My Reasons for NOT owning a DSLR

I have been asked innumerable times by colleagues, friends and even strangers if and why I do not own a DSLR, in various situations. I even got the same questions (not many times, of course) during the correspondence with people when dealing with the activity of this blog. While the whole thing is most of the times quite irritating to me, sometimes I even get quite a rush of pride due to that very fact (for not owning it). I actually own a couple of low-budget digicams (and use them rarely), but I just don't feel the »chemistry« (pun intended) between them and me. It just doesn't work for me, I didn't even feel the minimum attraction every time I had the chance to handle a premium DSLR. So I limit my use of digital gear only for web communication and the like. But from the (quasi)rational point of view, here are the reasons:

 

Cost

While you can buy an entry-level DSLR for little money today, you know it will be outdated quite soon, and its quality (still) leaves much to be desired. A Canon user (like me, while already having a range of EF lenses) can get a 1100D for some 400€. Not expensive, but....considering my 35 mm film shooting rate is somewhere about 15-20 films/year (and I've been shooting mostly color slides lately), you end to spend about 200€/year, provided you get a lab with fair prices for E6 development and you buy your film in bulk (as most of us do these days). So it takes me about 2 years to break even in comparison with an entry-level DSLR. If I was shooting mostly BW, that figure would be much more in favor of my »old« film SLR (or rangefinder, for that matter). Most people, after a couple of years, are already flirting with the idea about getting a new DSLR because their »old« DSLR is already outdated.  Getting a good quality full-frame DSLR means you need to spend 2-3k€, that's one decade of film supply and development, and some scanning, with the same or better quality as with a DSLR.

Many film cameras, many tastes

My shooting rate, as said, is really low. And the shooting rate of  films/camera/year is even lower. At home, we own quite an arsenal of 35 mm gear: 2 manual SLRs, 2 autofocus SLRs, yet another SLR for macro only, 3 rangefinders, some Lomo-like cameras, and maybe even something I forgot....each camera has its own personality, and I really try to use each one for at least 2-3 rolls of film per year, to render them  justice. Even if I compare the two Canons AE-1's (the old version and the newer Program), they differ: it's not that one is better than the other, but the handling is a bit different, although they have more or less the same construction. Can you find such a variety of tastes in the digital realm? I don't think so.

Film cameras are considered less intruding to most people

Doing street or event photography with a »vintage« camera doesn't seem to bother people much. They are often even more apt to cooperate, and many times, very curious about the camera. Film cameras are really connecting people!

I just don't want functions I never asked for

If I want to take photos, I just want to set the few determining parameters, without all the distracting functions being there just to tempt me to use them. This is also the reason I rarely use an EOS camera and more often an AE-1...

Anti-consumerism

The consumerism, being pushed to its limits, is producing products lasting only for a couple of years. Digital camera models just come and go, the real technological improvement between generations of cameras has become marginal. The manufacturers-corporations just want to trick us that you simply need a newer camera. In contrast, 30+ year-old cameras (with minimum maintenance) are just fine and work almost as new (OK, it's not a heavy duty use). And you can load them with the latest film type(like Ektar). This is simply amazing, isn't it? I have a much better feeling when I buy some film, especially from a small film company, knowing that I contribute this way to keep that small company running!

I just love to project slides!

There's nothing better to me as a nice sharp, color-rich slide being projected! Much better than a wall-sized print. It's really the ultimate enjoyment in photo-terms. It's like listening to a quality sound of a vinyl record with a vacuum-tube amplifier! No, this not the everyday routine, you need to take your time, but when you take that time, it's special!

These are by no means all the reasons, but probably the most important ones, and I am sure these are more or less the same  reasons you to stick with film. And I would really like to know your very reasons.

Mitja

Random Quote

"Wherever there is light, one can photograph."  Alfred Stieglitz

Portfolio of the Week: Jochen Abitz

Dear Readers,

there's no completeness without the other half, right? So it's my pleasure to introduce 4Spo's »partner in crime«, Jochen Abitz, from Germany as well. Jochen started his photographic journey about a decade ago, with digital gear. Then, as it often happens, he got »infected« with film photography and with medium format (also thanks to 4Spo), and stuck with it (oh, how I like to tell such stories!).  Similarly, he also likes fine cameras,  many different films, mostly BW, developed by himself. Besides sharing a common website, Jochen also performs some photo projects, editorials etc., together with 4Spo. As he states, they have quite a similar taste when it comes to photography. And obviously, they are quite a tandem! You just cannot find every day photos with such a masterful lighting as in their work (besides other aspects)! I urge to reinvite you to visit their site, there are many analog goodies to be found there! Jochen's work can also be found on Flickr. Enjoy the photos!

Mitja

 All photos copyright: Jochen Abitz

Monday Column: What is an Analogue Photography?

Simply, it is not a digital one. Right? But at its core a ccd or a cmos is an analogue device, transforming photons into electrical charge and only afterwards its converted in digital file. But we all agree that this kind of photography is so called “digital photography” and not analogue (or analog in American English) photography. But large amount of analogue photographs after all is converted into digital files by scanning negatives. At least for on line presentation.  It’s a little bit complicated.

 

But leave philosophical matter about analogue vs. digital for another column in the future. Analogue photography it’s whole universe of diversity at itself. But what it is real analogue photography? Some would say that real analogue photography is when it is taken on some light sensitized material and that aperture and time this material is exposed to light is manually controlled. Other would say give me some film and any camera it would take it. Then it will take film to develop and printing to the local Quick lab. This is also an analogue photography. But what would you say about alternative processes? There it’s not already prepared film in advance, but you must prepare your own light sensitive material, you must do developing and also printing (if it’s needed) at your own. Are those processes more analogue than previous one? What do you think about? What’s your way to be analogue?

 

Matjaž

p.s.: About last column and which camera I took to the hike. I chose Altix. More about this matter in the next column.

Film Matter: Clearing Out Old Film Stock and the Right Soup

Dear Readers,

You probably expected another part of the sequel Building a small exposure meter, right? Unfortunately, I had a major headache with the purchased digital panel voltmeter as the display for the meter. It looks like a shitty electronic component, with a weird output, so I need first to find out where the problem is, or another voltmeter....But at least, the circuit (with some minor modifications) performs well, with an even lower error as I calculated. So expect to see the final part of the build next week (or a week after). 

The "breadboard" version of the exposure meter works well, but I am still in search of a usable panel meter.

And these are my very last outdated films from the "old good days".

While shuffling my photo stuff, I came across a bunch of films I put out of the freezer a few months ago with the intention to shoot these films at last...trouble is, all 4 films are more or less of the »specialty« type-very high or very low sensitivity, and one is for tungsten light as well. But all of them were venerable emulsions back in the day. So I'll need to pay some respect to them when shooting. The EPT 160T (slide film) will be most likely used when I find some nice happening, like a concert, same for the Tmax P3200. As for the APX25 and the »holy« TechnicalPan, I am not really sure when, but they'll be used probably for some landscape stuff. Ok, this is my business what I should do with these films, but when it comes to develop these BW films, we all have the same problem - in which soup we shall develop the old outdated stuff. For the TechPan and the APX25, I'll probably just use Rodinal or its »clone«, the R09 developer (quite similar, but closer to the original pre-WWII formula), except that for the TechPan I shall use a highly diluted solution. Rodinal is quite a flexible chemical, since you can mix it with a buffer (the plain formula is highly alkaline, but it's not buffered), most often with borax, giving a more gentle development. If you haven't tried Rodinal (or R09) yet, give it a go, especially for low- or medium-sensitivity films. Here you can also find the link to the legendary Unblinkingeye article (written by Ed Buffaloe) on Rodinal and its flexibility.

As for the P3200 (very prone to fog), I am not quite sure how to »soup« it, but most likely I will mix up the post-WWII developer formula, reportedly invented by the Czechoslovak ing.Koblic (a great photographic inventor BTW). After the war, there wasn't any fresh film stock available in Europe (and we had other greater problems then), but only old, mostly highly outdated film stock. So ing.Koblic came out with the formula to preserve film's sharpness and keeping down film fog (to be expected otherwise with old film).  Here is the formula: 

Metol - 4 g
Sodium sulfite (anh.) - 16 g
Disodium phosphate (.12H2O) - 4 g
Borax (sodium tetraborate) - 8 g
water to make - 1000 ml (pH around 8.5)

Here disodium phosphate acts as an antifog agent, in contrast to other developers where potasium bromide is usually used. As for the developing time, one should find him/herself the most appropriate time, but reportedly up to 15 min should do the job, and the developing time shouldn't be so critical (in case of a too long devlopment). Here is also a link to APUG where this developer has been discussed a bit, but not too much unfortunately.

My bottom line above all this is: I am always fascinated how many developer formulas have been invented over the decades, some simple and some (many) very complex. In the end, we often come back to the simplest ones, since they work so well (and Rodinal is just one example). It never stops to fascinate me how can such a (relatively) simple black-and-white chemistry produce such outstanding results, over and over again.

Mitja

Random Quote

"My job as a portrait photographer is to seduce, amuse and entertain"  Helmut Newton

Portfolio of the Week: Niccolò Barone

Dear Readers,

This week we feature another Italian photographer, Niccolò Barone. He is an autodidact photographer. He works essentially in medium format (Hasselblad 503/500, Rolleiflex 2.8f, Pentax 67, Minolta Autocord, Mamiya 645 and some others) and 35mm (Leica M2, M4, M5, M6, Contax II, Nikon fm and some others) as well as with polaroid and Holga cameras, with available natural light as his favorite lighting source. His preferred films are Kodak Tmax 400, 100 and 3200. He develops BW films by himself, usually with Xtol (Kodak) or Gradual (Ornano) when he shoots at low film speeds, and HC110 or R09 when exposing film at high ISO. Yes, noise and graininess is a matter of choice for him.

Niccolò’s photography really focuses on many diffrent things, but essentially on the female form, most images are solitary and the most part is in black and white. When you look upon the photographs you get the feeling as the portrayed women have all endured some kind of hurt, not the physical kind though. All seem lost in their thoughts, gazing out toward distant lands, even those gazing right through the camera lens, are not really seeing, expressions are vacant and glazed.
Most of his inspiration comes from the classics, and some from the web where there's a great number of talented photographers and beautiful photographs. He has already been featured in a number of publications, including Vanity Fair. His work is certainly one of the most accomplished you can find on the web. Niccolò’s work can be found on Flickr on his first and second photostream and on his website. Enjoy his photos!

 All photos copyright: Niccolò Barone