More like frustration! I also know I would be a damn sight better off financially, if I had not tried it.

.. semantics indeed

 

[Europan]

Film and vintage cameras fit. There are standards for film dimensions. Anybody can make film. It only takes a little factory with warehouse, lab, coater, slitter, perforators, and other small beer. Vintage cameras have stood the test of time, they display their weaknesses and strong sides. A crazy guy in Switzerland dissects movie equipment, one after the other, and publishes his findings. About lenses, too.

The Ciné-Kodak Special for example. Very good camera with a few quirks one can get accustomed to. A careful mechanic who isn’t dumb in addition can take care of it. During use the fast moving parts can be oiled, a complete exception to an Eastman-Kodak camera. Between you and me, Bell & Howell engineers designed it and Eastman’s people, some from Europe, adapted it. The Bell & Howell Filmo 70 cameras, often 80 or 90 years old, can be brought back to full life.

The fun thing about film and mechanical cameras is that some old-fashioned stocks can be exposed in the latest cameras as well as the newest films can be run through quite old cameras. If there is a time machine, film and cameras make it.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... 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.

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.

...

Nicely written. I think it captures what many have not been able to put into words.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The irony is people bemoaning the intrusive digital future while sitting at a computer screen. ...

Not quite. For some aspects of the digital future, the lament is about lack of control and, consequently, lack of involvement, choice, and creativity.

 

[blockend]

First shoot your tiger. I like using simple cameras with a fixed shutter speed and single aperture. I'm able to use these successfully because my raw materials come from a multi-million pound industrial complex serviced by advanced computer technology. If I had to coat my own films and paper I wouldn't bother, I'd use a digital camera like everyone else. If you've ever scanned a negative or posted on a hosting site, you've admitted the advantages of digital imaging.

Film is a first world, niche, increasingly boutique product that has survived largely because of the internet. Whenever I use my simple cameras, I remember they were bought on eBay, researched on the internet, and use film ordered from my desktop. In WW2 some British prisoners of war under the Japanese made cameras and film from scratch, because they thought the world would never believe they were being starved to death. I wouldn't know where to begin.

 

[blacksquare]

blockend: I dont fully understand you... why the use of old and new technology together is problem?

 

[blockend]

blockend: I dont fully understand you... why the use of old and new technology together is problem?

It isn't. Just the opposite. I don't understand people who say they need to be on top of technology, to be in control of every aspect of the process, then put their photography through microchips. You can place a digital camera in manual exposure mode, focus by hand and shoot jpegs, and your control of the process is no different to someone shooting a Barnack and scanning the negatives. The result is a digital file.

People should shoot what they like, how they like. I don't identify a pecking order of authenticity, because the winner would be someone who made their own camera, coated their own plates and paper, made their own chemistry and never exhibited on the web. The rest of us just make it up as we go along. Where's the "real" in that?

 

[Michael Firstlight]

What the heck! What is going on here? ... Doesn't the XT MB only have 8-bit slots? And how is the 486 upgrade not being severely bottlenecked? Wow.

Freaky, 'eh?

Yes, the system is ultimately bottlenecked by the XT motherboard's 8-bit bus, but I dropped a Cyrix 33/66MHz 486 133-pin compatible CPU on a vintage Intel Inboard/386 extension board that has its own 5MB of RAM that is fully addressable as extended, not expanded memory. That memory isn't bottlenecked and takes over after the initial bootstrap of the first 256K RAM off the main board. The 486 Cyrix gets clock limited to 33MHz by virtue of the InBoard's oscillator, which I could replace to get the full 66MHz, but haven’t as I'm not 100% comfortable soldering the 35-year old InBoard that is quite rare and now worth a small fortune. The Cyrix is also limited by it's own internal 1MB cache, but it still rips on Windows 3.1. Even though the InBoard plugs into the 8-bit bus, the limitation is the data transfer, not the processing and RAM, so, I get maximum performance of the 8-bit bus by replacing the MFM mechanical HDD with two 2GB solid-state drives connected via a an 8-bit XT-IDE adapter that many vintage computer builders have been building from kits to adapt newer drives to work with the older machines. With those mods, I get a monster built on an original IBM PC/XT chassis and original motherboard using 95% components that are from that era (save for the XT-IDE and CF).


While all of that is pretty freaky, the wow part is getting Win 3.1 to run - at all. The Intel InBoard was designed to run up to Win 3.0. Intel+Microsoft make a very rare and obscure version of Windows 3.0 (took me a long time to find a copy) that was created specifically for the Intel InBoard/386 (remember, an original 8088 PC couldn't dream of running Windows 3.0), and it was conventional wisdom that even with an Inboard/386, it could never Win 3.1 - but, but but....I figured out how to transplant key drivers from an Win 3.1 installation into the special Intel Win3.0 version and got- Volia! - A full-fledged edition of Win3.1 running perfectly - the "impossible" proven, possible. And if that isn't weird enough for you, I was able to get Win95 to boot, but that's where performance dives to the point its not an acceptable experience, so I run Calmira II with Win3.1 if I want to use a Win9x style GUI. For getting on the web I can run a few older browsers, but most use the Arachne browser to get around limitations of using IE 5.0 on modern sites.


All of the software I listed here (https://pcpartpicker.com/b/krYrxr) runs like a champ - quite snappy. My subsequent project was another "it can't be done, impossible, no way" challenge - to run every version of DOS and Windows (multi-bot) up to at least Win7 32-bit on the same machine, without having to swap out any hardware between switching the OS, and having everything run properly per OS with all features enabled. Many 'expert' builders have tried and failed - and published their failures and insurmountable technical limitations in major publications, but as far as I am aware I'm the only one that has ever successfully created a build that overcame the so-called 'impossible' for that one. You can read about that freak here: https://pcpartpicker.com/b/yJjcCJ


....but I digress badly. This is a thread about film and analog cameras and processing

Regards,
Mike

 

[guangong]

Last week passed by another very large Manhattan artist supply store closing its doors. I began to reflect on the title of this thread. Using pencils, charcoal, water colors, oil paint, brushes of various kinds, and sculpting all require trained and capable hand eye coordination as well as a steady hand. Digital imaging is technologically more demanding but does not require the skills required by traditional art making.
Using older all mechanical cameras requires the ability to focus, hold camera steady, evaluate lighting....not to mention skills required to process film. I have friends who have turned to all automatic and digital because eyes cannot focus image, shake too much to hold camera steady and can mend pixels in computer.
Just an idle musing, but like any other artist we enjoy the process of making a picture as much as the picture itself.

 

[Lee Rust]

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. As long as suitable film is manufactured, film cameras of any vintage can be fully functional. We can continue to use our older digicams too, if the electronics hold out and replacement batteries or memory cards are still available. This will change as internet connectivity becomes the norm for all electronic things and obsolete and incompatible devices are simply discarded or recycled.

This article in today's NY Times seems relevant ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/magazine/what-i-learned-from-watching-my-ipads-slow-death.html

 

[removed account4]

n WW2 some British prisoners of war under the Japanese made cameras and film from scratch, because they thought the world would never believe they were being starved to death. I wouldn't know where to begin.

you'd start with a box
then a junk store magnifying glass can b your lens
psper might be the hard part but you can put fruit juice on
cheap construction paper, stick it in your box and focus an image on that you will have something that
makes phtoographic images. it really isn't as hard as it seems, no chems needed but
the images tend to fade ...
and it is kind of fun...

People should shoot what they like, how they like. I don't identify a pecking order of authenticity, because the winner would be someone who made their own camera, coated their own plates and paper, made their own chemistry and never exhibited on the web. The rest of us just make it up as we go along. Where's the "real" in that?

couldn't agree more.
thanks !

 

[blockend]

you'd start with a box
then a junk store magnifying glass can b your lens
psper might be the hard part but you can put fruit juice on
cheap construction paper, stick it in your box and focus an image on that you will have something that
makes phtoographic images. it really isn't as hard as it seems, no chems needed but
the images tend to fade ...
and it is kind of fun...

In a concentration camp? When you're starving? There's no shop selling bits and pieces.

 

[removed account4]

i thought you were talking now, like today, sorry for my serious misunderstanding

 

[keenmaster486]

Freaky, 'eh?.......

Hats off to you.... that's really incredible.

People should shoot what they like, how they like. I don't identify a pecking order of authenticity, because the winner would be someone who made their own camera, coated their own plates and paper, made their own chemistry and never exhibited on the web. The rest of us just make it up as we go along. Where's the "real" in that?

That sounds like something I would do if given enough time and money. But yeah, there shouldn't be a pecking order... this is just my personal philosophy.

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

Yes! I like things that are stable and lasting... all of my old mechanical cameras can outlast me and continue to be used and loved for generations after I am gone.

 

[faberryman]

blockend: I dont fully understand you... why the use of old and new technology together is problem?

I don't know why any of it is a problem. Some people are not happy unless there is a problem. Film and digital are just different tools for arriving at a final image. I use both and try to avoid all the dogma and rationalization of the film vs. digital debate, and just focus on making photographs.