Quite the echo chamber.
What decade are you stuck in?
-
- Thread starter avb
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Quite the echo chamber.
Echo chamber.
Echo chamber.
I’ve been thinking these things a lot last few years. It seems that most of the people have some kind of fixation on time.
I like old things. In fact old things are part of my profession as I work in a museum. But I find it interesting that we tend to see things by their age and decades. I’ve been sometimes called ”that guy who likes old stuff” by the people who like mostly new stuff. But I don’t think that the age of things is the only or most important factor in ”the stuff”.
Of course it would be untruthful to say that the oldness of things didn’t have special appeal to me, but I think that the age is only one part of them. I have cameras from 1920’s to 2000’s, I’m quite liberal and modern in my moral views, but I think 1890’s is the decade I’m most interested in, I like to do my writing in modern computer etc. Different technological qualities alter the way we work with them and how we experience the world using them. I like my modern computer because of the efficiency of editing text with it. I like my 1910’s Smith-Premier typewriter because it’s sensory qualities and how it challenges my brain to think differently. I like led lighting because it’s easy and efiicient, but candles because they produce more beautiful and inspiring light. I think the people who have called me ”the guy who likes old stuff” are more fixated in age of things than I am, though they might think it’s just the opposite. They can’t see past the age, but think I am the one obsessed with age. And I am in a way, but in different way that they are.
What I’m trying to say (I haven’t been writing in english much last year, so it’s not so fluent as my native language) is that old things are much more than old things. New things are not the only way of learning something new. We have thousands of years of history. If one looks at old stuff only as outdated, he might miss something new and get stuck in the 2010's or what ever decade it is.
In personal level learning new things and not clinging on the old ways and routines is of course important. But for digital photographer the digital photography is his personal old routine. Plate camera from the 1920’s might be something new and refreshing for him. This works also another way of course.
And my answer to the question is that I'm not sure. Maybe 1920's.
I like old things. In fact old things are part of my profession as I work in a museum. But I find it interesting that we tend to see things by their age and decades. I’ve been sometimes called ”that guy who likes old stuff” by the people who like mostly new stuff. But I don’t think that the age of things is the only or most important factor in ”the stuff”.
Of course it would be untruthful to say that the oldness of things didn’t have special appeal to me, but I think that the age is only one part of them. I have cameras from 1920’s to 2000’s, I’m quite liberal and modern in my moral views, but I think 1890’s is the decade I’m most interested in, I like to do my writing in modern computer etc. Different technological qualities alter the way we work with them and how we experience the world using them. I like my modern computer because of the efficiency of editing text with it. I like my 1910’s Smith-Premier typewriter because it’s sensory qualities and how it challenges my brain to think differently. I like led lighting because it’s easy and efiicient, but candles because they produce more beautiful and inspiring light. I think the people who have called me ”the guy who likes old stuff” are more fixated in age of things than I am, though they might think it’s just the opposite. They can’t see past the age, but think I am the one obsessed with age. And I am in a way, but in different way that they are.
What I’m trying to say (I haven’t been writing in english much last year, so it’s not so fluent as my native language) is that old things are much more than old things. New things are not the only way of learning something new. We have thousands of years of history. If one looks at old stuff only as outdated, he might miss something new and get stuck in the 2010's or what ever decade it is.
In personal level learning new things and not clinging on the old ways and routines is of course important. But for digital photographer the digital photography is his personal old routine. Plate camera from the 1920’s might be something new and refreshing for him. This works also another way of course.
And my answer to the question is that I'm not sure. Maybe 1920's.
Last edited:
I really like this line. Well said.
A love of old gear can sometimes become an overall love of the past. Nostalgia is all very well but it can blind us to the present, which isn't helpful for our photographic vision which is always grounded in the now. I sometimes look at other people's photos from, say, the 1980s and can't believe the things I missed. At the time fashions, transport and architecture seemed unremarkable and of no interest photographically. In retrospect it was as peculiar as the 1930s or the 1890s. I treasure the glimpses I did capture.
Appreciating equipment from the past is not difficult, but the era it emerged from will never return. That doesn't stop us using it to record the present. It too will not be repeated.
Appreciating equipment from the past is not difficult, but the era it emerged from will never return. That doesn't stop us using it to record the present. It too will not be repeated.
If I learn to make photo-gravures (local teacher and rental studio) will that make me a captive of the 19th century?
I like both old and new equipment, but the age of the equipment does not influence the composition of my photographs.
All of us are "labeled" by others because of the cameras we own, what we do with film after we shoot it (darkroom or scan), where we live, when we were born, what we do for a living, when we were born; all kinds of things. I own 6 film cameras and only one less expensive digital and I develop and print my films in a darkroom, so I am "against change", I live in the Southern United States so I am a "racist", I own a very small business so I am a "capitalist", I was born in 1931 so I was a "depression baby", and probably a dozen more labels applied to me by people that I have never and probably will never meet. And what label should I apply to those who label me? Why, "broad minded" of course. I much prefer "hypocrites". I don't really give a damn which type of photography you choose, film or digital, just allow me to "do my thing". I just realized what my true "label" is: I am a "Mule's Rear End". Like a horse's but smarter...........Regards!
The view cameras I use range from 1 year to 100+ years of age...wood and brass, all metal, or wood/carbon-fiber/titanium. I see them as timeless rather than tied to a decade or century. The workshops I give in carbon printing (process patented in1864) now have elements of the 21st Century (inkjet negatives) as part of the course. I started photograping in the mid-1970s and the lable of "West Coast Photographer" could be applied, but I don't often think of myself in that way. Having 21-year-old sons keeps me from drifting back too much in time.
Hence the basis of my "Everyday scenes" and "Too Common" themes I've been working on for close to a year.
Just six? How did you manage to pass through Photrio Border Security?
Avedon was more famous for his disciplined approach to relationships with subjects, his style with studio strobes and background sweeps than he was for his camera choices.
He certainly wasn't a mere "sixties" photographer. Sixties weren't even his best decade.
https://www.taschen.com/pages/en/ca...ard_avedon_james_baldwin_nothing_personal.htm
https://www.pacegallery.com/exhibitions/11512/performance
Last edited:
I guess multiple decades, my project work stretches over 30 years as does my equipment which spans 1950's to 2000's. I'm not stuck in one as I continually evolve.
But then I have pre-WWI equipment cameras - SLR and Field, lenses and shutters, as well as an enlarger, safe-lights etc, so a complete period set-up for 1913
Ian
But then I have pre-WWI equipment cameras - SLR and Field, lenses and shutters, as well as an enlarger, safe-lights etc, so a complete period set-up for 1913
Ian
An Edwardian photographer would be able to use and print from any film camera and darkroom set up to the present day. A large format camera would require barely any familiarisation. Creating a digital print would need to take on board a whole paradigm shift, especially posting it online in 2018. That's a century with little change apart from the introduction of batteries. Digital cameras have changed exponentially in 20 years.I guess multiple decades, my project work stretches over 30 years as does my equipment which spans 1950's to 2000's. I'm not stuck in one as I continually evolve.
But then I have pre-WWI equipment cameras - SLR and Field, lenses and shutters, as well as an enlarger, safe-lights etc, so a complete period set-up for 1913
Ian
I'd chosen Edwardian and just before WWI because that's a period where we began to get decent lenses and accurate shutters. I have a few cameras from that period, from Quarter plate to 12"x10", and lenses in Compur and Compound shutters.
As a mainly LF worker you're right there's little difference between what we use to day compared to over a Century ago. My main gripe was that simplicity was lost when manufacturers introduced the various Program modes to film cameras, which carry through to Digital, no longer do most photographers think when making images.
Ian
the twenties... 2020s! lighweight, pocketable, silent, surpassing LF in resolution, with a dynamic range turning the darkest night into day... what's not to like?
ps. film-wise, i never thought they made anything the F2 would call an "upgrade"
ps. film-wise, i never thought they made anything the F2 would call an "upgrade"
That's correct. The reason they offered things like "Portrait" or "Landscape" modes was to entice people to buy the camera who would otherwise be afraid of having to deal with shutter speed and aperture settings. It was all for the pursuit of more sales and profits - not there is anything wrong with that per se. They did achieve the result of bringing more people into photography - much the same as the 126 cartridge did.
Yet, I really dislike it because it hides the simple choices of shutter speed and aperture behind unnecessary complexity.
Last edited:
Equipment-wise 1975 to 1985, which exactly covers Jr. High/High School/college, and also starts the year I got my first 35mm camera to the year I got the last of the Nikon SLRs which remain my main film cameras.
Aesthetically, I don’t think there is one decade or era that I respond more than others (although on some basic level “photographs” to me still mean 60s/70s photojournalism and my dad’s travel and architecture slides from the same period).
Aesthetically, I don’t think there is one decade or era that I respond more than others (although on some basic level “photographs” to me still mean 60s/70s photojournalism and my dad’s travel and architecture slides from the same period).
Don't think I'm stuck, open to new stuff and very old stuff. Why would any of us be proud thinking they're stuck ?
My cameras span 1917 (Kodak Brownie 2a) to 1993 (Praktica BX20S and Nikon F601M) for film and 2005-2015 for digital (Nikon D50 to Nikon D7100). For film, lots inbetween with cameras from the 20s, 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. I get a kick out of using something old for it's intended purpose. Sometimes I use a specific camera for the "look" it's photographs have, and sometimes I just like to do something that most people consider impractical. There's no doubt that cameras with an art deco style, and those considered "steampunk" today look wonderful. There's also no doubt that the looks you get from people when out and about with a simple box camera are priceless.
I had someone visit a couple of years ago, she wanted to use an old CZJ Tessar, it was in a sunken mount so off an SLR, it's SN indicated about 100 years old. She wanted an "old look" from a lens. I have some prints on the walls and said which is the print made with a Dagor, a classic ol fashioned lens design and this one was from1939/40. She looked then went to a print made with a Yashicamat 124 & it's Yashinon, the only real distinguishing difference is it's one of the rare times I used differential focussing, a sharp tree in front of the Dead Link Removed. I'd used the differential focus to hide the builders cranes.
In fact there were images made with lenses made in various decades, so late 30's a 12" Goerz Am Opt Dagor, 50's 53/4 150mm f4,5 CZJ T Tessar, 60's, 63 Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 Xenotar, 68-70 Yasshinon, late 60's 75mm f8 75mm Super Angulon, and then later MC lenses.
My point is with the right choices (in terms of lens) with B&W work it's hard to tell between images made with lenses made over quite a period of time. I'd add taht all the lenses mentioned are coated, even the 12" Dagor which was factory coated after WWII. You may well be able to spot a difference with uncoated lenses, I can when printing from negatives made with them, but lenses like Dagor's and Protar's with only 2 internal air glass surfaces may have better contrast than an early coated Plasmat.
While my 1913 120mm Dagor (Berlin) is technically not Edwardian (n terms of the King's reign) it falls into the loose term covering the end of Victoria's life and the outbreak of WWI. This lens in its Compound shutter is as usable today as it was over 100 years ago, despite being uncoated it has excellent contrast not far behind a MC plasmat. There's a difference between uncoated Tessa's and then Dialytes though the more air/glass surfaces the greater the contrast loss.
I think your comments about an Edwardian photographer using modern equipment is interesting, I'm sure they'd love what we have now. We've actually lost how they approached working with low contrast lenses, this was in our terms over exposure and more contrasty development, but the papers of the time suited those negatives.
Ian
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |