I recently traded all my autofocus Nikon gear (2 bodies @ 4 Nikkor lenses, including 2 dream zooms) for a Leica M2 w/50mm f/2 Summicron and a Nikon F (standard prism) w/35mm f/2 Nikkor. I'm seeing better, making better pictures, and having a lot more fun. I'd appreciate hearing from others who have had similar experiences.

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), September 25, 1998

Answers

I tried, and failed, to move in the opposite direction.

I bought an F4 a couple of years ago. Over a couple of months, I put about 30 rolls through it, and enjoyed using it, but the pictures weren't as good. Technically no probems (indeed, more consistent exposures than I was used to), but the vision thing was lacking.

I have always had similar problems with zooms. I think the extra variable confuses whatever part of my brain is alert for picture- opportunities.

It is quite possible that my difficulties are due to the fact that I have been a serious photographer for 25 years, and have used classic manuals (Nikon F and Leica screw) for the past 20. Perhaps, if I had grown up with all-singing automatics, I would only be comfortable with them.

The one "modern" convenience I do appreciate, is the TTL metering on my F2s. It's a convenience when photography is not the primary activity of the day. But I work better with a separate meter.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), September 25, 1998.

I should mention: (1) My primary camera for the last year or so has been an 8x10 Deardorff; (2) my first serious camera was a Nikon F (ca. 1964); (3) as the previous would indicate, I have been involved with photography for quite some time; (4) I am what is euphemistically called an "fine-art" photographer, not a "pro". I lived in NYC for most of my life, worked in the "industry" and consequently got completely burned out on photography, giving it up for 15 years. When I came to California 4 years ago, I got back into it and the automatic cameras were a blessing to my rusty technique. After a while, however, they became a burden. Finally, examples of my work can be seen at : http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), September 25, 1998.

I use 35mm only rarely, only for color and only when I am doing family snap shots or pictures for my employer. The automatic features are useful under those circumstances, because I just don't shoot that much 35mm or color. It gives me the false confidence that the exposures and focus are going to be correct, and 80% of the time they are. Good enough for what I am doing.

On the other hand, for my personal work, which I feel is very creative, (don't we all?) I NEVER use an auto anything camera. I think that if you are using an 8X10, or any large format camera, for that matter, you are bound to be making better pictures. You almost have to be better, IMHO, because if you aren't, you will shortly get disgusted and probably quit photography altogether (maybe a slight exaggeration).

I feel that the more that you do for yourself, the faster you become more accomplished, and the better your images become. After a while focus, depth of field and exposure are almost "automatic" anyway. Any large format photographer worth his salt, most medium format, and a few minature format photographers can tell you what thier exposure will be on any given day without ever even looking at a meter. How much more "automatic" do you need to be?

I feel sorry for so many photographers that will never have the satisfaction of knowing that the image they created, they actually created. If they relied on thier camera to do all of thier thinking for them, then the framing is really the only part of the image that is truly thiers. There really is much more to photography than that.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), September 26, 1998.

I think the answer is in the minimal choice you ended up with and not the fact the equipment was not automatic or autofocus. I have gone through the similar type of experience. What I did is to look back at my photographs and find the ones that satisfied me the most. I then looked into what focal length was used to record those images. I found that greater that 80% of them had been with or could have been taken with a normal or slightly wide angle lens. I then got rid of everything except for an automatic autofocus body and a normal lens and I have started to see and enjoy photography again. I first started in photography in high school and we learned to use two and a quarter square (Yashica Mat), four by five (Speed Graphics) and 35mm rangefinder (Argus C3). But not until I used my first SLR did I really see. That was an Exakta VXIIa with a Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2.0 lens. That was all I could aford but the lack of additional equipment did not hinder me. I now have taken a big step back in time and once again every time I look through the viewfinder it is like the first time. The automation and autofocus are used if and when I want them. The real secret in my case is that less is more.

-- Tim Spelich (tims@us.ibm.com), September 28, 1998.

Reply to Classic vs. Modern, Manual vs. Auto

Oh, come on, guys, I think the only thing you've done by ditching the zooms is that now you must walk around the subject. Guess what? You are now seeing different perspectives. And without the motor drive you are giving yourself time to pause and think.

Move around.

The only things lenses change are cropping and spacial compression/expansion. Perspective is only changed by moving the camera.

When you crop with the zoom, you make the photograph, and you think that you're done. Now that you don't have the zoom, you must move around more. Guess what? Some perspectives are better than others.

Pause and think.

What have I myself noted about even using motor drive? Auto hypnosis. Pressing the shutter and the film being ready in a moment leads to the single, repeated action of pressing the shutter again and again, while your brain starts focusing on: pressing the shutter again.

Labor Day weekend I was out photographing an abandoned homestead with my P645. Since the shutter speed was fast enough, I was shooting handheld. I had just finished photographing the front of the house when, without thinking, I turned around and photographed the out buildings.

After I did that, I thought to myself, "Why did I do that?" Sure, with some thought I might have chosen the same place to make the photograph. But why just turn around and press the shutter release? The only answer that I can come up with was that I had been training myself just a split second ago to press the shutter again and again. If the camera had been mounted on a tripod, I would have needed to at least released the ball mount, if not move the entire tripod.

This weekend I was photographing surf on rocks. I made at least three exposures which I would place in the category of, "Ooh, ooh, I'm taking pictures, Mr. Kotter! Ohh, ooh!" instead of "wait wait wait wait wait wait CLICK!"

Become an expert on your subject

The only way a person can become an expert on something is by studying it. David Hurn mentioned this in the book, "On Being a Photographer." This weekend I became more of an expert about one particular lighthouse. I wanted to photograph it in some excellent evening light. Well, the light was great, but when the sun sets the visible side of the lighthouse is in shadow. So now I know that the lighthouse requires a morning shot.

When you first walk around a subject, looking at it from different perspectives, you start to become an expert on it. And by being an expert on it, you will be able to produce better photographs of it.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), September 28, 1998.

Move around? Stop and THINK? KNOW YOUR SUBJECT???

What the heck are you doing Brian!!!!

In one fell swoop you just gave away almost all of the secrets of success in photography. The only one you left out was take pictures and make prints. There, now everyone knows our secrets and can make stunning images. But, how many people do you think will take that advice and actually do it?

I guess maybe our secrets probably are safe, after all. :)

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), September 28, 1998.

Secrets of Photography Revealed -- again.

That reminds me of what I heard on a Penn & Teller show: "I'll bet you think that we broke some rule by teaching the audience to do that trick. You're right! We did!"

I was just reading an interview with Jerry Uelsmann, and he said, "For me, having a work ethic has really been important." I think he's absolutely right about having a work ethic. The technological assist provided by "feature rich" cameras takes some work out of creating the image. Now you have the energy to photograph lousy scenes as well as great scenes. If you are using a view camera then you will scout the area first and wait for a great scene, because it takes real effort to set that camera up and use it. You will conserve your film because you only have a dozen shots for the entire day, instead of a dozen 135-36 rolls.

Here's the final secret: Compensated development in dilute developer!

I was reading Ansel Adam's "Examples" and he verified what I suspected: lots of compensated development to bring up the shadow values and hold down the highlights. He said he used mostly D-76 1+1 for his normal work, and mentioned D-23 and a brand of pyrotechin for "Black Sun".

I am going to reformulate how I develop my IR film now.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), September 29, 1998.

One of the main points I wanted to make in my original post is that the difference between a Nikon F and a Nikon 8008S (or any classic mechanical camera and any modern automatic camera)is more than one of automation. The Nikon F is one of the purest, simplest, most elegant, most ergonomic cameras ever madean absolute masterpiece of design. The 8008S is a confusing bundle of bells & whistlesuseful sometimes, but pure, simple and elegant it is not. And shooting with each of these cameras is a very different experience. I believe that the very simplicity of the Nikon F allows me to better concentrate on seeing. The camera is less "in the way." And the same goes for the Leica M2.

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), September 28, 1998.

I agree with Peter and I think we are all sort of saying the same thing. There are some of us that have gotten into the automated rut of taking photographs by allowing the automation to direct our creativity. We set the camera on auto-everything and zoom in and out while we take shot after shot. We know we are going to get some fine photos and we are pleased. Get back to the light table and look at your slides or negatives and we start to wonder why we took photo of what we did when we did. It is now we start to think. We should have slowed down and thought during the time we exposed the film. This is where my going back to a non-automated camera and lens combination has taken me. I now take the time to think during the process and not after. I use a single focal length and move around the subject. I decide if the light is what I want and if not return when it is correct. It is like when Ansel Adams speaks of pre-visualizing a photo. He also spoke of learning how to use one lens before moving on to another. I have found that using a manual camera has forced me back to the basics. Selecting one of the classics like the Nikon F or Leica M series is my choice for a manual camera. I take photos for my own pleasure and when I am comfortable with my equipment I am happiest. I also find that I am better able to capture on film what I first visualized.

-- Tim Spelich (tims@us.ibm.com), September 29, 1998.

Ansel undersood that one "sees" differently depending on the type and format of the camera one is using. I simply "see" better with a Nikon F or a Leica M2 than I do with a Nikon 8008S. And it's no good taking a 4x5 into the field instead of an 8x10, hoping to get the same results (with a 2x enlargement). One has to use an 8x10 to "see" with an 8x10. I also agree with the comment about compensating developers. I went through several different film/developer combinations before I settled on Tri-X 4164 in Rodinal 1:100 for my 8x10 work. (I use Rodinal 1:50 for 35mm Tri-X, Agfa APX 25 and Kodak HIE.) Lastly, as an aside, I'd like to mention that we in the magical fraternity despise Penn & Teller for their blatant violations of magician's ethics, which do nothing to advance the art of stage magic and do everything to dishonor and destroy it for their own selfish profit.

-- Peter Hughes` (leonine@redshift.com), September 29, 1998.

"purest, simplest, and most elegant"

Three of the reasons that I perform better with a wood and brass view camera. It looks elegant on the tripod, wood of course, and is the essence of simplicity. Not a motor or clanking of gears to be heard, to disrupt the quiet by a stream or in the woods.

I don't think people consider the "mechanics" of photography enough in thier efforts. Peter has mde a very valid point in that the camera doesn't get in the way of his seeing, but is an invaluable aid to his seeing.

It is refreshing to see a group that has a work ethic and won't stubbornly use the latest technology as a crutch. We are all so much better than the "automatic" equiptment that is available, we just need to remind ourselves of that sometimes.

-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), September 29, 1998.

I remember in at least one of Adam's books, either "The Camera" or "Examples", he commented that operating the camera shouldn't have been made simpler. If I remember right, he felt that cameras should retain a certain amount of difficulty, and some degree of effort should go into producing a photograph.

Technique, though, has everything to do with the subject. I've really found that I'm starting to look at scenes, and then really examine how the scene looks through the viewfinder. What's really there? What else is there besides the subject in the scene? Of course, that technique works best primarily with still subjects.

Last night I was out with a neighbor, who is a railway worker. He is going try to document his environment railway world. While I was with him, I tried photographing the graffiti-art moving past on the cars. "Pause and think" was entirely inappropriate to the situation.

(It's interesting teaching someone how to use an entirely manual camera. I'm starting him off with a Pentax K-1000 and TMX3200 because he works at night)

I have found that I "see" the same with all my cameras, it's just a matter of how long I spend looking at the ground glass. For the point&pray, it's usually up, click, down. For the P67, it usually gets mounted on the tripod, the tripod is stabilized, a preliminary view is made through the viewfinder, the viewfinder is removed and then I look at the ground glass, I look at the scene through the spotmeter and check values, consider film characteristics, check focus and DOF, consider the resulting aperture vs shutter speed, check things again, make the camera settings and finally expose the film.

During all that time I might figure that what I'm looking at might really look a lot better from another angle, or I'll decide that I should wait for a better shot, or I'll actually figure out that the subject can't be portrayed right or just plain stinks.

I think that using the P645 requires a greater degree of concentration than the P67. There's that AE (which lies like a rug) crutch, so I must remember to check things with a spot meter anyway. After I release the shutter, there's the motor happily winding the film to the next frame, leaving a great invitation to just push the button again.

When I was photographing the BB Missouri, a fellow came up and wanted to know why I was photographing the way I did. He billed himself as an amateur sociologist, and had noticed that I was concentrating on what I was doing instead of just wandering around and snapping shots like everybody else. The only thing that I could reply with was that I was photographing for a sense of balance.

Hmmm, Zen and the Art of the Camera.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), September 30, 1998.

I find Brian C. Millers last post interesting. I quote, "I have found that I 'see' the same with all my cameras, it's just a matter of how long I spend looking at the ground glass." Interesting because, as I was reading it, I realized that most of the time, when using automatic cameras, I hardly "look" at the groundglass at all: I just blank out, almost like a kind of seizure. I don't *want* to look at, or know, what's going on. I dont want to confront my subject. But the manual cameras make me look. They force me to confront that which I don't want to confront: the reality, the essence, the very substance of the subject before me. This is why I dont even want these features available to me in the camera I shoot with. Theyre a kind of drug, a kind of crutch that I might not use today, but to which I might succumb tomorrow. Further, I revel in the purity of not having that stuff in the camera. Its a statement, a small protest against that which has been removed from me without my consent. The politics of this situation must be considered. Who decided that photographers want point-and-shoot robots? And is this not part of a larger trend in our world, not to think, not to look, not to confront reality? Its a tragedy (not to strong a word) that Nikon no longer makes the "F", or that Leica no longer makes a RF camera without a built-in meter. Tragic, because once lost, theyre never to be regained. (Like our pristine landscapes.) It's not only that, as a class, we choose not to shoot with a manual camera, but soon we won't be able to. We may be the last generation of photographers who can even buy these cameras: collectors are grabbing them up even now, thus putting them out of circulation. And parts are no longer available for many of them anyway. Well, whose fault is this? Its ours. We let them get away with it. We were seduced and abandoned. We went to sleep and when we awoke we discovered how much had been taken from us.

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), September 30, 1998.

Peter, your statement of "Further, I revel in the purity of not having that stuff in the camera. Its a statement, a small protest against that which has been removed from me without my consent." echos very deeply the comments of a photographer I met this weekend.

We had both stopped to photograph the same pond. I from one side, and he from the other. He was already set up, so I thought that I should go over and see what he was up to. After all, I didn't want to place myself into his frame area. As we chatted, I asked about his view camera. I had always seen them in the shops, chatted with guys who used them, but I'd never seen one used in the field.

He said that he chose the view camera because it was as far from modern technology as he could get. He saw it as a sort of protest against automation and mechinization. I quietly counted up over $5000 in protest.

The only technological thing I really want in a camera is a narrow spot meter with zone system markings.

I've noticed that Nikon now has three different manual cameras on the market now. The FM/FE 10, the FM2N , and the F3HP . OK, so the F3HP has apeture priority auto exposure, but what the hey. At least Nikon is still manufacturing real manual 35mm cameras.

The consumer public has spoken, and they want something they can just make a quick snap, and be on their way. Great for them. Some mope about how medium format has not "caught up with" 35mm. So what? I like the cameras the way they are.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), October 01, 1998.

Thanks, Brian. Yes, Nikon does make three non-automatic camerasbut they all have built-in meters. What these cameras have a tendency to do is to get you to "center the needle", not to really *learn* about exposure. If you try to ignore them (the meters), you will be surprised to find out how much power they have to dominate your thinking. (Make an exposure contrary to what your built-in meter tells you?! Horrors!) Take the battery out and you have a dead meter in the viewfinderand sometimes a dead shutter too. I own a Sekonic Studio (for my 8x10 system) and a little Gossen Pilot 2 (both selenium and hence w/o batteries), but I almost never use them outdoors. With my 8x10, I have a carefully worked-out system of exposure and development. (Ersatz Zone System.) In the studio, I already know my exposure so no meter is required. My 35mm technique is different, of course, but also based upon a lot of trial-and- error. I stick to one film for 8x10 (Tri-X), two films for 35mm (Kodak HIE & Agfa APX 25), and one developer for all (Rodinal). Printing-wise, I use only two papers, one cold-tone, one warm (both Ilford MC). And two toners, selenium and gold. (All right, I occasionally play with Sepia.) As Emerson said, simplify, simplify, simplify! As an aside, I should mention that if Nikon did decide to remanufacture the "F", precisely as it was made in 1969, it would cost more than an F5! (Brass vs. aluminum & plastic?) So much of the automation of modern cameras is a really cost-saving measure put over on the public as "progress." (I'm happy to buy a used camera with "brassing" because at least there's brass to show!) In 1964, while photographing at the Democratic National Convention (otherwise known as the Coronation of LBJ), I dropped a Nikon F Photomic about 8 feet, bouncing it off a concrete curb onto the asphalt. The *steel* lens shade was completely crushed, but the camera was undamaged save for a very slight dent in the filter thread. (Oh, yes, the damn meter needed readjustment too.) Try that with an F5 (let alone a Canon EOS!) and I guarantee you'll be sweeping your camera off the sidewalk with a whisk broom.

-- Peter Hughes (leonine@redshift.com), October 01, 1998.

Response to Classic vs. Modern, Manual vs. Auto" from Peter Hughes

I hear what you are saying about not really understanding exposure by using a camera's metering system. However it has been my experience that anyone who wants to learn more about exposure, or photography in general, has a pretty good understanding of what the meter is telling you and certainly the 35mm photographers that I hang out with use it as a starting point but don't often 'center the needle'. I also think having the ability to judge exposure without a meter is great for bragging but it says nothing about a persons creativity, imagination, aesthetics, and artistic prowess. I think being able to produce exactly what one 'sees' is an important part of the equation but is meaningless without content.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), October 01, 1998.

re:Classic vs. Modern

I have had a similar experience around 5 years ago in that I wanted to achieve images I had in my mind of certain subjects that I just couldn't do with my "good" equiptment and I was getting tired of using part of my concentration on the technical and not on the imagery. In my professional work I have to think in those terms but for my own fine-art there seemed to be something missing. Since then I have been using certain cameras for certain subjects depending on the characteristics of the particular camera and what I want as a final image. Sometimes this will call for a pinhole camera, a particular toy camera, one of my many old Brownies or Kodaks, or back to my hi-end medium or large format cameras. Another reason I started shooting with toys, pinholes and Brownies is that there is almost no thinking in technical terms only in the image making itself. I've found this part of it almost like a cleansing. Cameras, to me, are just tools. I wouldn't use a hammer to drive a screw in even though you can.

-- Chuck Baker (cbaker@skypub.com), October 01, 1998.

I think it's a matter of feeling or not feeling compelled to use all the features of the tool. If you drive a Corvette do you spend all your spare time finding places to go 100+MPH? My Canon T90 has a bunch of AE modes. I very rarely use them. WHen the film winds to the next frame immediately am I itching to take another shot? Nope. I bought the T90 for two features: 1) It's an SLR, 2) It flash syncs at 1/250. Otherwise I use it much the same way I use my Mamiya TLR's. Which leads to another point. I feel no urge to take square photos with the TLR.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), October 04, 1998.

this thread sounds very similar to other threads i've read such as the canon vs. nikon debate/ramblings. i've seen great images taken with an F5 and with a leica. i would have to say that the photographer behind the camera and not the camera itself is what makes an image great. whether it be all auto or all manual.

-- e. a. (moschika@yahoo.com), October 05, 1998.

I've used nothing but Leica and Canon SM stuff for about 25 years. Had a Nikon F in the early '70s; traded it for a Graflex XL with a couple of lenses and a polaroid back; traded that for an M3. Recently I sold off some of the SM stuff to collectors--kept a IIIf w/collapsible Summicron and a Russar 20/5.6 that I found when I lived in Amsterdam. Took the money and bought a couple of Contax Gs with four lenses. I *love* them. I *like* TTL flash metering; I *like* an affordable, high quality 21/2.8. I *like* autofocus. I burn more film with this outfit, but then I shoot under circumstances that I wouldn't otherwise attempt--especially with the flash.

At the same time, I carry the IIIf daily in my bag--with a light meter. I understand the "wet your finger and hold it up" approach to exposure, but I learn something each time I spend a little effort metering different areas of a potential print (easy to do with an SEI spot); less easy with a Luna Pro. I *like* the IIIf, too; but it doesn't compete with the Contaxes, nor with the M series.

All of this is to say that I don't see any inherent valorization of the old at the expense of the new so long as one keeps in mind that cameras are designed to capture light on film in a way that is acceptable to the photographer. If I could mount my Noctilux on the G body, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

-- Chandos Michael Brown (cmbrow@mail.wm.edu), October 13, 1998.

I'm sure I could live my whole photographic life with a Nikon FM2n, a 24 f2.8 and a 55 f2.8. It's about shape form and light.

-- Ricard Cloutier (rlc6@email.byu.edu), December 13, 1998.

It's possible to think with an M2/TX/F5/MZ5/P45n/RTSIII/you_name_it and it's possible to leave your brain by the umbrella stand and just press the little round button with all of them.

I'm one of those who often comes home from a multiple hour phototour with one half shoot 36 roll, but that has nothing to do with what kind of camera I'm bringing.

On the other hand, the equipment does go in my way some times. I miss an awfully lot of shots if I try to shoot a reception kind of affair indoors without TTL-flash, program mode, zoom etc. The thinking that goes into calculating guide-number/f-stop and changing lens for group vs. head shoots when using manual equipment, goes into thinking composing, interplay between persons etc. when using an all electronic outfit.

-- Kristian Elof Sxrensen (elof@image.dk), January 17, 1999.

My 2 cents: I think the matter of classic/manual vs modern/auto is personal preference. I like the convenience of autofocus, by enjoy the full control of manual/classic cameras.

Some times you need the computer chip to think for you, and some times you just dont what any chip to stand between you and the object, you want total control.

If I am allow only to have one camera, I pick a manual.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), September 02, 1999.