Bob Shell: Zone VI One of Best LF Cameras?

[neil poulsen]

I paged through the recent Photo Techniques and happened to see an article entit led Best 25 Cameras (or something) written by Bob Shell and another author. I c hecked for LF, and they had listed about three cameras, the Graphics press camer a, the Sinar-P, and the Zone VI. They might have had another camera listed, but it wasn't a Wisner.

So, is this the best that the authors can do in the department of discriminating choice? The Zone VI has never compared to the workmanship and the beauty of a Wisner. This is especially true of late, given what I consider to be the poor w orkmanship of the Zone VI "Ultra Lite" cameras. I don't wish to insult any who may have purchased an Ultra-Lite, because I suppose that they have a certain fun ctionality to them. But, I saw both the 8x10 and 4x5 versions at Calumet this s ummer, and they are definitely not in the same league with the Wisners. The bel lows aren't as long or as good, it's not put together as well (kind of loose), a nd you get the feeling the black anodized metal parts would scratch just by look ing at them hard. It's not a camera that I would buy. And, consider that it wa s Wisner who originally designed the Zone VI camera! One can also consider othe r advances that Wisner has made to LF photography, some of the giant format came ras that he's made, the 20x24 polaroid, his championing of older, lighter-weight lenses, the convertible plasmat series of lenses, etc.

I think that it would be cheritable to suggest that this choice was made out of ignorance, because I don't think that's the case. Certainly, the choice is misl eading. Perhaps the best category in which this choice falls is comical.

P.S. I don't own a Wisner.

[Andre Noble]

Isn't Bob Shell more of a 35mm and medium format type anyway? Andre

[Urs Bernhard]

Take in consideration, that all medias (print or electronic) are mainly governed by economical issues and not so much by "truth". Calumet p.e. is a big company, so it might be deadly for the publisher to not have them buying p ages for adverts. Most writers and editors are not as independent as they believe (even without bad intention and I do not want to imp ute any bad intention in the case of Bob Shell). Camera reviews are like the stars given to restaurants and Hotels, in my eyes.

[Michael Kadillak]

In order for a national publication like Shutterbug to stay in business, one has to realize that there are certain marketing requirements. 1) Your audience is the aspiring amateur. 2) You need to fill a monthly publication so it is required that you gloss generically over every possible photographic subject to appeal to the masses in every edition. 3) You are in the business to make money so knee pads and Chap Stick are always close by and 4) If you want to see quality photographs, you are in the wrong place.

We all know that anyone that takes Bob Shell seriously as an objective purchasing reference point probably has more money than brains. Someone once told me that knowledge is where functionality meets reality. Eventually, the cream always rises to the top.

[Bob Shell]

I'm surprised that my article stirred up so much emotion from some.

I did not include Wisner even though Ron Wisner is a friend because I have not had extensive experience using his cameras, and was trying to confine myself to cameras I had such experience with. My original list was much longer, but the magazine only wanted 25, so I had to pare it down.

In answer to someone else's query, yes I am more of a 35mm and medium format user, but I own and use the Crown Graphic pictured in the article, a Toyo 45G monorail, and an old Eastman 2D 8 X 10, in addition to the Zone VI (originally built by Wisner, BTW). I don't use the big cameras nearly as much these days because fewer jobs require them.

As to my photography, well everyone is entitled to their opinions and I don't expect everyone to like my work. I see no point in personal attacks over differing artistic opinions, though.

Best wishes to all,

Bob Shell

[David E. Rose]

I support of Bob's reply, I thought it was a good article. The idea of this annual list is to stimulate thinking about a wide variety of camera types and call attention to overlooked cameras or features and their advantages. I thought Bob did this well. I have also seen published work of his that was quite good, but realize that most of his images published in Shutterbug were included in an article about a piece of equipment and were intended to illustrate a point, not to represent his best work as a photographic artist. By the way Bob, you have me thinking about Alpas!

[scambug]

While at Photo Expo in New York last week I came across Photovision, a new magazine produced in Colorado. They seem headed in the right direction, ie, they exclude "digital imaging" as irrelevant to "photography." In the Sept/Oct issue, the editor asks, "why are there no articles on using pyro developer in Digital Photography magazine?" There's also a review of the Lotus 5x7 view camera.

[Sal Santamaura]

I second Arthur's suggestion to check out Photovision. The character of Photo Techniques appears to have changed markedly over the last several years. While some earlier contributors remain, much of the editorial content has shifted. My subscription will lapse at its next expiration date. Photovision, View Camera and Camera Arts are, in my opinion, top choices in US photo magazines.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I'll make two comments here, first about the 25 "best" cameras. I've read these compendiums in past issues and concluded long ago that the choices are so personal that if you selected 25 different reviewers you would get 25 very different lists. Even among afficionados of Leica's for instance, you'll get folks who like M3's and others who like M4's and even others who will go with M6's. There are scillions of cameras that are never mentioned, some of them representing major turning points in the development of photographic equipment. I doubt many reviewers even know of some of them. What difference does any of it make? Maybe to a camera collector this is important, but for me and I suppose many others who actually make photographs with their cameras, what turns you on is the only thing that matters. Whatever gets the job done. Now, my second comment: I subscribe to both Photo Techniques and View Camera. I read them pretty throughly and have noticed changes over the years that don't necessarily please me. But, I wouldn't give up on either of those magazines because I value the writings of guys like David Vestal and the teachings of people like Howard Bond. I'd rather see no ads to be truthful, but I'm also a realist. Without advertizers, we would all be balking at the outrageous cost of each issue. With ads and the sometimes biased reviews (what review isn't?) we still get a good deal of useful information, quality writing for the most part and decent reproduction of the images.

[e]

We rarely know the truth of others...but we do project(onto others) our fears and faults(our blind spots)... throwing them around ....better to look at ones own weak points and strengthen them than to hurt/criticise another... through ignorance of the other persons truth/life and their place in the world.