Kind of sums things up at the moment. And who really cares?

Courtesy of jezebel.com… gotta laugh

And there’s the rub as they say. I was out in mufti testing my new pinhole camera and what better place to test out this environmentally friendly little box made from managed/reclaimed teak wood? I also had the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta with only three shots left on the roll so I wasn’t exactly prepared for photojournalism. Three shots, I wasn’t counting those left on the pinhole. So I had to make the best of them.

Climate Camper from Brighton

I think I did make the best of them, or at least one. I will go out on a limb and say that I think this is one of the best people photos I’ve ever taken (yeah, maybe the bar is low…). I like ambiguity and this has it in buckets. The expression on the woman’s face – the framed half-smile, her eyes slightly obscured by the fence, the fence itself, the tents, the walkie-talkie radio, they all make me want to ask questions. As I took the photo she said ‘…like those concentration camp photos?‘. Since I’ve been thinking a lot about Lee Miller’s 1944-45 war photos recently it must been subliminal because as soon as she said it, it was obvious.

This and the rest of the photos below come from the pinhole, all with 40-50 seconds exposure! You so don’t need a Nikon/Canon for photojournalism.

Now here is something tangential, the relevence of which will hopefully become clear. On Tuesday night West Ham and Millwall football supporters were fighting pitched-battles around Upton Park. For those unaware of English football tribalism there has never been very much love lost between these two clubs, it goes well beyond animosity (and the dumb-ass assertions by ill-informed journos that it is ‘South vs East London rivalry’. Millwall Football Club is in South-East London you fuckwits, South London is a different place. Just to confuse them more, Millwall the place is on the Isle of Dogs, East London).

The fixture had been scheduled for months so the Met police have had just a bit of notice to prepare for the inevitable.

Can we assume (a) they were not prepared for the obvious or (b) that they are quite happy for the two sets of supporters to beat the shit out of each other (thus saving them the trouble of wading in themselves to do the job) and subsequently pick them all off at leisure later from the CCTV (plus the covert filming and photography that they were up to as usual)? Or (c), The Tactical Support Group are a bunch of cowards and thugs who, when faced with a group of people that would and could fight back, hid away in their vans. If (a) they must be incompetent. If (b) it casts an interesting light on recent police actions at events such as the G20 where public safety was held up as one of the reasons for the para-military attacks on, among others, the climate campaigners. What about the public safety of the residents of Upton Park on Tuesday night? I think we can work that one out without spelling it out. Upton Park is not the City innit… Finally (c). Seems the most likely. There is of course an additional option (d) that suggests the ranks of the TSG are drawn from those two sets of football ‘supporters’, that they were there in civvies, keeping their hand in, and indulging in some vicious racism at the same time.

However, this is Blackheath where a lot of the people who work in The City live (they are among the few who can afford to live there), so in some perverse way somewhere it follows that the residents need to be protected, but in a new post G20 softly-softly cuddly way. However, it is still hard to avoid seeing the surveillance cameras on the 50 metre high gantry overlooking the camp which can presumably look up your arse as you are having a crap, or miss the ‘command centre’ around the corner. But most bizarre of all, the campers appear to have kettled themselves by bringing their own fences. I don’t think Wat Tyler did that…

But the bleeding obvious question is what exactly are they/we being protected against? Having been caught-up myself in a few ‘situations’ in the 1970s & 80s (including being kettled by police horses at a Man U/Liverpool match outside Old Trafford, before we had ever heard of the topical kettling, or wondering why the 159 bus failed to stop and pick me up during the 1981 Brixton riots which had gone off behind me) I know how frightening and intimidating large groups of fighting football supporters, rioters etc are. These are not the feelings I get at the climate camp which largely seems full of happy people. WTF is there to be frightened of?

The answer lies in the banner perhaps?

I will bet there are busloads of Tactical Support Group coppers waiting round the corner in case it ‘goes off’. Just waiting…

This photo show various other bits & pieces too: a Rolleinar 2, a Rolleifix, lens hood, medium yellow filter and the gorgeous burnished alluminium caps.

I have never regarded my cameras merely as tools to get photographs. I also like intricate engineering and complex technologies and a camera like this Rolleiflex begs respect on those criteria. And produces gob-smackingly good images! Or is that the photographer…? 

It is nearly 40 years old but looks like it only recently got off the production line. Impossible of course, since Franke & Heideke filed for bankruptcy in 1981 and the firm passed through various owners (including Samsung) subsequently. As far as I know the 3.5F (and its 2.8 equivalent) were the last ‘true’ Rolleiflexes. For the history see Ferdi Stutterheim’s excellent Rolleiography site.

Of course, Rolleiflexes were used very hard professionally, almost certainly as tools and workhorses. It is a tribute to their remarkable build quality that so many are still around, even from the 1930′s. Not only still in circulation, but functioning too. Possibly this is the paradox that bankrupted Franke & Heideke originally. The cameras last forever and don’t need to be replaced, just serviced. This longevity is quite a reassuring concept in 2009.

But I don’t ‘baby’ my cameras either, or keep them in a cabinet just to ogle at. I couldn’t wait to get out with this Rolleiflex and take photographs with it. In fact I didn’t wait to get out, but rushed through a couple of rolls of film in the flat about ten minutes after I arrived home with it. Not only to test it, but to get the ‘feel’ of it – for me a hugely intangible, unquantifiable and subjective element in camera ownership. For instance I love using my Nikon F4s, it is an ergonomic dream. On the other hand I keep the Nikon FM2n mainly for sentimental reasons. I enjoy using it, but in a more qualified way. It doesn’t quite do it for me. Forget the D300, that really is just a tool. There is no mystery to it. Perhaps that is what appeals to me. The Rolleiflex and my Leicas (and the F4s) have histories. One of the mysteries is that I’ll probably never know what else these cameras have photographed , or ‘seen’.

This connection with the photographic past and process is important to me. Avedon, Bailey and Miller (aka la nymphe au Rolleiflex!) with their Rolleis, Kertesz, Eisenstadt, Winogrand with their Leicas, and all the countless other film photographers who have (ironically) contributed to such a fundamental change in our current perception of the world, to the extent that (simplistically put) post-modernist thought would have us believe that in our camera bound culture everything has been photographed, everything is an image, and we have moved beyond photography as ‘representation‘ to a brave new world of ‘interpretation‘.

I use film cameras to reconnect directly back to a more traditional modernist (pre-post-modernist? lol) ethos. The medium is most definately the message for me and I’m interested in the photographic and emotional elements of photography. Taking pictures and developing film does this for me. It is personally fulfilling to be a participant in that creative process.

The Rollei definately helps to do it for me. It may not do it for you.

But do I really care if it doesn’t? Its personal 

I know a lot of big words but obviously not as many as Roland Barthes. I found it hard to actually understand what he was saying from the outset because of the dense and impenetrable dialectic and it got steadily worse as I waded through. It made me quite angry. Is that heresy? Accessible it isn’t. To me, it reads like self-congratulatory academic willy-waving. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

He should tick all the right boxes for me so I’m very disappointed too.

So, if I have read it correctly (and it is a big IF)… you have the photographer (operator), the photographed (target, referant, ‘little simulacrum’) and the viewer (spectator). There are photos that have interest (studium) and those that grab you (punctum). A photo of his mother aged 5 grabbed his attention and he rediscovered her. There, you don’t need to read it

And in the extracts I read there wasn’t even an illustration of the Winter Garden photo of his mother. Very provocative, not.

There is an excellent and interesting photography site called Unphotographable that has no photos, just descriptions of what wasn’t photographed. I can deal with that though, there is a good upfront reason for it.

Barthes freely admits to having no experience of being the operator but plenty of being the spectator and target. And he has a great deal to say about those two ‘emotions/intentions‘ (in Barthespeak)  and uses very long and/or difficult words to do so. It is a real shame that he is not a photographer because behind it all I got the impression he didn’t really know what he was talking about.

Maybe it got lost in translation somewhere.

I’ve read a great deal that has been written by the operators themselves (ie photographers in realspeak) about how they work. They are often amused/surprised/puzzled at the constructions and interpretations that are applied to their photos by academics. They usually write with directness too, much more accessible than Barthes.

Rant over

* I originally wrote obscura instead of lucida. Nuff said.

Before I start on why, let me say that I have gained a great deal from these fora and respect many of the posters’ knowledge and commitment in sharing their knowledge. However, there is (at least) one thing that drives me absolutely mental about the dpreview forums and makes me more and more reluctant to return. There is a certain type of question that crops up over and over again.

The following example of the question is, and has been, particularly rife because of Photokina recently, the major two-yearly international photo fair where rumours abound and new products are announced. For context, technological advance and a grab for market share mean that new bodies and lenses are introduced fairly regularly by the big manufacturers (eg Canon & Nikon), Photokina just focuses the madness:

“I am a [Canon/Nikon] user and I think I should change my system to [Nikon/Canon] now the new model is out/coming out. What do you think?” (note the reversal of manufacturers here, I’m not necessarily talking about people upgrading to the same manufacturer’s latest model, although the fundamental argument below applies here too)

Well, since you asked…

Personally I think you are a fuckwit (a) to be asking such a dumb question in a public forum and (b) revealing so much about your insecure shallow attention-seeking fuckwittery in a simple subject line. Do you have to ask? No, really, do you?

The big two camera-makers piggy-back their new models so at any time of the year one or the other has some more or less advanced features on their models than the other. Fairly obvious, yes? And they have been doing this forever, so we are not likely to be taken by surprise by new models, which in order to maintain market share have additional features. Also fairly obvious I think.

The professional photographer will make decisions based on economics – if new features will make money, go for it. I make decisions like this in my line of work, no problem. So my assumption is that the people asking a question such as this are amateurs, which in my mind calls into question exactly why they absolutely have to have the latest and greatest at all costs. Lets face it, do we actually need all of the features on the latest model. I’d argue not (unless perhaps there is a step-change in the development), but I am a user of 50-70 year old kit as well as modern gear. I’d also argue that you will not necessarily take better photos just because the camera is becoming progressively ‘easier’ to use with each iteration or new model (ie the camera continues to do more and more of the creative ‘thinking’ for you), so that is not a justification (except for a professional). Au contraire, in fact. Get down and dirty, learn to use the thing.

I personally have an investment both in time and cost (note the order of those two) with Nikon gear and it is mainly with the glass, ie the lenses I have collected over the years. The investment in the body is relatively trivial in comparison. However, over the years I have become knowledgeable about the lenses, their strengths and shortcomings. In short, I know roughly when to use whatever lens to get the best out of the situation, whether the body is a rangefinder, an SLR or a DSLR. That knowledge has been gained over time and has a value far outweighing the cost of the investment. It makes me a more competent photographer because I know the lenses. The body just collects the light and does stuff with it (although obviously requires competence, knowledge and familiarity at this end of the equation too, but a camera is a camera right?)

And isn’t that just it? Competence, knowledge and familiarity? If I changed my main body to Canon I’d have to replace the glass too. By dumping my Nikon system and replacing it with (for example) Canon I would lose those three touchstones and it would take some time to catch-up, particularly with the very different ergonomics and design quirks of different manufacturers. If I had done this because of some perceived inadequacy comparing my current camera body with the latest from a rival manufacturer (eg a few megapixels difference, live view, video, better high ISO performance) it would probably take me six months to get back up to speed… by which time, yes, my original manufacturer has not only caught up but exceeded my replacement, therefore, in my (ie the questioner’s) sick and twisted mind, making the replacement system a dog (comparatively) because it isn’t the latest. Which then leads me to ask again in six months “I am a [Canon/Nikon] user and I think I should change my system to [Nikon/Canon]. What do you think?…” As Charlie Brooker would say, ‘what a cock!’

A second, more common type of question that elicits the same response from me, and a related one I think, is:

“Have I made a mistake purchasing xyz lens/body/whatever?”

Well, FFS! Have you gone and taken photos with it? Really, ONLY YOU CAN TELL. Why use a public forum to ask? Really, why? Charlie Brooker rules apply again.

I don’t have to read these posts (and I don’t) but the mere existence and visibility of the endless similar subject lines really is an offense and an affront to people who actually do know how to think for themselves.

And last, but not least, in my pecuniary brain, is the money. It costs a small fortune to grasshopper around these camera systems, so another assumption is that these people are affluent fuckwits that know the value of nothing and the cost of everything. I don’t know if it is a cultural thing or not, but most of these posters appear to come from North America and seem to be male. And I would guess that they are middle aged, though age is hard to tell on the net. Not sure of the relevance of that one but it is an observation. I’ve got a feeling they may spend a couple of thousand dollars on audio leads too in order to enhance their audiophile experience, but hey, I’m making assumptions. My bad.

Sorry to labour this point, but I for one feel better now.

For an utterly refreshing antedote with intelligent and informed discussion I would whole-heartedly recommend theonlinephotographer.com, Mike Johnson’s blog/forum/news site. It really is quite unusual for a photography forum because it is primarily about photography. Gear gets included because it is needed, but it is photography that is to the forefront. I jest not.