Vintage Cameras

[Clactonian]

I cannot understand the rationale for shooting film .....

No irritation at all Richard but I'm not sure I agree with your point of view.
I recently had the opportunity to visit a photographic exhibition staged at our local senior school, mostly portfolios of examination work, and had the opportunity to talk to both lecturers and students. Both lecturers and students were keen to embrace all types of film techniques and digital, including phone pics. They were skilled and knowledgeable enough to determine which media type suited their particular needs for the project in hand, many of which had a high 'artistic' quality. The lecturers, although young, were not short of knowledge or skill with film or digital.
Surely it is better that the photographers and technicians of the future should have a knowledge of all techniques even if they are not widely used by us the masses. And no I don't use film any more, personally finding digital far more convenient, but don't regret ever having cut my teeth on film.

[John 2]

I seem to have started a bit of a debate. I can only speak for our local college. Students are required to use film in their first year only. The rationale is fairly logical on two counts. Firstly all digital cameras are automatic everything. Using more simple film cameras forces students to understand and practice the relationships between shutter speed and movement, between aperture/focus distance and depth of field and between focal length and depth of field/foreshortening etc. Not impossible to do with a digital camera but the temptation to let the camera "do it all for you" is removed. I know that in my local camera club there are many who see these relationships as a black art having been brought up on a point and shoot.The second reason is that some students are expected to go on to jobs that use large format cameras (fashion/ advertising / architecture) where sheet film can still be the medium of choice. A knowledge of the limitations of film and perhaps more importantly, its characteristics is therefore useful.

[rawill]

Didn't realize the thread would morph like this. All good, but to a mundane question.
What should I ask for one of these, screw mount, multicoated takumar 50mm f1.4

[GrahamS]

Didn't realize the thread would morph like this. All good, but to a mundane question.
What should I ask for one of these, screw mount, multicoated takumar 50mm f1.4

Does the lens have a slight yellow tint when you look through it or not? If it is clear and the lens is in good condition (no fungus, scratches, dust etc) the value will be between GBP 60.00 and GBP 80.00. If the elements have gone yellow, between GBP25.00 and GBP35.00. You may have to modify these values for your local market. GBP1.00 = AUD1.74 today.

[GrahamS]

A knowledge of the limitations of film and perhaps more importantly, its characteristics is therefore useful.

I would say "essential."

[rpcrowe]

The second reason is that some students are expected to go on to jobs that use large format cameras (fashion/ advertising / architecture) where sheet film can still be the medium of choice. A knowledge of the limitations of film and perhaps more importantly, its characteristics is therefore useful.

Knowing how to change the spark plugs in your car might be a useful thing to know if you ever get into engine repair. However, in reality, how many of us will ever do that. So including how to change spark plugs in a basic driving course is ludicrous to me..

IMO, the absolutely most important thing in photography is learning composition and all of the elements that composition requires such as camera position, lighting, timing, focal length choices, DOF control, etc., etc., and etc... I would suggest that a beginning photography course should center on the things that make photographs good. Requiring a first year student to learn the arcane processes around film photography is not only expensive but, is, IMO, a waste of instructional time. Additionally, I would expect that teaching the basic concepts of photography is easier and quicker using digital medium that starting with film and transitioning to digital..

For the very, very few students who will migrate to large format photography, I would suggest that a later elective class devoted to that form of photography might be just the ticket; rather than forcing every new student to learn silver halide photography at the beginning of his or photography training when he or she will most likely never utilize the knowledge gained.

As far as forcing students to use a camera that doesn't have the dummy settings... That is a cop-out reason for shooting film. If you cannot trust your students to shoot on other than auto-pilot, you cannot trust them to shoot their own images with film - rather they might convince a better photographer to shoot images to present. Hogwash!

As a Navy trained instructor, I realize that teaching time is very limited and the educational process needs to make the best use possible of that time (and money) in teaching the most valuable things and disregarding the "nice to know" stuff...

[GrahamS]

Requiring a first year student to learn the arcane processes around film photography is not only expensive but, is, IMO, a waste of instructional time. Additionally, I would expect that teaching the basic concepts of photography is easier and quicker using digital medium that starting with film and transitioning to digital..

I have been teaching photography for 40 years and would never think of not giving my students a grounding in analogue imaging, because there are just too many factors in digital photography that have their origin in film. The heritage part of the curriculum only takes ten hours out of 420 and my students always thank me for it. Thats how I teach, and thats how I always shall teach.

[jcuknz]

I visited my old school in 2010 where I did a year or so back in 1952-3 and the photo section was a room filled with computers and the studios and darkrooms I knew had been converted for other purposes ... so at least they had kept up with the times.

[rpcrowe]

I have been teaching photography for 40 years and would never think of not giving my students a grounding in analogue imaging, because there are just too many factors in digital photography that have their origin in film. The heritage part of the curriculum only takes ten hours out of 420 and my students always thank me for it. Thats how I teach, and thats how I always shall teach.

Different strokes for different folks... We all have our own ideas of what is appropriate and I respect these considerations...

I have no idea of your curriculum nor of the final products that your students produce.

I would like to relate why I am so firmly against the use of film in beginning photography courses. I attended a resident course in commercial photography in New York City when I was a young lad. It was a very well thought of course and as I look back, it provided a very firm foundation in film photography.

It was also an extremely expensive course to pursue. Although the tuition was expensive, the greater cost was for the materials I needed to buy. Equipment cost was of no consequence since the school provided a storeroom of professional equipment that could be checked out by the students.

This course of study, when completed, provided an excellent basis for employment in the photo field. The problem was that I did not complete the course because I could not afford to purchase the materials needed. The materials I needed, 8x10 inch or even 4x5 inch cut film was expensive even in the 1950's and photo paper was another expense (chemicals were provided by the school). Even medium format film was expensive to buy and print. I was lucky in that I joined the U.S. Navy and was assigned to the Navy Basic School or Photography in Pensacola, Florida. All of a sudden I had access to a virtually unlimited amount of film and paper as well as professional equipment. I could afford to make mistakes and to learn from those mistakes.

A few of our local two and four year colleges have photo courses. However, rather than preparing their students to earn their living in the field of photography, the students learn to take wonderful and artistic images which are only suited for hanging on the walls of coffee shops as the graduates earn their living serving coffee to the customers.

Sure, there is a place for that type of photography but, I hate to see students who are expecting to go earn their living in photography waste their time in such courses.

It is like a student going to college to study philosophy and expecting to earn a living from that degree.

BTW: Do you know the questions asked by an Engineering Student, a Business student and a Philosophy graduate?

The Engineering graduate asks, "How is this made?"

The Business graduate asks, "How much does this cost to make?"

The Philosophy graduate asks, "Do you want fries with your Big Mac?"

[GrahamS]

Different strokes for different folks... We all have our own ideas of what is appropriate and I respect these considerations...

I have no idea of your curriculum nor of the final products that your students produce.

I would like to relate why I am so firmly against the use of film in beginning photography courses. I attended a resident course in commercial photography in New York City when I was a young lad. It was a very well thought of course and as I look back, it provided a very firm foundation in film photography.

It was also an extremely expensive course to pursue. Although the tuition was expensive, the greater cost was for the materials I needed to buy. Equipment cost was of no consequence since the school provided a storeroom of professional equipment that could be checked out by the students.

This course of study, when completed, provided an excellent basis for employment in the photo field. The problem was that I did not complete the course because I could not afford to purchase the materials needed. The materials I needed, 8x10 inch or even 4x5 inch cut film was expensive even in the 1950's and photo paper was another expense (chemicals were provided by the school). Even medium format film was expensive to buy and print. I was lucky in that I joined the U.S. Navy and was assigned to the Navy Basic School or Photography in Pensacola, Florida. All of a sudden I had access to a virtually unlimited amount of film and paper as well as professional equipment. I could afford to make mistakes and to learn from those mistakes.

A few of our local two and four year colleges have photo courses. However, rather than preparing their students to earn their living in the field of photography, the students learn to take wonderful and artistic images which are only suited for hanging on the walls of coffee shops as the graduates earn their living serving coffee to the customers.

Sure, there is a place for that type of photography but, I hate to see students who are expecting to go earn their living in photography waste their time in such courses.

It is like a student going to college to study philosophy and expecting to earn a living from that degree.

BTW: Do you know the questions asked by an Engineering Student, a Business student and a Philosophy graduate?

The Engineering graduate asks, "How is this made?"

The Business graduate asks, "How much does this cost to make?"

The Philosophy graduate asks, "Do you want fries with your Big Mac?"

The cost of materials is minimal and if a student couldn't afford the cost of two rolls of film and a couple of sheets of printing paper I would assist. The cost of a DSLR is far more onerous.

[rpcrowe]

Graham. we are seemingly chasing our tails in continuing this discussion. I respect your point of view, although I don't agree with it.

[rawill]

Well now an interesting discussion even if no-one wants my cameras!
However I have had a person buy 3 lenses
Takumar 1:1.4 f50mm
Takumar 1:1.8 f55mm
Pnagor Auto wide angle 1:2.5 f28mm

So to my question
He is using them on a Nikon with an adapter ring
If I get an adapter ring will the
Panagor auto tele 1:2.8 f135mm
Pangor auto tele 1:3.5 f200mm

give me decent photos.
Of course they will be manual adjust.
Maybe I can learn.
I have been playing a bit with a Nikon Nikor series E
1:1.8 50mm
at least the camera tells you when it is in focus.

[joewatt]

I see this thread has been dormant for a few years - maybe I can elicit some interest with some equipment I inherited from my father Here's the first item:

[rpcrowe]

No irritation at all Richard but I'm not sure I agree with your point of view.
I recently had the opportunity to visit a photographic exhibition staged at our local senior school, mostly portfolios of examination work, and had the opportunity to talk to both lecturers and students. Both lecturers and students were keen to embrace all types of film techniques and digital, including phone pics. They were skilled and knowledgeable enough to determine which media type suited their particular needs for the project in hand, many of which had a high 'artistic' quality. The lecturers, although young, were not short of knowledge or skill with film or digital.
Surely it is better that the photographers and technicians of the future should have a knowledge of all techniques even if they are not widely used by us the masses. And no I don't use film any more, personally finding digital far more convenient, but don't regret ever having cut my teeth on film.

"photographers and technicians of the future should have a knowledge of all techniques even if they are not widely used by us the masses." HOW ABOUT USING WET PLATES OR DAGUERREOTYPES Just kidding. But when does a technology become obsolete? I did see a YouTube video on a modern photographer who uses wet plate technology.

I also don't see many folks using cut film cameras...

Regarding, scanning negatives to digital (because digital is the media of communication). Most images I see that have been scanned (except for expensive drum scanning) don't seem to have the quality of even an older DSLR image...

JOEWATT: My first meter was a Weston Master Mk-I which used the Weston scale before ASA was introduced and long before ASA became ISO...

[Shadowman]

I was viewing a documentary about Helmut Newton, Frames From the Edge (1989) and he said that for his commercial work he instructed his developer to have the images go brown after three months, also any print he didn't like he would personally rip to shreds. He didn't want anyone having access to his works; even the bad prints.

[joewatt]

Here is my late dad's old camera, a Voigtlander, probably purchased in the late 1930's. It was the first camera I ever used (as a child). The shutter still works and even has roll of film inside (dad's). It is a cherished heirloom. Technology has come a long way although the basics of good photography has changed little (just styles and tastes). No histogram on this puppy!

Paul S

I have an identical camera that was my dad's. I have prints of photos he took with it in Europe in the mid-1920's. Seems like it should be valuable, but I don't think it is

[joewatt]

I see this thread has been dormant for a few years - maybe I can elicit some interest with some equipment I inherited from my father Here's the first item:

There must have been a lot of these made; they're going for less than $20 US on eBay

[xpatUSA]

There must have been a lot of these [Westons] made; they're going for less than $20 US on eBay

I'm enjoying this one:



It's got ASA and DIN and footcandles and the Norwood Director look. None of that new-fangled ISO rubbish. Aaaar!

[Tronhard]

I have read a reasonable bit of the discussion on the pros and cons of teaching film technology and technique. While I, like many, have made the transition from film to digital (and probably won't return), one thing I have to recognize is the resurgence of interest in film.

Several manufacturers of film have resumed their production: Kodak with Ektachrome, and Adox in Germany (see https://www.dpreview.com/news/318553...ant-in-Germany). So, leaving my own preferences to one side, there appears to be a market for the medium, which means logically there should be a market for the equipment and education.

While I much prefer the digital medium, I have often expressed a nostalgic yearning for a digital camera that looks and feels like my on Nikon F3, and Canon A1 SLRs. Now, I have developed a serious attraction for the Nikon Df camera http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/df/ - and this coming from a confirmed Canon user!!

I love the vintage look over the top of a really well provisioned digital FF camera. I wonder what one would be like with the Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens... (lustful sigh...)

[GrahamS]

Despite what many people believe, the use of film is still widespread. I know of two professional photographers that still use 4x5 sheet film for architectural and technical photography. I have friends who still use 35mm film as do I. See here:
http://www.europeanceo.com/culture/f...ning-comeback/