How has your approach to photography changed over the years?

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I mentioned in "Why take photographs" my photographic journey started about 45 years ago. My parents bought me a Yashica rangefinder camera which I used to take out onto the hills to record trips and capture landscape images. For my 18th birthday they bought me an Asahi Pentax SV with a 50mm 1.8 lens and with this I continued in the same mode as previously but started to use Kodachrome II 12asa and at this time I started to do my own B&W processing. Eventually I gave up processing and concentrated on my passion for climbing and mountain photography using colour reversal only and introducing Agfa CT18 50asa for European Alpine work and Kodachrome II 25asa for the UK.

 

Since then I have had various cameras, mainly Nikon, including a Nikon F- F2- F3hp and latterly an FM2n. I have never, however fully utilised them as system cameras as I have not bought additional lenses. In the 80's I bought, and experimented with a Leica IIIf which very much appealed because of it's compactness and build quality but soon reverted back to an SLR, briefly trying an Leica R3-MOT with a 50mm Summicron R. I have had Leitz Pradovit projectors for years and was always blown away by the lens qualities of the Colourplan lenses.

 

Last year I was seriously considering giving up photography altogether when I decided to trade in my underused FM2n for a Leica rangefinder camera. Doing this has re ignited my interest caused me to diversify my photographic approach. This year, as a for-instance I have started to do my own B&W processing again and I am drawn to different genres of the art of photography, interestingly, solely B&W. In the future I would very much like to explore art nude as a genre. I did some "art nude" and fashion shoots in the late 70's but quite frankly they were a little smutty and really did not show the respect the models deserved.

 

As far as publishing is concerned, I have shown my work in the past, mainly Cibachrome prints and colour slide lectures, but I have no desire to do this in the future albeit, I am always happy to share results with those I work with in print form.

 

I now have a couple of rangefinder bodies and 3 lenses so it could be argued that at the tender age of 61 I now have what might be classed as a system and along with some Kodachrome in the fridge for when the fancy takes me and B&W film stock the future looks very promising.

[andybarton]

My approach to photography hasn't changed much in the 35 years that I have been doing it.

 

For a while, when my children were growing up, other things had to take priority, but I have always been fairly serious about what I do with it.

 

I don't think my "style", if indeed I have one, has changed very much over the years. This must mean that I haven't learned very much, but I only have myself to please, so frankly, that's fine with me. I have never taken any nudes, smutty or otherwise

 

Using modern tools such as Photoshop, rather than the darkroom, has made producing prints so much easier than it ever was, but I do still keep talking about building a new darkroom at the back of the garage...

[klaush]

My approach to photography has changed in the last four years as this is the time of my change to digital photography. Yes, I still keep my beloved darkroom, but - to be honest - it was replaced more or less by PS. But I did not stop B&W though colour lost its difficulties. So my approach hast changed in techniques, where I enlarged in former days I prefer PC controlled printing now.

 

Klaush

[mann61]

Hi all,

Over the years i have honed my skill after taken on some influences.My interest stated when i was a child of 16/17 years old when i repaired canon and othe cameras for a living.Back then it was all SLRs and the rangefinders were consigned to the bin.It was in the early 60s before Blow Up but at the time of Bailey.My shots were prosaic:street scenes of London and still life arrangements,but i was only a teenager.

Later i discovered FSU rangefinder cameras and started becoming more discreet a street photographer.

That was the late 70s.

When i could afford it i moved on to using a Contax G2 for street work around Mayfair.This still is my camera for street work 'though there are no streets where i live.

A year later i started using an R8 with 50mm and 35-70.Slower shot but perfect detail.I use slide and fomapan b/w which i develop myself.

My projects are rural based-my attempted a Revillious,mainly because i live in southern France and it is not so aware of its self.The trouble is by taking a camera to a Repas de chasse you distance yourself from the people and make them feel that it is anachronistic.But i will continue with my G2s and R8s taking snaps in rural France.Problems promblems problems eh!

DM

[andybarton]

Ravilious has changed the way that I do things too, that's true.

[mann61]

Well it is really an option that is open to me in rural France.All the people around me use digital and that's fine.But Ravilliuous used slow mo and i can do that.So cheap film-Fomapan from Silverprint fits the bill.The R8 or G2 in the countryside is fine.E6 is a bit more tricky,expensive and 2 week turn around time.I scan the good negs and slides via Nikon Coolscan V using their software.

The point is it is a slow life out here and i don't want to waste film;I'm only over in London a few times a year,

If push came to shove and digital was the only medium i'd give up:b/w photography has been with us before i was born and to move to digital is something else for a 60 year old!

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two events in the late 90's transformed me from a 6-10 roll a year man with an auto everything SLR and a 28-200mm zoom lens into something more wasteful. I bought a Leica IIIC, got a Nikon film scanner, and started to develop and scan my b&w film. Is that 3 things? The IIIC was quickly replaced with an M2 and 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux. I can remember asking Ffordes why some Summiluxes were much cheaper than others - I was naive in those days.

 

The rest has been an eventful and enjoyable journey.

[NZDavid]

Cameras: Rangefinder (Oly 35RC), SLR (OM2, OM40), rangefinder (Leica) rediscovered, plus assorted compacts.

Processing: From DIY B+W, to color slides and negs, digital, color slides and occasional negs, plus computer and scanning.

Pictures: First mostly people, then added travel, landscapes, buildings.

[Michael Hiles]

This is an interesting thread. My interest started in the mid 1960s when I was a late teenager. I spent time and effort searching for the optimum film and developer, and the optimum aperture to get the best from my lenses. I learned a few things, but all that took far to much time and attention.

 

In 1980 I attended a 6-day workshop given Fred Picker. His focus was large format work, and he was an acolyte of Ansel Adams. I learned what a good print looks like, and how to control my equipment and material. Since then, I have stuck with one technical approach, and ignored more physics and chemistry. I have no interest in whether the Summicron XX is sharper than the Summilux YY or the Elmarit ZZ. My equipment (two M cameras, first bought about 1966 and still my most important camera, and six old-ish best-of-class lenses) produces images I like. The rest is a waste of my time. Others disagree, and that’s fine.

 

In parallel, my eye has matured. I have looked at the pictures of many people – the famous and obscure – and been influenced particularly by those pictures that could not be made except by a small and agile camera. I have come to realize that the challenge is always where to point the camera.

 

I am uninterested in digital photography as a capture medium. My wife’s Nikon point-and-shoot is perfect for Christmas and family gatherings. And the evidence of this forum is that digital cameras are not as reliable and trouble-free as my two film Ms.

 

In my experience, there is no substitute for a top quality silver-based print, tastefully mounted, matted and framed. I use my darkroom for perhaps 3-5 11x14 prints per year, which are then framed and hung, some as gifts. I have a limit to my wall space and I see no point in filling drawers with pictures that will never be seen. I recently looked at some of my Cibachromes made from Kodachromes – and this approach also seems to me to be unsurpassed. I may pick it up again.

 

I spent the last 3 years scanning and cataloguing by approximately 10,000 negatives and slides. I can now find anything (and the original) in 15 seconds – a major boon. I also use Photoshop Elements to create a recipe that I can take into the darkroom, thus minimizing testing down dead ends. Saves time and money, and allows for lots of “what if” and experimentation.

 

And I talk more than I used to.

[ujjwaldey8165]

Michael

 

That was a very interesting post. Very helpful for someone who is rather not very experienced in photography.

 

You said : I have stuck with one technical approach

 

Could you please elaborate on the approach. It might be useful for some of us beginners; who invariably get very confused with all the information overload.

 

As an aside; I got my first B/W print today ( 6X4.5) taken on a Bronica. Done in Jessops. I have set the exposure by measuring the values on a G1 and transferring them onto the Bronica. The prints came out rather washed out ; seems it was a bit over exposed. I wonder whether there is thumb rule of how the exposure should be taken for a B/W; and whether its better to underexpose by a 0.5 to 1 stop compared to a colour film.

( I think it would not be a good form to post pics from a Bronica on this forum)

[cocker]

Interesting question and co-incidentally I have been scanning some negatives from 1988. What struck me was how much I photographed certain themes and still do. So the first of these is from 1988 (taken with a Nikon FM2 and the second is from 2008 taken with an M8.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Michael Hiles]

8165

 

I first learned to determine the actual speed of the film. Film speed is not always what the box says. The classic test is to determine what ASA produces a negative with a density of 0.1 more than the film base when the film is exposed four stops less than the meter indication (this is zone 1 and represents the darkest area that still has a little detail. Get this right and you will always have usable negatives with shadow detail. The ASA varies of course by film, and by developer (and very occasionally camera). Do this and you will not be asking questions or msking guesses about exposure. You can do it for silver B&W films, for chromogenic B&W films (XP2, 400CN) and colour negative film. A similar approach works for slide film.

 

I also settled on one film. I used Kodak Panatomic-X since the Eisenhower administration. I liked it – it was sharp and produced fairly smooth tones. It is now discontinued. When Ilford announced XP1 in the 1970s (a B&W film based on colour negative technology) I tried it and loved it. XP1 and its successors (XP2 Super) are very sharp, very fine grained, and it produces the smoothest middle grays I know. 35mm looks like 120 roll film results. I use it almost exclusively (I will use its equivalent Kodak 400CN if I run out and cannot get XP2). Notwithstanding the box, it is a 200 ASA film according to the above test. BTW – this is not an opinion, it is a fact based on an unambiguous and rigorous test. So I have stopped thinking about B&W film and stopped listening to opinions, speculation and untested rumour – all I do is load XP2, set my meter to 200 and shoot. Every time, the negatives are consistent and best quality for printing.

 

I also decided what I want to produce. In my case it is a few exhibition quality prints per year, matted and framed for the wall. Absolute maximum size 16x24 inches. 97% are 11x14, a few 7x11 (half of an 11x14 piece of paper). For these sizes XP2 is perfect. The prints are outstanding. If I were doing 40x60 inch prints I might need very slow film. But I decided this was ridiculous – I have no walls that require a picture that big, and I do not get much satisfaction from huge prints that retain detail and sharpness when enlarged 50x. So my material is chosen to do what I want and produce a result I like. And I know what that is. I also know that I am not much interested in opinions that judge my pictures by what lens and film I used.

 

I shoot B&W about 95% of the time. The rare colour roll is always (99%) Kodachrome. I know all its problems – Kodak doesn’t really support it, processing in only one place in the world, slow turn around. For me – so what. It still produces the best colour result I have ever seen. Printed on Ilfochrome (was Cibachrome), no one has ever shown me anything to touch it. So for colour all I do is load a roll of Kodachrome, set my meter to 64 ASA (this is correct), and shoot.

 

The details above are my personal approach. But while I describe my details, I do not recommend specifics – that’s up to you. I strongly recommend making some decision about what you want to do, do your tests, and then get on with figuring out where to point your camera. Physics and chemistry are fine – they support making pictures, but they are not the point.

 

If you have got to this point, thanks for reading. But you asked.

[Guest maddoc2003jp]

8165

 

The details above are my personal approach. But while I describe my details, I do not recommend specifics – that’s up to you. I strongly recommend making some decision about what you want to do, do your tests, and then get on with figuring out where to point your camera. Physics and chemistry are fine – they support making pictures, but they are not the point.

 

If you have got to this point, thanks for reading. But you asked.

 

For me this is the best advice I have read since quite a time, especially the last sentence.

 

I have started taking photos in the 70s when I was a teenager. At first with some cheap SLR and even cheaper zoom lenses and later when I could afford it, with a Nikon FM, F3HP and 4 prime lenses. That was my setup until 6 years ago. At this point I went to Japan to start a new job, was very limited with luggage and fascinated by small digital P&S to record my daily life in a simple way and bought a Nikon Coolpix 5400.

 

I found the P&S soon very limiting, especially the shutter lag. At that time the new D70 was announced and I was one of the first to get this DSLR. A nice camera but meanwhile I felt the urge to use my old Nikon MF lenses again and switched to a Nikon D1x. Later added two zoom lenses and was a happy camper for some time. During this time I started more and more to take candid photos in the street but the D1x wasn't the right tool for it.

 

Still in "digital mood" I discovered the Epson R-D1s, my first rangefinder camera. A great experience for me. A small unobtrusive camera with small but top quality lenses ideal for street and ambient light photography. Since I know owned 3 RF lenses, one of them the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH, I decided to realize my dream of high-school times and bought a silver-chrome Leica M6 and started developing BW myself again.

 

Three month later, I sold all my digital stuff (D1x, Epson R-D1s) and concentrated on using film. Later I added a Rolleiflex 3.5E and a Hasselblad C/M 500 with the Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 T* lens.

 

Since I take 90% of my photos at night after work and on my way home, I found that the Leicas with some fast glass work best for me. I use the Rolleiflex and Hasselblad occasionally for some portraits or landscape.

[Photoskeptic]

My first camera was a Tower 6 x 6 purchased in 1960 or 1961. Exact time has a way of getting lost these days Since then I have owned a variety of cameras and lenses. I would say what has changed is a more analytical approach to my photography and the ability to recognize that certain days and light are not capable of producing the conditions I require for the type of image to which I aspire.

[ujjwaldey8165]

Michael

 

Thanks for your very informative post. I did read till the end. Obviously you have been to where I can only hope to reach.The best part is your tips are based on experience; and not theory only.

 

Would you (or anyone else) mind giving a few pointers to a novice like me in B/W photography

 

1. I like your idea of a single type of film. So the Q: does Kodak CN 400 also a 200 asa film? or do I set it to 400 ( this is available cheap in Uk; so I would like to use it)

 

2. How do I set the exposure in B/W. 1. I can use a camera ( say G1); point at the frame I want to take and transfer the reading to B/W). i.e do how I do for colour; or

 

get the reading off the highlight I want to get details in; and stop up 2; or

 

get the reading off the dark which I want to have the details and stop down 2; or

 

are there any such other rule of thumb?

 

For B/w is it worthwhile buying a lightmeter; or is the light meter of my G1/Cl enough?

 

My biggest issue right now is I am starting off in B/W and reading exposure seems different than the way I treat colour. I am learning; and willcontinue to do so; but any pointer from experience will be ever so gratefully received.

 

Ujjwal

[ujjwaldey8165]

Hi Cocker

 

I can see the difference in the 2 photographs; but cant make out what you did different. Could you please tell me; so that I can experiment

[Michael Hiles]

Hi Ujjwal,

 

Thanks for reading and asking questions.

 

My film speed test (with my meter and cameras) tells me that Kodak 400CN should be exposed for 200 ASA to get the best negatives with good shadow details. With your equipment it may be different, but if both our shutters are accurate and our metering systems are properly calibrated, you will likely find the same. Small differences do not matter but 1 whole stop (400 vs 200) is definitely noticeable.

 

I am not sure how a G1 operates. If it has automatic exposure and you can set the ASA, then you just do that. If it reads the bar code on the film cassette to determine the ASA, then perhaps there is some adjustment you can make to “over expose” by 1 stop – which is the same as exposing for 200 vs 400 ASA.

 

Regarding independent light meters, I need one because my cameras have no meters built in. But most fairly modern camera with built in meters work fine. In the occasional odd situation they can be fooled. A small white cat in an almost black room will probably fool the camera – it probably tries to take averages and assumes that the scene is an average mixture from blacks to whites, on average a middle grey, and it gets the exposure wrong. But these cases are not common for most of us. And most people have cameras with built in meters (M5 and later) and they are very happy. If you buy an M2/3/4, then you should have an independent meter, unless your guesses are very well informed and experienced.

 

Regarding actual exposure readings, with an automatic camera just point the camera so that the part of the frame that corresponds to the meter gets an average part of the picture to measure, and you will be almost always fine. With a hand held meter or a spot meter it can get a bit more sophisticated, but mostly that stuff can be ignored.

 

And in my experience, I do the same in colour as in B&W.

[mann61]

Do you mean the Contax G1 or some other camera?

DM

[ujjwaldey8165]

Thanks Michael and Mann

 

Yes, its Contax G1 ( but that was just an example; I also use a CL or a Contax SLR for 35 mm, or a Rollei 35. I do collect camera as well; I am fascinated by the mechanism. But that offcourse does not make me a good photographer. ).

 

But the 120 mm Bronica does not have a meter ( so I have to either get a Prism with a meter, or buy a light meter, or use a small camera in lieu of a light meter. )

 

As I said before, I took my first B/W roll ( 120 on a Bronica) and got them back couple of days back. The results are quite different to what I was expecting. Difficult to explain; but maybe I dont very well understand how to see a scene in monochrome, having used colour always. Like I said, it seemed a bit overexposed in some frames; and under exposed in others.I was wondering if there is a prictical trick on metering; like one should meter and then adjust the exposure etc. Or may I just need to learn looking at a scene in monochrome. Like the sky is completely washed out, which is almost never the case in a colour ( at least not when I am consciously including it in the frame), but again that may be particular to B/W. Also , on portrait, one came out better than what ||I would get in colour ( and the light was evenly on the whole face) while on another, the sun light was on half the face; and the contrast was too high, making the face split into two; something that would not happen in colour ( I am not explaining too well, am I?)

 

I could scan a photo or two and post it up for suggestions, but I am wary that they not being from a Leica could be against the forum rules.

 

So really; from your experience; and do and dont for a beginner on B/W would be wonderful. I am also reading up on some books; but with the advent of digital, every book I see begins and ends with photoshop.

 

Thanks for the help

 

P.S : G1 reads barcode; but I can stop up or down to take care of that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Michael Hiles]

Hi Ujjwal,

 

It is difficult to comment in a useful way. You do not say what film and processing you are using. The problems you describe could be caused by a variety of things - incorrect exposure and/or development times... If you have success with colour film, you should be able to do the same with B&W. There is no essential difference.

 

It sounds as if you are not using a meter with your Bronica. There are some tricks that will get you close, but there is no real substitute for measuring the light. Others my disagree, but my best quality guesses are usually limited to outdoors in normal light.