4 ms·

If you look at the picture in the header, you can see that she's using a VISOFLEX in a warzone (a Visoflex is a very bulky and finnicky accessory for a Leica th

If you look at the picture in the header, you can see that she's using a VISOFLEX in a warzone (a Visoflex is a very bulky and finnicky accessory for a Leica that turns it into a reflex camera), I wonder how that came to look like a good idea.

ubermonkey 8y ago
My experience with artists and craftsmen of all stripes is that, once they find a tool or combination of tools that resonate with them, and that with which they feel they can do better work than with alternatives, they will go to great lengths to continue using the platform regardless of inconvenience or other drawbacks. I have known, for example, .NET developers that worked in emacs instead of Visual Studio, which is something I have a hard time understanding, but there was no arguing with his results even if his toolchain was odd and finicky. In any case, it's a damn shame she's not around to ask. Photography was VERY different in the 60s.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  After doing more photography I have developed a lot of respect for that attitude. Their focus is on the results whereas I (and I believe a lot of developers) am often more focused on cool tools and always need new stuff to stay interested. A lot of the best photographers I know have pretty old cameras because they think about taking pictures and not reading equipment reviews.
  - ubermonkey 8y ago
    The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. We're back at a stasis point, though. My 6- or 7-year-old Olympus still takes great pix; I'm not leaving a lot on the table with it. Any full-frame DSLR is even better, and they've been around for even longer. Today's high-tech cameras are definitely more susceptible to life-ending obsolescence than the mechanical cameras of yore, but I think we'll see folks use a given body much longer now than we did 5 years ago.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Especially for photographs that are mostly about getting an image rather than wringing the last piece of technical quality out of a scene, DSLRs have pretty much approached good enough. Sensitivity is still improving a bit, as is autofocus, but I'm at the point now where the gear I have is at the point where a new camera isn't going to really improve on my enjoyment, quality of photograph, etc. There's still miniaturization going on. My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1. But as long as I'm willing to lug a full-frame DSLR around, there isn't a lot I feel I'm lacking even though it's 4+ years old at this point.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        "My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1." There is definitely still a lot of movement in mirrorless but judging from the latest releases they will plateau in a few years too. It looks like mirrorless will soon reach the point where their AF is as good or better as the best DSLRs.
    - rangibaby 8y ago
      > The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. By ten years ago the most dramatic gains had already been had. Nikon D3S (2009!) still sells for $1,000+ where I live (Japan). To me that is way past "obsolete curiosity" pricing, and more in the zone of "I can still use this for work". It was only last year that Nikon released a camera approaching double the resolution of the D3 (12MP), the D850 (45MP).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chrisdhoover 8y ago
I saw a shoe mounted meter. I didn’t see a visoflex
- frostburg 8y ago
  You can see a Leicameter in a later picture, the visoflex is here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/cultureexploration/2018/08/dickey-chapelle/22-dickey-chapelle.adapt.1900.1.ImmersiveLeadHorizontal.jpg https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/cultureexplor...
rangibaby 8y ago
She took pics in WWII (when for all practical purposes "real" SLRs didn't exist yet), so I guess it was what she was used to

ubermonkey 8y ago

My experience with artists and craftsmen of all stripes is that, once they find a tool or combination of tools that resonate with them, and that with which they feel they can do better work than with alternatives, they will go to great lengths to continue using the platform regardless of inconvenience or other drawbacks. I have known, for example, .NET developers that worked in emacs instead of Visual Studio, which is something I have a hard time understanding, but there was no arguing with his results even if his toolchain was odd and finicky. In any case, it's a damn shame she's not around to ask. Photography was VERY different in the 60s.

maxxxxx 8y ago
After doing more photography I have developed a lot of respect for that attitude. Their focus is on the results whereas I (and I believe a lot of developers) am often more focused on cool tools and always need new stuff to stay interested. A lot of the best photographers I know have pretty old cameras because they think about taking pictures and not reading equipment reviews.
- ubermonkey 8y ago
  The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. We're back at a stasis point, though. My 6- or 7-year-old Olympus still takes great pix; I'm not leaving a lot on the table with it. Any full-frame DSLR is even better, and they've been around for even longer. Today's high-tech cameras are definitely more susceptible to life-ending obsolescence than the mechanical cameras of yore, but I think we'll see folks use a given body much longer now than we did 5 years ago.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Especially for photographs that are mostly about getting an image rather than wringing the last piece of technical quality out of a scene, DSLRs have pretty much approached good enough. Sensitivity is still improving a bit, as is autofocus, but I'm at the point now where the gear I have is at the point where a new camera isn't going to really improve on my enjoyment, quality of photograph, etc. There's still miniaturization going on. My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1. But as long as I'm willing to lug a full-frame DSLR around, there isn't a lot I feel I'm lacking even though it's 4+ years old at this point.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      "My Fujifilm X-E3 was a big improvement over the X-E1." There is definitely still a lot of movement in mirrorless but judging from the latest releases they will plateau in a few years too. It looks like mirrorless will soon reach the point where their AF is as good or better as the best DSLRs.
  - rangibaby 8y ago
    > The recent (~ 10 years) era has also made lots of folks think of photography as fast-moving, because pro-level digital happened and then improved SO FAST that there was an upgrade treadmill where none really existed before. By ten years ago the most dramatic gains had already been had. Nikon D3S (2009!) still sells for $1,000+ where I live (Japan). To me that is way past "obsolete curiosity" pricing, and more in the zone of "I can still use this for work". It was only last year that Nikon released a camera approaching double the resolution of the D3 (12MP), the D850 (45MP).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

chrisdhoover 8y ago

I saw a shoe mounted meter. I didn’t see a visoflex

frostburg 8y ago
You can see a Leicameter in a later picture, the visoflex is here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/cultureexploration/2018/08/dickey-chapelle/22-dickey-chapelle.adapt.1900.1.ImmersiveLeadHorizontal.jpg https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/cultureexplor...

rangibaby 8y ago

She took pics in WWII (when for all practical purposes "real" SLRs didn't exist yet), so I guess it was what she was used to