On The Road with Vicky Lamburn

Arguably this happened before digital came along as some of the 35mm compact cameras from the ‘80s and ‘90s were pretty boring things to look at. A lump of plastic with some cheap chrome effect trims and buttons. Nothing to write home about.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I tend to use things that get the job done above and beyond aesthetics and so forth so owning a Leica isn’t a fashion statement for me, it’s the tool that gets the job done. The fact that I still own, drive and run a pants car (a 1988 Ford Escort no less – and it looks a right heap) is a testament to the fact I couldn’t give a flying f*ck about keeping up with the Jones’ or indeed embark on a major binge of short term consumerist highs. I like nice things, I respect people who have nice things, but I’m no fashion victim myself.

In yet another conversation where I was told (no not asked, told) why I should dump my film gear I explained all the usual stuff – I like working with the aesthetic film gives, I like projecting my slides to family and friends, I enjoy developing and experimenting with processing my films and I adore working in the darkroom making prints. Then I thought of another reason.

It doesn’t apply across the board as this criticism applies to my EOS 3 and in fact most modern film SLRs too – but I increasingly don’t like the look, the feel and the actual usability of modern cameras. I like things to be simple. These days, EOS 3 included (so this isn’t an anti-digital rant, I don’t do those as they are futile) there are buttons and gizmos everywhere, it’s hard to use a camera sometimes without taking your eye off the ball. This applies less to SLRs as the viewfinder usually gives you all you need to know and a good one with good ergonomics will allow you to adjust the exposure, meter etc. all from your shooting grasp. Digital compacts less so.

 
Workmen (Leica M2, Summar f/2, Fuji Neopan 1600, Kodak Xtol 5mins 21C)

I hate all that clutter, it distracts you. A good camera can equally be one with all the buttons and menu options in the world, but also be one with a shutter speed dial, a shutter release and a rewind knob. Sure the latter is pretty basic (but also aptly describes the Leica M2!) but there’s little where you can go wrong or fumble.

The problem I have is that technologically you can’t fault the cameras. I might think that sounds a bit pap with regard to things like smile detection but if they help people who aren’t photographically adept take good photos then that’s a great thing. What I don’t like is the fact that there are heaps and heaps of options and buttons on many cameras now which really make the thing too complicated. It would be nice to also see a bit of older styling here and there. I prefer the way cameras were made to they way they are now made, although those barely 1” thick  digital compacts are pretty neat looking things.

Maybe Olympus’ Micro 4/3rds (Panasonic Lumix G1) for example will be a starting point for making cameras a bit smaller again and a little less cluttered?

There is of course the Epson (Cosina) RD1/s/x and Leica M8 but we’re not talking about a £150-200 compact camera there, we’re talking a lot of money, especially on the M8.2 at getting on for £4000 which is very questionable.

So that was my other reason, I like the feel and usability of older cameras more than the newer ones. Smile detection is great, but it isn’t necessary in the hands of someone who at least protests to know what they are doing!

Kodak’s film business decreased year on year, Fuji’s also did something similar. Double digit drops but both seem to have made a profit…

Yaddy yaddy yaaa…

Seriously, *yawn*, It’s quite obvious this would happen. Most people rightly have decided digital is far more convenient from them and what’s more they get the results they want from it. Digital is also bloody excellent. But so is film. They both are.

But the amount of “film is dead” threads that have bounced back with this week’s news is at very best tedious and dull. So long as I can buy film I’ll use it but when they stop making it, whenever that might be, I’ll get equipped with digital. It’ll be a crying shame as I love my Delta 100, Pan F 50, Tri X and HP5, SFX 200, Velvia 50 etc. but just as I have had to say goodbye to Kodak HIE (2 rolls left in the freezer) I’ll say goodbye to the others when they get stopped.

When will that be? Do I look like a friggin’ oracle? In the meantime I’m going to enjoy this thing called photography for everything that it is and the fact I shoot film and like working in the darkroom is incidental to the grand scheme, the main thing is the results and I appreciate those however you took the photo.

See you next year when I’ll probably say the same thing.

I have to clear something up right away before I start here. Firstly, I’m still shooting film (35mm and 120) if you don’t follow things here — but that’s a personal choice — this doesn’t mean I don’t like or agree with digital photography (as Mike Johnston on photo.net put it recently, it’s really just photography now) because I think it’s an amazing thing and brilliant too. Resolution wise 35mm digital to 35mm film at the top end digital has it wrapped up. So I just want you to get this fixed in your head: what I’m about to say isn’t a film-head’s Luddite knee jerking. So if you think I’m debating that pointless digital vs. film debate, I’m not. In any instance it’s possible to do HDR imaging with film and a computer scanner.

Anyway, High Dynamic Range photography, or HDR.

I’ll say this right away, a small portion of it is excellent. Sharp, in keeping with the composition, balanced and sometimes even subtly brilliant – this small proportion is absolutely excellent and I think it’s cracking.

Then there is the majority: I think it looks awful. It’s not sharp, it’s gaudy and unbalanced and takes on a surreal look. If a surreal look is intended then that’s fine but I have to say over-done HDR photographs are fast becoming a pet hate of mine. I wonder if sometimes the bad examples are the result of some people not spending time over metering for difficult scenes and instead shooting at ‘any old’ time of day and then putting the frames together on the computer.

In some senses the use of ND grad filters is how traditionally we would have played with light and it’s always been done to some degree so HDR isn’t bad per se, it’s the execution of it in some hands. And some hands are as subtle as a slap around the chops!

I can only assume that some are using HDR as a proxy to make up for the inability to understand exposure. Those who do understand it make good HDR images as they have bracketed appropriately to make the composition.

I sometimes use ND Grad filters which in a sense is HDR too as I am manipulating light and how it falls on the film’s suface, extending the dynamic range. But when one sees the masterwork of say Ansel Adams and his famous images, compared to a lot of HDR work — you can see the difference.

I just had to say this because I like HDR when it’s done right but by god is there a lot of pap out there.

There again, I’m slightly alergic to colour anyway (hence all the black and white!) so I’m probably not the best judge

Scanning support on Linux seems to be somewhat better than it was about four years ago where I remember getting very scared reading about something called SANE (which would eventually drive me inSANE…) and in the end it was one of the driving forces that sent me packing my bags back to Windows XP in 2004. After all with SP2; it was pretty neat on my then T23 which if anyone ever had affection for a laptop; I had it for that one. It was a beauty and travelled with me around the world… (..leans on chin dreaming whimsically of far off climbs…)

But it still seems that though things are better; they’re not fantastic. I really need to get hold of average scanner (USB naturally) that would also scan slides and 35mm film. (Yes I own an EOS 5… That’s EOS 5, not 5D…whatdya think I am, rich?) However it seems there are no compatible options; I was hoping the Canon Canoscan 4400F might have something going for it but it doesn’t.

So, in the end I have a few options:

• Install Windows on my desktop (dual boot or something, maybe VirtualBox?) and then purchase said scanner. Cheapest option but not ideal as it’s quite a bulky way to get around the incompatibility equation.
• Purchase a Linux compatible 35mm film/slide scanner such as a Nikon Coolpix dedicated scanner. Expensive although the SCSI ones are cheaper. Downside is that doesn’t scan normal documents.
• Purchase a Digital SLR and sell the EOS 5. Not as bad as it sounds because all my lenses are EF and would work on EOS digital. Downside is that my 24mm lens will have the 1.6 magnification factor (or whatever it is) as will my 28-135mm. Also technically say I got an old 300D body; it would still cost a few hard earned pennies but it could well be worth it. At least I get to keep my two lenses.

So what’s a girl to do? I am really enjoying my photography at the moment and have surprise myself at what I have got out of my crappy w810i’s built in camera. OK it’s not that crappy but it’s digital zoom only, and it’s only centre weighted metering; but it does have some basic exposure settings and when composed well, it gets good results in daylight.

The problem is that the EOS 300D is also a 6.2MP camera which I’m not sure is the resolution I would want. After all; that’s lower than film. I would prefer something like the EOS 350D or even a 400D. But I’m short of about £400 in that case.

For the time being I’ll just take it down to Jessops and get them to slap it onto a CD but these are things to think about. I like my EOS 5, even if it is a bit of tank especially when it’s sat next to something like a 300D; it looks like big daddy has arrived for tea