Bipod

Digital backs for film cameras are nothing new--in fact, they were the first commercially
avialable form of digital still photography. And they have always been available for
4 x 5" cameras. Those cameras achieve resolution and pixel counts (100 MP!) that is
not availbale in a off-the-shelf digital camera.

While I'm Back's 16 MP is respectable, it's not going to woo away anyone from a
24 MP digital camera.

Dgital backs have never been regarded as a different artistic medium. The different media
are film and digital. Whether the sensor is integral or detachable need not have any
effect on the image quality. Indeed, Phase One backs surpass the performance of most
(all?) in-camera sensors on the market.

IHere are some of the cheapest FF cameras on the market (prices on
Amazon, this list is about 1 year old):
.Nikon D610: $1,497
Nikon D800: $2,249
Canon 5D Mark III: $2,299
Canon 6D: $1,399
Sony A7r: $1,898
Pentax K1: $1,813
Source; https://improvephotography.com/46836/guide-cheapest-full-frame-cameras-available/

Some of the above cameras are really quite a bargain, IMHO. But at CHF 299 (USD$298.39 at
today's exchange rate) FOB Shanghai, I'm Back Pro is quite a bit cheaper--provided you already
own the film camera--and provied you are willing to give up the convenience of an integrated camera,
pack around much more weight--and take a big hig in image quality.

Everyone knows about "lomography" -- toy cameras and such. I own a Holga (120 film)--but never
shoot it. Even my consumer-grade 1959s Franka Solida II and Zeiss Nettar are vastly superior in every
respect (except price and availability) to the Holga. No black electrical tape necessary to eliminate light
leaks. Light leaks aren't an aesthetic--they are an annoyance.

But at least you get this with the Holga: the look of medium format film and a very simple camera.

There is one reason to prefer a digital back on a film camera to a digital camera: if the total
system is less complex than a modern microprocessor-controlled digital camera. But
undoubtably I'm Back is microrprocessor controlled. And if you put it on a microprocessor-
based film camera such as the Minolta Maxxum line (excellent cameras), the resulting
systems is more complex than a digital camera, not less.

Another reason would be if someone is already familiar with using a particular film camera,
and doesn't want to bother leanring a digital camera. But I don't think that's a good reason.

I don't buy the "different medium" argumnent for lomography or for I'm Back. Few if any artists
or musicians set out to be bad. But many manufacturer's set out to be cheap. I'm Back has
succeeded in being cheap.

It is nice to have a 35 mm digital back available. But by having lower image quality than
top-quality film, a top-quality digital back, or a top-quality digital camera, I'm Back may
indeed deserve a place--or three--in the Inferior Substitute Hall of Fame.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I've never seen the appeal of Lomography, Dianas, Holgas, or even Lens Babies. As you say, a light leak is not art - even in the hands of Winongrand or Arbus - it's just a light leak. Poor focus, distortion, and general blur do give your images "something" , but that "something" is much more likely to be the look that your drunken uncle used to add to the family holiday photos than the look of a modern masterpiece.

I'm more and more going to "shoot and scan" film for my medium formats and even old 35mm equipment. But 4x5 digital backs are cost prohibitive for an amateur, and, unless you process your own, sheet film is pretty expensive. I've cleaned and restored the seals of my 6x6 and 6x9 roll film backs, so that's what I'll be using in my view and press cameras going forward.

Big thanks to all those who have encouraged me to go back to the future in terms of my film usage!

Andy

Bipod

I agree--using film imposes a discipline that promotes good work. It forces the photographer to plan
and think about what image he is trying to get--and get it right the first time. There's no "shoot lots and cull"
or "fix it in PhotoSlop". Also, optical printing is hands-on -- you work closer to your materials.

I do like lenses that impart a certain character -- such as a portrait lens. But a portrait lens isn't any
lens with a lot of defects--it's lens designed to have one specific aberration: spherical. Older ones
(e.g. the Petzval) also have a lot of geometrical distortion, but newer ones don't. Modern portrait
lenes are as good as they can make them--and they aren't cheap. Canon's certainly isn't!

WIth any lens, I try to figure out "what can I use this for?". But if it has too many defects, the
answer is "a paperweight".

There are so many different types of photography, there should be lot of different types of camera
and lens designs. People should use whatever equipment gives them the best final image for
their intended use and type of photography.

Chasing after the latest gear is silly -- and very different from what people do in the other visual
arts. Simpler isn't necessarily bad, nor is more complex necessarily good. In fact, complexity
always comes a a cost -- and not just the purchase price.

What photographer was using the most advanced aluminum alloy motor-drive camera in the 1940s?
I don't know, but it wasn't Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Dorothea Lange,or Henri
Cartier-Bresson. Weston kept using view cameras until his Parkinson's diease forced him to give up
photography, and Catier-Bresson kept using his Leica rangefinders until he reitred from photography
in 1975.

Driven by marketing, technology has become a giant distraction and an end int self, instead of a
means to an end (the final image that matches the photographer's visualization and a deliverable
that suits the intended use).

Bipod

Try "I'm Black" instead. It lets you sing like Al Green, Aretha Franklin, Patti Labelle,
Dionne Warwick, Anita Baker, or Stevie Wonder.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I agree with the general principle, but feel compelled to point out that HCB's Leicas actually were "High Tech" when he started using them, as were the view cameras of the f-64 group. Many of the greats of the film era stuck with what was familiar and met their needs, but many (like AA) also adopted the newest tech gear. The Hassies and Polaroids certainly qualified as the latest and greatest. I think that Adams would have adopted modern post processing as enthusiastically as he adopted cold-light enlarger heads and other darkroom advances.

Of course Adams would not have used post processing on a computer as a crutch any more that he used contrast graded paper or any other advances to "forgive" bad exposure choices.

It's all in the approach, isn't it? If you seek perfection in images and exposure, then altering the image for the sake of effect is perfectly acceptable in my world. If you just have to try out the latest and greatest in gear or make use of some effect you saw somewhere, you're not being true to your craft. Making a technically correct image with a plastic camera is a challenge, and if you're up to that, then you can think about playing around with technique. You have to be able to know and observe the rules before you can break them with abandon...

Just my opinion, of course, but I think it's fairly close to yours on that score.

Andy

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I disagree with the notion that film photography required discipline and digital photography does not. I used to film all my life and I always considered myself and many of my cohorts, colleagues, and co-conspirators as careful and conscientious workers who paid attention to technique and detail. When I made the transition to digital photography I did not suddenly become a sloppy shooter who works haphazardly and covers up all his blunders in PhotoShop.

The analog darkroom had just as many remedial methodologies for poorly crafted negatives as some of the current software programmes. There were intensifiers and reducers for under and overexposed and under and overdeveloped negatives- and many different kinds an formulas- proportional and disproportional. There were many contrast grades of papers and some tedious methods such as highlight and shadow masking. Point source, condenser, double condenser, difussion, semi, and cold light enlargers all had different effects and remedies for bad negatives.

At the enlarger, we could burn in, dodge, vignette, defuse, flash, and even tilt the easle for perspective adjustment. Darkroom technicians would rub in vacant highlights with concentrated developers and open shadows with bleach.

Ever read into a Photo-Lab-Index or some of the famous Kodak Darkroom data Books- theses had endless lists and glossaries of defects and fixes.

So...fo me, I never wanted to re-shoot all of my work in the darkroom with all these "shenanigans". I never considered that fun and it is bad econom as well. Even will all these remedies, there is nothing like a good print for a good negative.

I never want to spend endless hours on a computer fixing up bad files. If a few tweaks won't do it, I have to admonish myself and find out what ai did wrong.

The only differec between film an digital is that digital is more convenient. We don't have to wait for lengthy film processing to asses what we have accomplished and if the correction in technique is needed it can be acted upon immediately. we have more control of dynamic range, contrast, saturation, composition/cropping, exposure, and special effect than ever before. All that is missing, from the old darkroom, is the physical and manual work in certain cases. I do not miss the "aroma" of oxidizing Dektol, caustic fixers and toners that smell like rotting garbage any more than I miss the fumes for the exhaust pipes of buses in my native New York City or the smell of burned-out villages in you know where. Some of y'all are strange- likeing toxic odors!

Just because we can operate a slider rather than changing paper grades or chemistry or we don't have to "manufacture" a highlight or shadow mask in the lab, does not mean that we are sloppy or inept workers. It is convenient that we don't have to change film in the middle of a job or a roll to get different color palettes and we can easily switch to monochrome but we still have to know how and where to make these aesthetic decisions.

I too am not a fan of lenses that introduce bizarre distortions or special effects that simulate dirt, scratches, light leaks, and flare. Lord knows we knock ourselves out to avoid those things.

I am, however, a big fan of classic soft-focus portrait lenses. I have adapted some of them to current digital gear and have digitized a medium format camera to accommodate some of my old glass. I would simply adapt them to my DSLRs but the focal lengths are just too long and you need to accommodate the full field in order to take advantage of the zonal aberrations. I still occasionally go to film so that I can use these old lenses.

I am kind of a traditional shooter but perhaps I will change someday. Weegee (Arthur Fellig), was (melted)the King of realism in raw news photography- street photography- the crime scene- the underbelly of New York City- etc. In his retirement, he took to shooting the Mona Lisa through deformed Plexiglas to make her frown and did some cool darkroom "tricks" like the Dachshund with two heads and no tail. Look it up! We all need some comic relief.

Bipod

Remember, the 1940s was the era of the Sperry bombsight, the first radar, sonar
and nuclear weapons.

Compared to the Sperry bombsight or the periscope and targeting system on a submarine,
I wouldn't call any of those cameras "high tech". They are all very, very simple.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Well said. And it's kind of my point in one respect. Digital shooters are NOT necessarily any sloppier or less precise in their work. The digital process, as available to us today, is just more forgiving, in the same way that faster and multi-contrast papers and higher speed films were more forgiving back in their day. It's the photographer's intent and technique that make the difference, not the forgiveness available to him or her.

Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Of course - I was referring to high tech in terms of cameras. With the military using large format spooled film cameras for aerial work, and attempting to subsidize an "American Leica", they did not seem to put much effort into transferring high technology to the world of photography.

I would argue that HCB's Leica was a perfect example of "Latest and Greatest" gear back in the 1930s, as were the Hassies and Polaroids used by AA in the 40s and 50s. HCB stuck to his original rangefinders, although I expect he adopted the most recent models (though I don't really know this for sure, I think I've seen photos of him with an M series). AA continued to refer to using his great old glass on his view cameras, but also bought the latest multi-coated lenses in the trusty Compur shutter mount. And certainly the Hasselblad and Polaroid cameras he added to his arsenal in the post war years were state of the art in terms of cameras.

We're in basic agreement here, I think, that the core difference is the photographer who wants to try out technical advantages to accomplish a particular goal versus those who just adopt the LAG because they want to have the LAG. Intent is critical, at least in my humble opinion.

Andy

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

1930s and 40s? Well, I ain't THAT old- I wasn't born 'till 1944 but it is a small word.

My dad and two of my uncles were in the Navy during WW II. Dad and uncle Stan were both trained in RADAR service and installation. My dad learned his trade as a television technician with that training as a foundation For a few years before he oped his business, he remained with the Navy in a civilian capacity in a division called INSMAT- NY- Inspector of Naval Material New York. The government placed quality control people in the defense plants and contractors that made just about everything and anything for the military.

So...when was a kid, old enough to remember, Dad worked as the resident inspector of electronic materials at Sperry Gyroscope Corporation in New HydePark, Long Island, New York. When certain materials were rejected for various faults, they had to be scrapped, destroyed or otherwise disposed of. The stuff that was not classified and was just gonna end up in the garbage, was sometimes brought home for me to play with. I had mirrors, lenses, some metal parts and I never knew what the were parts of. The lenses made cool magnifying glasses and served as handy fire starters with the help of the sun. I did not set fire to insects- I actually liked cockroaches! The mirrors made good signaling devices. One of the metal frames had a glass reticle with crosshairs- it cou have been part of a bombsight?

For many years I passed the Sperry plan in my travels- it was right down the road from or the Long Island Jewish Hospital where my kid brother was born. They became Sperry-Rand in later years

So... I missed WWII and Korea but ended up in Viet Nam. A few long roll 10x10 cameras were still in use for some aerial reconnaissance work. We had special Ektachrome Aerographic film spooled for that system. The major work was done by very specialized cameras that were way above my pay grade but my crew got to install them in Stealth aircraft. They were made by Fairchild and were controlled by the pilots. Back in the 60s, this was the epitome of hush-hush high tech. Last I heard, all that stuff is obsolete and my entire MOS is gone. Nowadays all that recon is done via satellite and can be gathered by some guy or gal in an air-conditioned office without being shot at!
My un-official camera in Nam was a Leica M-3. I could stow it away in on my pockets with the 50mm, 35mm, and 90mm lenses with hardly a bulge. It took a lickin' and kept on tickin'!

HCB! Love his work but never met the man in person. I did, however, come close to some of his work. When I came home from the service and got back to work, I did not have a darkroom set up as yet and need someone to do my printing. There were color labs all over the place but I could not find a good custom black and white technician to save my life. My supplier told me about an older man- kind of a reclusive type you had a darkroom in his Manhattan. I went to see him and found he was doing prints for HCB for a big exhibition at a New York Gallery or Museum. There were HCB prings drying in the living room. I was in awe I gave him some negatives to print, he did a masterful job and for the life of me, I can't remember his name. I recall is telling me he emigrated from Hungary during the failed revolution in the late 50s.

He told me HCB never allowed any cropping but he did do dodgin, burning in some bleaching. The prints I saw were made on double weight Kodak Medalist Paper (F) Glossy but air-dried-matte without ferrotyping. That gave them a smooth luster finish without glare or texture and tended to maximize shadow detail.

Sorry for the off-topic post but how often do you see Sperry, bombsights, long-roll large format cameras, Leica, and HCB all in one post?

Bipod

And Boy Scouts aren't necessarily less disciplined than US Marines.
But usually they are. The BSA is a little more forgiving than the USMC...

Color slide film is a great teacher of exposure--not much latitude, not
forgiving.

Threre's nothing at all forgiving about a darkroom--and no one to blame
but oneself. Operating a darkroom requires discipline and order.

All digital cameras are embedded systms: computers in disguise, running
massively complex firware. Nobody really understands it except the guys who
wrote the code--if that. And it's proprietary--a trade secret.

How many digital photographers always shoot in manual focus, manual exposure
and RAW mode? Most digital cameras are impractical to use in manual focus, and
some do not even support it.

Then they haul their image file to the PC or Mac to massage it with softwae
that they do not begin to understand. Then print it on an inkjet printer
whose firmware they cannot begin to fathom.

In order to know what you are doing, you have to know what you are
doing -- not just which buttons to push in what order.

If a computer controls the focus and a computer controls the exposure,
and a computer dresses up the .jpg image, then it's the photographer and
the person holding it is just a.....bipod.

Exactly how does the 53-point AF work? Or matrix metering? "I dunno.
I jus' pusha the button, it doesa the resta."

But you know, pilots can fly without the autopilot. On older aircraft,
they can fly with the master switch turned off (no electricity). They can
even glide without the engine stopped and the prop feathered. That will
usually get you down alive.

Of course, software can control an airplane....the 737 Max 8 for example.
It's like a modern digital camera....which is why that Lion Air crew were
frantically reading the manual seconds before they made a hole in the ocean.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

No disagreement that this is the way most "modern" photographers look at their craft. I have to admit that I've become a big fan of autofocus in digital world, but I pay attention to my exposure choices, whether or not I'm shooting full manual or not. There was no better tool for learning exposure and dynamic range than Kodachrome (25 speed, not the more forgiving 64 in my film days) and certainly a majority of today's photographers would be a mess if they had to use transparency films from that era.

I'm never really "satisfied" with my work - it was so in film days and is true today no matter what digital or film I'm shooting. The only thing that I disagree with you on is that I think there are a lot more disciplined shooters out there today, even in digital world, than I expect you do. There have always been lots of snapshooters out there, and there always will be. And (so-called) "serious" photographers will still try to perfect their craft and take advantage of all the "LAG" tools and innovations they can. To me it's all about intent and motivation.

Work hard. Don't cop out with tech and post processing. Learn exposure. Learn how to translate your "vision" into an image. Work hard.

Oh, and work hard....

Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I love it! I'm younger than you are, by only eight years though. For all of my life I've been obsessed with both World War II and photography. I printed the same way that HCB did, but I couldn't hold his tripod.

I once bought a part of a Sperry bombsight unit as a keepsake - kept it on my desk for many years. I still have some "tech" gear from the era in my office, including a plotting board and flight "computer". I also had a Keystone F-8 aerial camera, the Kodak Brownie of aerial cameras! 7 inch wide roll film and a max shutter speed of 1/400. Wish I still had it today, but it helped finance my first Rolleiflex, so I suppose it was worth it.

https://www.keh.com/blog/keystone-f-8-aerial-camera/

My interests in technology have always been focused on the last gasp iterations of older technology. Fountain pens, multi-stage steam locomotives, piston-engine warbirds, etc. That's why these particular items have always held such fascination for me.

Best,

Andy

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Some years ago, Nikon came out with a digital camera that was rather unsophisticated. It had f/stops engraved on the lens adjustment ring, a shutter speed selection dial atop the body just like on the "F" series SLRs. You could shut off the AF and focus manually or even scale focus if you pleased and the only thing missing was the film! The stopped producing that model- I guess by popular "un-demand"!

Because of business demands, I had to transition to digital photography. I use my Canon DSLRs in manual mode, I don't bother with matrix focus points. My focus is center weighted as well as the metering system and I can focus as I please, selective focus, use hyperfocal methods- DOF- wahtever, or if I am shooting action, I can switch to full AF. All that's missing is the film.

I can still use my handheld meters, manual flas gear and ignore all of thhs TTL command stuff.i must admit that sometimes it take more work to bypass some of the shenanigans the built in camera to get the effects I want the if the camer had none of those features.

You have to realize that so many of the folks that are into photography nowadays came to it by way of computer technologies. Cameras, lenses and photography are no more than computer peripherals to some folks. Still there are some of us who came to computers by way of photography and treat them are utilitarian tools that we need to master and operate in order to facilitate our work- not a way of life.

Early on, digital photography had less latitude than old Kodachrome. Folks that were used to the immense latitude of many black and white and color negative films and never had to deal with transparency materials ran into culture shock in digital.

I do miss some of the "clinical" aspects of darkroom operation, but even if I wanted to continue on with it, the industry took away most on my materials. Most of the finer papers, most of the films are gone along with the accompanying chemistry. Even routine supplies like like replacement enlarger lamps and parts became rarities and special orders. Commercial clients want electronic media and they want everything "yesterday".

So...all I can do is use what good habits I developed in the olden days and try to apply them to the present and avoid developing sloppy careless habits brought about by too much automation.

Thank goodness we are not in the aviation business or that we are not medical professionals. I sometimes fear that all the high tech is gonna kill people and as you alluded to, it did just that last week. Remember when a doctor coud look at you tongue and poke around and figure out how to treat you? Nowadays your cause of death coud be a misdiagnosis due to a glitch in the digital x-ray machine or the robot in the OR!

Wasn't it old George Eastman that said- "you push the button and we do the rest"? The poor geezer may be spinning in his grave!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yaass! Very well put.

Some of the younger Hoggers may miss the point, but this is how I look at "new' tech.

Andy