Anyone else moving backward instead of forward technologically

[Roger Rouch]

I'm not presently going in reverse, but have to say that I have the same money crunch by going forward. I stocked my "digital" darkroom less than a year ago. My consumer grade flatbed scanner has been upgraded/improved twice and is currently dirt cheap on XBay. Inexpensive printer also upgraded. Photoshop software appears to be upgraded. Computer seems ok for the time being, but heck, it's only 10 months old. I have to slightly pity those who have purchased expensive digital cameras, as they too are replaced once or twice a year. I love the color prints I can make digitally, but wonder as a hobbiest if I can keep up with the Jones'. As a guess, I'd say that I've suffered a $500 or more depreciation in digital gear in less than a year, and my set up is very modest. I don't think I can do this year-after-year.

[John D Gerndt]

I have been in pursuit of fine images. If the digital field had their way they would develop molecular sized photo receptors. They already exist of course. They are there by the many millions on our sheet film. I am willing to do what is necessary to make them behave but scolding them one at a time on the computer seems dreary to me.

I also have issues with the reliability of digital images. I'd prefer a only slightly and understandably altered piece of reality please. I need to trust what I see and understand how the image is rendered. A digital file is up for wholesale falsehood. I willingly look backward, away from money to a time of understandable and at least somewhat trustworthy technique. Show me what light did to your film. I am interested.

Cheers,

[Frank Petronio]

I went from being a Zone System - fine print photographer to working with Photoshop, well, since before Photoshop was a product (1989). I owned a Canon Xap shot, made early Iris prints, operated a business making Iris prints and Leaf scans, etc. But I never could figure out how to use a Nikon N90, on which the early Kodak digital Pro Back was based. From there it only got worse, as I never could get used to any camera more compterized than a Nikon F3. So yes, I've gone backwards, searching out the best of the older technology - Leicas, Rolleis, Linhofs - and occassionally renting a pro digital camera when needed for a job - and using film, scanners, and inkjets to best advantage. An important part of photography is the tactial experience of using the camera - and a super automated, dial-less Canon 10D just doesn't cut it.

[Mike Lyons]

Hi,-yep, I took the LF plunge about a year ago after deciding that the process and the end result interested me more than the latest number of megapixels and downloads. I came to this after a sales rep tried to sell me "the latest and greatest" with all the whiz bangs, and it occured to me that I'd still turn everything off and reach for my spot meter.....if you need 6fps and 1000th/sec when photographing rocks you shouldn't be standing in the way of an avalanche. It's whatever flicks your switch and for me, and my style of photography LF and the retro films are the way to go. And the gear all stays useable without redundancy for soooo long. Funny thing that so many digi- tech heads are "wowed" by a B/W hand coloured- "gee! how did you do THAT!? What program are you running?" "black and white film,paper and paint brushes.." stuns them every time. I can see a time in the future when I'll scan my colour stuff, but not just yet. Mike

[MIke Sherck]

I've been a compute programmer for more than 25 years now. The last thing I want to do when I'm taking pictures is to have anything to do with a computer. Frankly, buttons are a bit further than I want to go. A survey of the photographic equipment I've owned shows a steady progression from complexity to simplicity and I have every intention of keeping it that way. *grin* I figure, whatever it takes to stay sane!

Mike

[Jim Galli]

Hi Mark. You'll be astounded at what you'll get from that little Eskofot. A true sleeper. To bad there's no easy way to put them in a shutter. Read the EXCELLENT piece in View Camera Mag about 3 or 4 issues ago about using "Packard" shutters. The 2D is made for that and it's another big retro step backwards which should please you no end! The Dagor is no slouch either.

[Mark_3632]

I have been thinking about a packard shutter, but in truth how it attaches to the camera is a bit confusing. I suppose I would need to buy one for each lens mounted to a lens board.

[Chris Ellinger]

After 40 years of photography using cameras with high tech glass lenses, I've recently regressed to a zone plate on a Century Graphic, and am having a great time with it.

http://www.ellingerphoto.com/

[Mark_3632]

Chris

Those are very striking photographs. Very simple, very sparsely populated, very zen(not a term I use very often). Are your shots with modern lenses like this? I have never heard of a zone plate and off to do a little surfing.

[Christopher Condit]

I've gone so far back I hit bottom and came up again, a little. I was focussed on pinholes for a while, but now I'm back up to traditional LF, and a Mamiya TLR. Count me as one for whom it is an escape from the computerized world. The only battery I have is in my spotmeter, which I hope to learn to do without.

I forget the name for it, but I did try a couple times *the* most backward techniqure there is. Cover a piece of watercolor paper with blackberry juice, let it dry. Put it in a contact printer with a positive transparency. Leave it in the sun for a month, so juice stain fades. Hang on the wall out of the sun. Biggest problem with this technique is that original stain is not dark enough...