Photography - Modern And Traditional

[Bill Parker]

I used to be quite an enthusiastic Photographer in my former years, when i was even better looking than I am now and far to modest with it.

I got as far as developing films and printing, only monochrome as I never wanted to do colour and it was still quite tricky to do this in the early 70,s. Like most peole now I use a digital camera and I must admit they are so easy to use and the results are amazing.

Yet I still dont really consider this as real photography were you had a negative and if stored properly would last indefinitely. I just wonder if our digital images with still be accesible in ten years time, memory sticks fail and CDs often stop opening, assuming they will still be making such things in ten years time.

Anyone else got any thoughts??

 

[BernardR]

I take issue with the negatives remaining for ever - I have some that have been stored in a reasonable way and they are so faded it takes modern technology to make them viewable. I also think there is a form of snobbery involved in the debate about what is and is not 'real' photography - just look at the rants in many photographic magazines. I welcome the fact that people can rescue photographs that once would have been of little use.

 

[Wendy]

I have loads of old negatives but can't print them as my scanner won't do the odd size they are. Mind you they are about 50 years old.

 

[Frothblower]

Yet I still dont really consider this as real photography were you had a negative and if stored properly would last indefinitely. I just wonder if our digital images with still be accesible in ten years time, memory sticks fail and CDs often stop opening, assuming they will still be making such things in ten years time.

You don't have to keep images on memory sticks or CDs. They can be printed on to photo paper and kept in a photo album if you wish

 

[Arkrite]

I became an amateur photographer in my teens during the 60s. An after school club taught me basics and how to develop and print. Never a professional, I did a lot of weddings for people and got a name as an accident photographer for legal work. It earned me some beer money. In '96 all this experience in conventional photography went out the door when my mrs gave me a digital camera.My kit was relegated to a cupboard someplace
and I had to enter the digital age.At first I missed the weight and quality feel of a good 35mm camera which I thought added to stability and reduced camera shake. My present digital camera is light enough to go every where with me and unobtrusive so it gets to places it should not really be.
If there is one complaint I have with digital photography is the quality of photographs . Not the fault of the camera but of the photographer. At one time those awful shots of family and friends were only circulated within a small social circle. Now entire contents of a memory card are published, with no attempt to edit out the worst ones, on the web to bore everyone.
At the same time budding photographers with real talent can showcase their work without pressure from third parties to alter their styles. Digital Photography has taken away the hocus -pocus of the darkroom. Photo Edit programs need time to learn but any mistakes you make can be corrected. Film was expensive and I thought hard before pressing that shutter button. Now I take shot just to see what happens. Don't like it ? Then delete.
Would I go back to 35mm ?......A most definite NO.

 

[el-stano]

Hiya Arkrite,
Have you ever handled a digital SLR, such as the Canon EOS 300D? I, like you found the digital compacts a bit small and wobbly, so I went over to the 300D, which feels a lot like my old 35mm, without, as you say, the expense of films and processing. Only thing "against" it is complexity; it practically makes the tea and as a strictly amateur snapper I can easily get confused by all the facilities. I still have a compact for when I'm in a hurry...
Cheers, Stan

 

[terryb18]

I too use a DSLR. It is a Sony with interchangeable bayonet lenses. Capable of taking 100's of pictures, and like compacts you can just click away to your hearts content and pick out the ones you like best, but that is not photography to me. I much prefer to switch off auto and use the different features that come with it. If I do happen to particularly like some shots I put them on a memory stick and go to a camera shop and print them off there and then. Much better than film in my opinion. I do take a compact on holiday though, purely because they are convenient size wise.

Terry

 

[Arkrite]

A DIGITAL SLR !!!! In my Dreams.....WANT ONE...WANT ONE.
My 35mm days I used a Pentax MX (Still got it in the cupboard ) and an Olympus OM1.

My works pension starts in October and some of that lump sum just might provide for a DSLR and a very nice lens or two.
One of my digital cameras is a Fuji 360 . It is shaped like a mini slr and has both ttl and back screen view. The Fuji 68000 has an eyepiece and a back screen. The Sony Cybershot has a just a touch screen at the back but it is a large 3"inch screen which helps with my eye sight these days.

Must start reading the reviews in expectation.

 

[el-stano]

Ark,
Beware that my DSLR does not give a back screen view prior to shooting. This seems logical for an SLR but might be a disappointment after using a straight digital, IYKWIM.
Stan.

 

[Arkrite]

Using a back screen to take a photo took some getting used to. Remember the hint for a shake free photo ? Elbows in tight, camera hard against the nose and cheek, grip the camera with both hands and gently press the button.If something upright was available then lean against it. All that goes by the board using a back screen. I cannot believe how many shake free photos I get . The new cameras really do sort things out. I must admit to using auto and program modes these days. All that fiddling around with old Weston Master light meter...a second hand one cost me a fortune. At least the SLR had TTL metering.

 

[terryb18]

Stans right, you have to look through the view finder like any SLR. then when the picture is taken it will display on the screen. I have a Sony a200 which is probably the cheaper end of the market, but I'm pleased with it. it came with a 50-70mm lens then I purchased a 70-300mm lens that I used to take the following picture. There are I believe what they call bridge cameras which as the name implys bridges the gap between a compact and a SLR, but I dont know anything about them,so cannot comment.

Terry

 

[db84124]

I can but send you my compliments again, Terry, for this highly detailed and hence interesting photograph. I bet the chicks are far plumper than poor overworked Dad! David

 

[terryb18]

I can but send you my compliments again, Terry, for this highly detailed and hence interesting photograph. I bet the chicks are far plumper than poor overworked Dad! David

Thank you David. I'm quite pleased with it myself, one of the few I'm happy with. I was quite fortunate taking this shot as I followed him round the building and he kept hiding Still did'nt find the nest though. Here are the others I took of him.

Terry

 

[Bill Parker]

Hello,

my original post was never meant to start any controversy, it was simply a few thoughts I wished to share with this enlightened group. I only use digital cameras these days but I reserve the right to refer to conventional photography as "real". I was only expressing my own opinion and to be honest was not expecting anyone to "take issue" whatever that means.
I will argue this however, there are glass plate negatives that are still in existance over 100 years old taken by keen and wealthy amateurs in many cases. Will your digital images still be available to see in 100 years? I do not mean a print either I mean a form (memory) of the original digital image that can reproduce as original and NOT a second generation copy from a print, there is an important difference.

I never read Photography Magazines so Iam not aware of this snobbery but I do know the top societies have embraced digital and quite rightly, I have two superb Pentax Spotmatic "Real Cameras" they are superbly engineered and the Takumar optics are considered to be some of the finest ever made.
I use a Technics/LumixFZ28 super zoom the lens of which is designed by Leica, I had a real leica111c once, this Lumix is superb but in a different way it was a powerful optical zoom x18 that can be further enhanced digitally, it has image stabilisation and I have taken Photos of rescue helicopters / Boats with it on full zoom with stabilisation and the images are sharp and clear. With a Real camera this would have been impossible with out an extremely powerful Telephoto lens and probably a camera steady even maybe a Tripod.

Im other words both methods have there merits. I still have most of the dark room equipment but never use it, I have used a Negative scanner and got some suprisingly good scans from negs and slides taken in the 60s ,40 years ago!! So I am in no way anti digital, I still think its floored, it relies on electronics, a well developed negative properly developed and fixed/stabilised will last for a century or more and there is nothing quite like the excitement of seeing a white blank piece of paper in the deleloper slowly start to reveal the image that has been imposed upon it.

I rest My case

 

[Astoness]

hi bill..i have only read your last post and found it interesting...it was the mention of plates that caught my attention...some time ago one of our members ray griffiths very kindly took an awful lot of time to transfer about 180 pics of aston and lozells that were on plates and the quality was wonderful....they were taken in the 60s i think..there were just a few that were maybe a bit off colour which i guess is to be expected...they were given to him by a friend who took the pics but as he unfortunately was losing his sight he said ray should have them and make use of them....what a very unselfish act on his part as he could just as easily have chucked them in the bin..

lyn

 

[Bill123]

I can remember taking the film to the chemist to be developed and printed, waiting for what seemed weeks then paying a fortune for blurred and too dark photos which were no good to anyone!

 

[Bill Parker]

A Good point Astoness, Im intrigued though, therse were glass plates from the 1960s or plates used in the printing industry?

 

[dek carr]

Just caught up with this thread and this is hardly the digital age but can anyone recall Carbon Arc Lamps occasionally in the early 60 s i worked in printing factories and i often saw these lamps they used to replace the carbon rods when they had burnt down. Dek

 

[sospiri]

Perhaps the big fault with the digitals - SLR & compact - is that many come with 10 or 12 Megapixels and in the hands of a snapper, no effort is taken to frame the picture properly before pressing the button. It is all too easy to slap the result in some graphics software and crop away 80% of the picture to get what you want. I still use a couple of Nikon 775's, which have a resolution of only 2.1 Megapixels, but print out at up to A4 (with little or no cropping) and still manage to win prizes in our local photographic competitions. Get in the right position, make your final scene fill the frame, and then press the button! And if you're doing any macro (close-up) work, the number of pixels is in many cases irrelevant! Oh, and don't forget the tripod!

Maurice

 

[Mohawk]

I used to be quite an enthusiastic Photographer in my former years, when i was even better looking than I am now and far to modest with it.

I got as far as developing films and printing, only monochrome as I never wanted to do colour and it was still quite tricky to do this in the early 70,s. Like most peole now I use a digital camera and I must admit they are so easy to use and the results are amazing.

Yet I still dont really consider this as real photography were you had a negative and if stored properly would last indefinitely. I just wonder if our digital images with still be accesible in ten years time, memory sticks fail and CDs often stop opening, assuming they will still be making such things in ten years time.

Anyone else got any thoughts??

I don't have any strong opinions on the digital versus non-digital photography issue; but the point you make about accessibility is a valid one, Bill.
Consider the way text has been stored, for example. I can remember when you could be in danger of contracting a hernia carrying storage discs around, they had to be inserted in pull-out drawers in a set-up that looked like a filing cabinet. This was about 30 years ago. Then came so-called floppy discs, these were replaced by smaller versions that were no longer floppy but were still referred to as such.
When I first acquired a computer in 2000, I thought of trying to transfer some of my paper records on to 'floppy' disc to save storage space, but never did: now there's no longer a slot built in to today's machines to take them. CDs, memory sticks and memory cards are the thing now, but for how long?
Nothing's forever I know, and, yes, things can be transferred; but the pace of change is so rapid it's not just a question of how long the software lasts, but one of how long the hardware to access the information they contain will be available.
A couple of years ago, I saw a feature on the BBC's Newsnight programme about this issue. It cited the example of a cemetery in America which, though still using computers for day-to-day tasks, had abandoned its policy of reliance on them for storage for posterity, and instead had reverted to using paper for that purpose. The programme also showed a vast warehouse containing redundant computer equipment: the firm who owned it had a thriving business recovering data from the old machines.
The last time I had occasion to visit the Registrars' office (5 years ago) they were still using paper ledgers as well as computers, and I guess that will continue.

 

[Mohawk]

Just caught up with this thread and this is hardly the digital age but can anyone recall Carbon Arc Lamps occasionally in the early 60 s i worked in printing factories and i often saw these lamps they used to replace the carbon rods when they had burnt down. Dek

I certainly can Dek. I worked for many years in the paint industry, in quality control. We had various devices for testing the durability of paints, one of which was called a fugitometer. This was a round metal drum with slots around the perimeter and a carbon-arc lamp suspended in the centre. A coated specimen (usually a metal panel) would be inserted in a slot and left for, typically, 100 hours (the machine ran constantly) and would be then compared with an unexposed section. The idea was to see if the colour had been changed by the ultra-violet light. The arc-lamp was so intense it could reproduce many months of the sun's rays in a matter of hours. If a pigment or a dyestuff is unstable in such conditions it is said to be 'fugitive' (as in 'takes flight') ; hence the name of the apparatus.
The bottom of the drum was always littered with dead moths; attracted by the light at night, they had been electrocuted by the high voltage.

Out of interest, what did your firm use them for, something similar?

Mohawk.

 

[dek carr]

Mohawk i never used them myself i was a young contracting electrician and being a nosey bugger anything strange and i would be asking all sorts of questions i remember them from the printing industry i,m sorry i can,t recall what they used them for.Dek

 

[Mohawk]

OK, thanks Dek. I'm an incurable question-asker, too - as you have now seen! I'd guess it was a similar use, so at least you know a bit more now!

Regards, Mohawk

 

[Arkrite]

While talking about digital cameras let us not forget that most mobile phones come with a camera. Some of these can produce really good results. The younger generation raised with this sort of camera look at photography in a different way to us oldies. No longer is it a medium to record hopefully for posterity on expensive film with an effort to make a good job of it. Like so much today it is chuck away. Take a shot at a party and send is a statement of what is happening now. May be keep the shots to show friends tomorrow but I bet you most are deleted when the memory becomes full.
With the ease of capturing and keeping images theses days I wonder if there are in fact more serious photographers than in days gone by.

My tripod is gathering dust somewhere. I use a gorillapod. A thing with three legs that you can twist into any position. Even use it to grip a railing or branch. Slips easy into a jacket pocket or glovebox.

 

[Bill Parker]

Thanks Mowhawk for your input, my point exactly, I never realised they used carbon arcs in the printing industry. I was aware they used them in the Cinema industry when they had single large auditoriums. Originally changed at 20 minute intervals along with the film spool with 2,000 ft of film on it and then changing to the other projector.

With the advent of safety film larger spools were legal and the carbon arc was replaced with a glass sealed unit with a Xenon Arc, this lasted longer as it was sealed with Inert Xenon gas so no oxidation took place but it was still an arc nevertheless. I believe the search lights used in WW11 also used carbon arcs.

Best wishes

 

[Mohawk]

Thanks Mowhawk for your input, my point exactly, I never realised they used carbon arcs in the printing industry. I was aware they used them in the Cinema industry when they had single large auditoriums. Originally changed at 20 minute intervals along with the film spool with 2,000 ft of film on it and then changing to the other projector.

With the advent of safety film larger spools were legal and the carbon arc was replaced with a glass sealed unit with a Xenon Arc, this lasted longer as it was sealed with Inert Xenon gas so no oxidation took place but it was still an arc nevertheless. I believe the search lights used in WW11 also used carbon arcs.

Best wishes

Yes Bill, Carbon-arc lamps first appeared over 150 years ago and were used extensively to light theatres and other buildings. Prior to this, gas had been used, as had a system of heating lime with hydrogen and oxygen (hence the expression 'in the limelight') but these had proved unsafe. The lamps we used for testing paint films were surrounded by glass but not sealed; as they burned in air rather than in inert gas, the light they gave out was an intense violet (which is what we needed) and could only be viewed through green-tinted goggles.

Regards.

P.S. If you didn't know, there's a great site, rewindmuseum.com, which has loads of pics and info on old 'consumer electronics', TVs, video recorders, etc. It also has links to other, similar sites.