Hey all, Erik here with a quick guest post about a subject that’s raised a lively debate in our studio. Everyone on our crew has long been shooting with Polaroids, rangefinders, micro 4/3 cameras adapted to accept vintage lenses…even processing digital images to look like they came out of an old dusty camera. Surveying the landscape, it’s clear this tide has been rising for a while now and we’re not the only ones attached to this stuff. So the question I present to you is this:
Why is retro or faux-retro photography so popular these days?
Why, when we have such capable and inexpensive cameras at our disposal, are we reverting to old technology and old aesthetics? Is it pure nostalgia? Is it a palette cleanser from the ease and accuracy of said capable and inexpensive cameras? Is it a passing trend? We have opinions–especially Chase does as you might expect–but we’d like to hear from you.
it’s easier to apply a crappy look
it’s easier to copy looks
people like looks
photo attributes like film grain make it more look like a photo
I think it’s quite simple,
I had a d700 and recently switched to an M9 and i gotta say for the price of a d3x i get way more_fun_for the money, besides having similar image quality and stuff…
i think the “retro” kind of camera suits the photographer who shoots manually, as one really doesn’t need all the programs in most of the situations and more and more photographers seem to realize that they can’t think of many situations where light changes dramatically fast without one being able to turn the shutterspeed dial a little bit.
and manual exposure is more fun to me 🙂
the relationship between shutterspeed, iso and aperture is elementary math…and you even have the stops engraved in the lens/shutterspeed dial
focus is manually and one really has to try many times to get fast lenses right but it doesn’t really take longer than learning all the tweaks to the autofocus which is only faster if the right spot is picked and that takes time too
and manual focus is more fun for me 🙂
i don’t shoot sports 😉
so you get a small package that delivers equal/smilar results to the big dslr while being less expensive at the same time, excluding M-leica.
and concerning the high price of leica gear, think about what the pro zoom lenses cost, compared to the excellent voigtlander/zeiss options one has it’s about the same costs.
and the lenses are small! the body too although a canon A-1 is about the same size.
you can easily bring the m9 with 4 lenses along without having to exhaust yourself.
they’re not sealed unfortunately
crapy display too
best histogram solution to date though
well, it’s more fun, i can focus more on the photographic aspect and don’t have to think about the phototechnical stuff, dozens of settings and sub menues…and those things work for others of course.
and well….everybody has a DSLR already 🙂
peace,
michael
so for polaroids and lomo cameras, they are the purest form of focusing on the photographic aspect with an instant result and timeless appeal opposed to the raw data ready to be processed in an often time consuming workflow which just doesn’t suit most people. more fun
I like digital photography, but I DO NOT LIKE most digital cameras (or some of the newer film cameras for that matter.) I’ve had a hard time going from digital to film, but I keep trying. Just look at some of those cameras, they are objects to be appreciated in and of themselves. Something to really use and care for. They hold the promise of great quality on the other side of the effort to learn the craft.
I find the marketing frenzy that’s propelled digital cameras and their design too chaotic and counter to what I think is needed in a camera. I find it hard to focus on learning to see when I’m constantly being bombarded with market speak about gear.
I find analog photography a great way to step out of the frenzy of digital life and experience something that connects to another way to be.
I think it comes from the desire to add authenticity to our images. As camera technologies progressed, photos represented reality more and more clearly. Now that we can achieve pixel-perfect results with almost no problem, it’s not enough for the image to be “accurate” because it isn’t enough; it’s still just a representation of a brief moment in time. To add a perceived weight to the “realness” of the image, I think people are swinging back to the retro look to impress onto the photo a visual history of sorts. The warm colors and nuances left behind from chemical processes imply a sort of deliberate intention and value of not only making the image, but keeping it and protecting it to be looked at as a cherished memory of someone/something, much like the old Polaroid’s of family members and friends we grew up with.
What am I saying by utilizing vintage technology or applying a vintage look to my message? Is it appropriate to what I’m communicating or done simply for the sake of doing it. Even then I may be saying “hey, look at me! I’m using vintage imaging” maybe it’s a means to stand out from the super “clean” digi images, to be noticed, to be heard…shouting in a crowd…wearing outrageous clothes…etc.
Yes it’s fun and I love the surprise factor of shooting film and processing “clean” digital images into vintage looking photos. But why? WHY NOT 🙂