3 ms·

Here's how I know I'm old: that first photograph, of the reflex cameras on a shelf, sent a chill up my spine. All that beautiful hardware. Think of holding on

Here's how I know I'm old: that first photograph, of the reflex cameras on a shelf, sent a chill up my spine. All that beautiful hardware. Think of holding one in your hand. Think of the images they have taken, or may one day take. A shelf of digital cameras is not something my eyes would linger upon, any more than a shelf of mason jars. Sure, they can take great pictures. Heck, mobile phones can take great pictures, too. But if someone says "Let me show you a few of the photos I took on vacation", it offers a chance to sit on the couch with someone and share a moment. As for "Let me scroll my phone through the 500 photos I took on vacation" ... not so much. For context, I've taken quite a few photographs, developing most of them myself. The whole process was intriguing, from choosing a lense and a filter, to framing the photos and choosing exposure settings, to developing the film, to printing a contact sheet, to deciding on the 2 or 3 images on the roll that I wanted to print on paper. The limitations at every stage and the labour involved were part of the appeal. And when, every once in a while, a great photograph came from the experience, it was a little bit of magic. But, again, I'm old. I guess those in the digital age would list reasons why that is fun and rewarding.

cjk2 2y ago
I think this is a silent constraining factor of photography. You used to have to do most of the work before you hit the shutter because every shot was expensive both in cash and time. Now you can fire it like a machine gun and dredge through the crap later. This added to the mental investment in the process and the mental investment in the device itself as you felt more connected and decisive. You can and I do run my digital camera within these rails artificially. It's more fun! (Edit: just checked my mirrorless - it's at 1875 shutter activations and it has been around the world at least once)
- eszed 2y ago
  It is and it isn't. I have a friend who was a professional (wildlife, among other things) photographer in the days of manual cameras. He carried multiple camera bodies, and _very_ expensive glass, but his real secret to getting the National Geographic Shot (which he had done, for real; as in printed in the magazine, back when that mattered) was to shoot a lot of film. And by a lot, I mean a lot. Like, routinely more than 1k frames a day. Which is to say, whilst those constraints were / are real, they are mostly to do with money, and those who weren't constrained by that got the best results.
  - cjk2 2y ago
    Of course it depends on the subject matter. Wildlife and sports are exceptional cases. I recently fucked up a nice shot of a dragonfly because I wasn't machine gunning it (I have a Nikon Z6-ii which can really hammer the frames out but I don't use it like that). But most of the good shots I take are good because I put time into them. Or did a lot of research first. Or went and stood in front of interesting stuff.
    - eszed 2y ago
      That's fair. I really don't have an eye for photography - nor, sorry, enough interest in it to spend the time to learn more. I do know that the quality of the photos I've taken, on both my phone camera and the decade or so old DSLR we keep in the closet, took a quantum leap in quality once I stopped thinking about composition (or any of the other things I know exist but aren't any good at!) and just started spamming the shutter. It's definitely a lucky-than-good thing, but damn if it doesn't work. (I even got an honest-to-god National Geographic Shot sticking my off-hand out the window and awkwardly squeezing the shutter button as we drove by.) I admire your attention to craft and detail, and am glad it gives you so much pleasure. My great-grandfather was a keen amateur photographer, and I've inherited some beautiful photos that he shot (and printed) 100 or more years ago: one's within view of my desk right now. I hope your descendants appreciate the artifacts you create as much as I do his.
- leobg 2y ago
  That’s impressive. I’m sure I’ve done this many shutter clicks in one day.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jacobolus 2y ago
TLRs are really fun to shoot. You can also understand completely how they work just by opening the back and looking with your eyes.
- macintux 2y ago
  When I got back into film photography, the first camera I bought was a Yashica TLR. Wonderful camera, and I love the stability that a waist-level viewfinder + neck strap give me.

cjk2 2y ago

I think this is a silent constraining factor of photography. You used to have to do most of the work before you hit the shutter because every shot was expensive both in cash and time. Now you can fire it like a machine gun and dredge through the crap later. This added to the mental investment in the process and the mental investment in the device itself as you felt more connected and decisive. You can and I do run my digital camera within these rails artificially. It's more fun! (Edit: just checked my mirrorless - it's at 1875 shutter activations and it has been around the world at least once)

eszed 2y ago
It is and it isn't. I have a friend who was a professional (wildlife, among other things) photographer in the days of manual cameras. He carried multiple camera bodies, and _very_ expensive glass, but his real secret to getting the National Geographic Shot (which he had done, for real; as in printed in the magazine, back when that mattered) was to shoot a lot of film. And by a lot, I mean a lot. Like, routinely more than 1k frames a day. Which is to say, whilst those constraints were / are real, they are mostly to do with money, and those who weren't constrained by that got the best results.
- cjk2 2y ago
  Of course it depends on the subject matter. Wildlife and sports are exceptional cases. I recently fucked up a nice shot of a dragonfly because I wasn't machine gunning it (I have a Nikon Z6-ii which can really hammer the frames out but I don't use it like that). But most of the good shots I take are good because I put time into them. Or did a lot of research first. Or went and stood in front of interesting stuff.
  - eszed 2y ago
    That's fair. I really don't have an eye for photography - nor, sorry, enough interest in it to spend the time to learn more. I do know that the quality of the photos I've taken, on both my phone camera and the decade or so old DSLR we keep in the closet, took a quantum leap in quality once I stopped thinking about composition (or any of the other things I know exist but aren't any good at!) and just started spamming the shutter. It's definitely a lucky-than-good thing, but damn if it doesn't work. (I even got an honest-to-god National Geographic Shot sticking my off-hand out the window and awkwardly squeezing the shutter button as we drove by.) I admire your attention to craft and detail, and am glad it gives you so much pleasure. My great-grandfather was a keen amateur photographer, and I've inherited some beautiful photos that he shot (and printed) 100 or more years ago: one's within view of my desk right now. I hope your descendants appreciate the artifacts you create as much as I do his.
leobg 2y ago
That’s impressive. I’m sure I’ve done this many shutter clicks in one day.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jacobolus 2y ago

TLRs are really fun to shoot. You can also understand completely how they work just by opening the back and looking with your eyes.

macintux 2y ago
When I got back into film photography, the first camera I bought was a Yashica TLR. Wonderful camera, and I love the stability that a waist-level viewfinder + neck strap give me.