|
|
|
| 
|
|
Something I once wrote for the F blog, slightly edited:
Photography is for me a way of approaching the world around me. Or rather, a way of keeping it at arms length. I watch, I wait, and I seldom direct people, even in the studio. Yes, people are my main subjects. I'm not too hot about scenery or nature. I believe that the strength and the beauty of still photography lies in its ability of accurately capturing the moment, freezing a bit of time for a while, in all its futility. For me, the perfect photo consists to equal parts of factors that we may call composition, subjective content, and presentation. A well executed composition hits the onlooker like a kick in the stomach, a composition where the geometric elements come together in perfect unity. I use a camera that shows 100% of the image in the viewfinder, and I never crop afterwards (therefore I also have a 95% reject rate). However, composition is still second to the actual expression or content. If an image has been badly composed, but shows something important or interesting, the content wins every time. Sadly the reverse is never true. Every photographer has a different opinion on what makes an interesting image. I once knew a photographer who without exception, every time, always picked the frame next to the good one. |
|
|
People are constantly changing creatures, they are the victims of their culture, their family context or their work life, and they are very busy with trying to show a proper facade towards everyone else. Sometimes they forget, though, but only for a moment. And that is when it is the right time to press that button and fire the shutter. Because of this the photographer is in some ways a thief, a vampire that lives off other people's energy. But it's all part of the game.
And then there is the third factor, presentation. It is crucial to catch the viewer's attention and nobody looks twice at a sloppy photo. Craftsmanship is important, and a lot of fun, and you are never fully learned. However, technical virtuosity is still a bad excuse for a boring picture. The fact that digital imaging is dominating the current market for utility photography is no surprise. Especially for color darkroom people the digital age is a blessing. But I do get annoyed when people see my work and ask when am I going digital. I admit, my cameras are as old as I am, but still. You'd never ask a wood sculpturer when he is going plastic, would you. Chemical photography is a tool, a medium, with its quirks and advantages, just like oil painting, knitting and digital photography is. |
|
|
A few words about cameras and equipment that I use. Digital is tremendous fun, but it is a totally different animal than analog film. And being a retro freak, I am not only using film cameras but ancient ones. My favourite is the Nikon F, made from 1959 until the early seventies. My other favourite is the Nikon F2, almost the same camera but somewhat modernized. None of these cameras require batteries for the actual picture taking. The centerweighted metering is done inside the bulky optional finders called "photomic", put on a slimline prism finder instead and you have to use your eyes or a handheld meter. The camera bodies are metal castings filled with hundreds of tiny springs and gears, just like an old watch. So why bother with old stuff? Well, for one thing old pro gear is incredibly reliable. And being mechanical, it is fixable. New parts can always be made by a skilled technician. When I stood in the pouring rain in Östersund taking roll after roll of Siouxie, I was glad I had a non-electric camera. If you drop it, there is no plastic that can break. The bright finder screen shows 100 percent of the final image, unlike most other cameras both now and then. Cool, huh? Of course what I don't have is matrix metering, autofocus and the other funny computer stuff that camera companies are pushing for. Who cares. In the golden age of photojournalism there were three choices: the Contax II, the Leica M2 - and the Nikon F. Some put a motor on it, the "F36", still heard in many movie effects. And yeah, if you have any old Nikon gear for sale, drop me a mail and maybe I'll buy it.* Lenses: I am a speed freak. For me there simply is no alternative to the Nikkor 35mm 1.4. Well, maybe the 28mm 2.0 with its wide view and extreme sharpness. For concerts (or cats) I use the 105mm 2.5 or the 85mm 1.8, both great lenses when you cannot get as near as you want. Uh, that is about it I guess. No zooms, because they are either big, unsharp or slow (and they mess up your inner preview - like in "I wonder how much of the scenery I'll get in the frame this time?"). I always use a metal hood. Yes I have a 50mm, but it is just for boring stuff like reproducing paintings and such. Actually I should get more lenses, because I have more camera bodies than lenses to match them up with. Nikkor lenses have been around for many decades now, and they are easy to get cheap if they are non-AF, non-AI. The glass quality is just as good in a lens from 1976 as in a new one, and it is the glass that matters. And with lenses faster than 2.8 you can photograph everything that your eyes can see. |
|
| For my 6x6 needs, I use another behemoth of old - the Zenza Bronica S2. It has a focal plane shutter (unlike later Bronicas and Hasselblads), needs no electricity whatsoever and uses lenses made by Nikon. Yes, you heard me. They only made a few before Bronica themselves took over production, but I have a 75mm 2.8 and a 50mm 3.5 bearing the name of Nikkor. So, it is like having a Nikon Hasselblad or something. The focal plane shutter together with a special extra thread in the bayonet means that it works with home adapted lenses too. My Rodenstock 105mm enlarging lens works just fine with the help of a little electrical tape. Do you see the grey leatherette and the cool chrome "Z" logo on the finder? I think this was the prettiest camera ever made. |
|
|
Lab gear: True to the retro concept, my enlargers are Leitz Focomats: a Ic, V35 and a IIc for medium format. My Ic was probably made in the sixties, still a great tool for making ultra sharp photos. The only drawback is when you work with both diffuser and condenser enlargers - you need to calibrate your workflow to the machines to get everything right, and the V35 prints about 1 grade softer than the Ic. It is nothing retro about the quality though. Leitz enlargers are in their own way the best ones ever made. Today they are inexpensive, so grab one.
Films: Fuji Neopan 1600 is the best film in the world. Expose it at 800 ASA, underdevelop a bit and you get the perfect allround film. If you get into really dark places, expose at 3200 and develop a little longer - voila! The dark deeds are captured forever. Tri-X is nice too, and (for fine grain) Acros 100. Favourite developer is D-76 stock, not too grainy like Rodinal, great shelf life, reusable. I didn't mention T-Max. That is because I hate T-grain films. But that's just me. Lastly, for color work I also like the various Fuji films. Best weird unobtainable film that has passed through my camera: Russian Svema 100 ASA (or was it 64?), curls like crazy, thin base, but very creamy and soft grain structure. Probably out of production nowadays. (I wrote this a few years ago. Most of it still applies though, even though the advent of full-frame digital SLRs has made me a bit happier) * It took me years to locate the Nikon F service manual. That is why I will mail everyone who asks a PDF copy of it. For free. But you have to ask, there is no direct download link. |
|