I’ve made a few additions to my ever neglected site.

I decided that rough is better than none, so I posted a preliminary write up of the Hasselblad 2000 FCW. Fortunately, I can cut and paste much of that V body’s review into other pages, so hopfully it will speed up the 500 ELX and 500 C(/M) reviews.

Also, I found I tend to repeat the same damn pearls of wisdom in one too many conversations, so I figured I’d make a running list and expand on each one of them in a blog post. I don’t think there is any particular order for them, but we’ll see. It might even get me to write more.

Again, we’ll see.

There oughta be a word to describe a word which results in the exact opposite response than it should at first glance. Stripped screws are not as fun as they sound. Actually, one of my least favorite things.

Cool article (based on the abstract and source – I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet).  Another benefit to being smarter and more technical that 95% of photographers is to realize how abjectly dumb you are and how relevant some of those unknowns (and unknown unknowns) are… which means you go out and read the work of really smart people.

I will say this again-

There is no “too technical,” only “not artistic enough.”

Finally scored a Fuji GL690.  I really like 6×9.  Of course, this means I have to add another to my list of – erm, not reviews – usage notes (?) to write.  Next up, Mamiya Universal.  Which is a 6×9.  Or a 3×4.  Or pretty much whatever you want.  It’s Universal.

A bit of fun in LEGO blocks. Old, but I wanted the original site (I hope it is) to get the link.

Ok, this just got blurted out in my write up of the Koni Omega Rapid M, but it grew to the point that it ruins the flow of that text. Also, I’d like to keep the format comparable between the “reviews” and not distinguish it from the other camera/system writeups. So -unsnip- here be pasted my problem with film photography retronyms:

I have a penchant for asides, but given the writeups ahead of me, I have to get this out now.  I may have even written a line or two about it before. Don’t care.  It bears repeating. 

Analog photography.  Analogue Photography.  Analog/ue Film Photography.  Spare me.  First of all, cameras are pretty much the same.  Yeah, there are sciencey differences at the image plane which actually have ramifications in the act of photography, but spare me.  Light doesn’t come in digital or analog.  I mean, analog film photography – I get it, analog corresponds to the “photo-” while “film” is obviously the -graphy, so analog film photography treats light as a wave only; it must be that photons are for digital pixel geeks only.  Right.

I suppose if you were doing “analog” photography where you used both film and glass plate, you’d have a point.  And I’d shut up.  And I’d apologize.  And I’d tell you to keep on rockin’ in the free world.

You’re not doing glass plate work.

A friend once described them as the same but different – digital is dry and film is wet photography.  I assure you, this man is well aware of wet plate photography and was making a poiginant historical reference.  If you do wet plate, please don’t be offended.  We love you and your tintypes.  No one is trying to steal your name.  I still haven’t had the chance, but I promise, as soon as budget and space allows.

But please, if you don’t know what a dark slide is, what ortho film is, what shoulder and toe has to do with any of this – I’m glad you’re interested.  Please keep learning.  I hope your interest can keep the remaining film stocks alive (Astia, please don’t go).  But know that it’s nothing special to shoot film, especially roll film.  Enjoy it, learn it.  But analogue film photography sounds like you’re trying to hammer home how different you are.  If you can buy film at Urban Outfitters (i.e. 120 and 35mm) you aren’t.

And finally, stop protesting technology changes and refinements in photography.  Stop for a minute and think how stupid that is, especially in comparison to visual arts which go back millenia.  Digital doesn’t have soul.  It’s not supposed to have it.  You are. (Maybe.)

Film photography. 
Better yet, Medium Format.  Or Large Format.  Or 35mm. 
Best, “I like 6×9.  645 feels like half frame.”  Or “4×5 is great for versatility, but you need to be at 5×7 or better to make a decent contact print.”

The first tells me what you don’t do.  The second tells me what you do. The third tells me you might actually know what you’re doing.
Analogue Film Photography tells me that you don’t.