I think I've fallen in with a bad lot

[John Allen]

They seem to be leading me down a dark and dangerous road.

I was going along just fine. Perfectly satisfied with myself and the state of modern photography. I started shooting digital when I was given a 2.1mp digital camera. That's 2-point-1 megapixels. I was amazed at the image quality from a camera with such low resolution. That was replaced by a 7mp, whicvh was replaced by a 16, which was replaced by a 24, which was replaced by a better 24 and all was well with the world. Until I came here. Now, pictures like this one from that 2mp kodak aren't good enough anymore.

Nor was this one from a Minolta pocket camera that was about the size of a deck of cards.

Or this one from a 7mp camera

I could go on, but you get the idea. There was a moment tonight when I knew I was lost. It wasn't when I bought a couple of film cameras and later bought some lenses. It wasn't even when I started spending hours watching videos on how to repair vintage cameras and lenses. I've always considered myself pretty tough. It takes a lot more than that to break me. No, none of those moments was the one. The moment of truth came when I found myself about to click on the Buy It Now button on an ebay auction for a Mamiya RB67 kit. I haven't even taken a full roll of 35mm yet and here I am ready to spend hundreds on medium format. That's it. I'm a lost cause AND IT'S ALL YOU GUYS FAULT!

 

[Martin Carlin]

Nothing like it everyones the same I think next it a be large format and you thought lugging your 24mp camera around with quality glass was bad wait to you got a Large format camera on your back. lol

 

[Rob MacKillop]

You say you were "about to click" - but did you???

I have an RB67 Pro SD and four lenses, 250mm, 65mm, 140mm, 90mm. I love it, but can't afford to use it as often as I'd like. Despite all the equipment being in excellent condition, it cost me very little, and consequently wouldn't get me much if I sold it. So it largely sits on the shelf, but I must get it out again.

It's certainly heavy, but manageable hand-held, though I always use a tripod with it.

Here's my flickr album devoted to it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robmac1/albums/72157648731054083

 

[John Allen]

Back in my 35mm days, I always lusted after Hasselblads. I knew I couldn't afford one so I started thinking about getting a Mamiya and using it to become a successful fashion and glamour photographer. Making a living photographing beautiful women seemed like a fantastic idea. That's not the only dream that died a quiet death.

 

[John Allen]

You say you were "about to click" - but did you???

I have an RB67 Pro SD and four lenses, 250mm, 65mm, 140mm, 90mm. I love it, but can't afford to use it as often as I'd like. Despite all the equipment being in excellent condition, it cost me very little, and consequently wouldn't get me much if I sold it. So it largely sits on the shelf, but I must get it out again.

It's certainly heavy, but manageable hand-held, though I always use a tripod with it.

Here's my flickr album devoted to it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robmac1/albums/72157648731054083

No, I came to my senses just in time. Although, I did add it to my watch list.

I would be using it in my tiny studio, so the weight and bulk really isn't a big drawback. I'll bet it would be spectacular for closeups. How are they for macro shots or extreme closeups? No, don't tell me! I need to get these strange urges under control before I start getting more into film shooting.

BTW, do you think I don't have anything to do with my time? It will take a while to really give your gallery a good look. There goes more of my day.

 

[Pete Askew]

Well resisted. We'd hate to feel we had encouraged wanton gear acquisition in someone!

Of course, these sorts of cameras would be rubbish for macro work!

http://www.realphotographersforum.c...ng-macro-photography-using-a-copy-stand.4287/

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/large-format-macro-photography.9261/


Great post by the way and super shots to illustrate it - I especially like the delicacy of the middle one.

 

[Rense Haveman]

Shooting Pentax 6x7 myself, and a Yashica-D TLR 6x6.... Nothing better then a good MF camera...
At least for some sort of shooting (in my case landscapes and street photography )

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

I know, what I am about to say is as if I swore in church. First and obviously, you have been listening to the wrong people, - and obviously here, the bad lot. Secondly a Hazzleblad or a " Rassleblad " ( "Shattering leaf " freely translated from Scandinavian ) which we Scandinavians call it and seeing images upside down in it as well as square, is actually quite funny And "it's good enough" the phrase which subjectively is quite so, good enough, comes to mind as I read your comments on pixels. Now as we know pixels are not pixels, they differ especially according to how big the sensor is. ( Rob's new D700 has only 12mp, but on a big sensor and no one disputes the quality of that one, camera I mean ). So, even though some praise the film, being nostalgic mainly, and some praising digital, I shall not say anything against any of them, but in order to show them here or on any digital media, you shall have to digitalise the film. And I do believe that any image here, whether done digitally or "not" without knowing the origin to it, can not be told whether it comes from film based camera or a digital one. Even if it is printed out on paper, due to what you actually are able to do to an image these days. So as I have said before your time here John, it's all in one's mind and I am certainly not going to try and remove anyone's illusions
That said, I really enjoyed your visions here, both the writing and the images. So as long as we have fun, doing what we are doing, I guess it is alright.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Well, I noticed I had one roll of Velvia left, so, inspired by John's post, I took the camera and a couple of lenses out to the botanics. Had a really nice morning. Alas, when I took the camera out of the bag when I got home, the back came half off - I think I just exposed the film!

I send my film off to get developed, so it will take a while to see what can be saved, if anything. Expensive. Now, where's my bloody D700?!

 

[Pete Askew]

Did it not have a dark-slide on it, Rob? That would save the film. I'm not sure on the RB, but Hasselblads have an interlock that prevents the back being removed unless the slide is in all the way.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Yes, you are right! Phew! The back has two locks, one above, one below. The lower one had slipped out of place in the bag, and when I lifted it out, the back separated at an angle, still connected with the top lock. I feared the worse, but all should be OK. Thanks for reminding me about the dark-slide!

 

[John Allen]

I know, what I am about to say is as if I swore in church. First and obviously, you have been listening to the wrong people, - and obviously here, the bad lot... ...So as I have said before your time here John, it's all in one's mind and I am certainly not going to try and remove anyone's illusions
That said, I really enjoyed your visions here, both the writing and the images. So as long as we have fun, doing what we are doing, I guess it is alright.

You are obviously, quite right about the bad lot. But, I'm not sure I agree with you on not being able to tell digital from film. Yes, film gets turned into digital to be viewed online, but a 6x7 scanned on a drum scanner is going to give you a different look than anything you get from a digital camera. I believe a properly exposed slide or negative scanned on an inexpensive scanner can give you a photo as good, good being both a relative and personal term, as a prosumer dslr. Take a very good film photo and scan it properly and it will be as good or better than the best digital camera. Just my opinion, of course. Naturally, this is all a bit subjective and not very relevant when it comes to appreciating photography. We don't shoot pictures to be viewed at the pixel level.