The duality of experience shooting with my Mamiya C330.

[jamesbogue]

My wife and I packed our bags for an overnight stay at the Pollywogg Hollër, a B&B in New York State. My love/hate relationship continues with the Mamiya C330, with it's bulky size and its need for a tripod, but the beauty of the film size and the simple meditation of working a mechanical camera is wonderful. I am generally happy with the photographs I achieved to get on film, but there were others that simply didn't make the cut, although I wished they had. This is always the test for me. I could go completely digital, as I have years of experience with digital dating back to the first high end DCS460 SLR(6Mb) back in 1996, but photography to me remains a contemplative process and the mechanical process of composing, focusing, setting depth of field, metering, were all essential for what I wanted to capture on my trip. There is a certain mystery that begins when the shutter is clicked, and there is no preview to let you know you have the shot. Maybe I like to torture myself this way, maybe I want to be like some excited kid opening his birthday present, every time I go to the lab to pick up my fim. But there is a certain freedom to do all your thinking up front, click the shutter, and move on. I'm not a luddite either, As I stated earlier, I have had several years of experience with several models of digital cameras. However there is also the security of looking at my clean sleeved film that I can put in a box and not worry about my box catching a virus, crashing and losing all it's content, or the chance that I lack the necessary tools to open and read what's in the box in the future as technology continues to go through a speedy metamorphosis.

But overall, the reason I lugged this mechanical monster around was not just for the sake of the end result, as a point-and-shoot camera may offer, but for experiencing the process as a whole. This is probably because of my training (or lack of ) as a photography student in traditional photographic methods. As this is good meditation for me, it is still imperfect because of the many shots losts due to the moment lost, focus problems, bad exposures, and etc. This is why it is a love/hate or yin/yang or perfect/imperfect experience. But I do this because I can and not because I have to make a living of it. If I had to make photography a professional career (as I always think I still might try) then the answer would be digital without a question.

And so I present my photographs wrought from the beastly Mamiya C330 of Pollywogg Hollër:

http://www.pbase.com/jamesbogue/pollywogg_holler

[jim_panzee]

James.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the composition of your photos, but the light factor needs a bit more thought. Most of the pictures are back lighted (particularly the one of your Wife as centre piece), throwing the subject matter into deep shadow. I know the C330 does not have a light metre and if you haven't got one, a good hand held could be a good addition to your bag. I know the feeling all to well of finding yourself in a perfect situation and having the wrong film in the camera. If this happens I usually over expose a couple of stops and hope for the best. From what I see here, I think possibly an ASA 800 or at least a 400 would have been ideal, but what do I know. Let us know which film type and speed you were using. The C330 is a very good camera, and is capable of taking some amazing shots.
I do like the pictures very much though.

JimP

[jamesbogue]

Jim,

I just bought a new Sekonic light meter after my old Gossen Lunar Pro F died after many years. So these photos were metered using the Sekonic for the first time. I'd say the metering was fairly accurate. Maybe for the shot of my wife against the morning light, I should have opened up a stop for good measure. This is part of the critical thought process I was refering to in my first post that I enjoy so much. However, my critical thinking may be way off the mark sometimes. It was a difficult shot seeing that I didn't carry the typical remedies such as reflectors or fill lights, I just wanted to master what I could using available light as my only lighting tool. So I chose to use it as a hairlight.

Another point I want to bring up is I work on a Mac flat screen (17 inch studio display), which has a wider gamut and brighter display than PC flatscreens and CRT monitors. So I have noticed that my images appear darker on these other screens (such as the myriad of screens I work with at my job). Also my high-res scan has a wider gamut when seen in Photoshop compared to the low res copy seen in Pbase with my browser display. So these factors attribute to "darkening" my photos. And this probably doesn't help knowing that most people see these photos on PCs with CRT or flat screeens. But my Mac flat screen is fairly accurate for when I send photos to print labs or when I do CMYK work for the printing press.

For film, I tested using Fuji NPH 400. I just wanted a change of pace from my typical use of Kodak Portra. Thanks for your comments, Jim, I really appreciate the feedback.

James

[jim_panzee]

James.

You seem to have it all worked out, I must admit my low tech gear (PC and 15" tif screen plus extreme jepg compression), is not a patch on the first generation prints and slides I get from the Lab, but its the only way we have of sharing our photographs at the moment. On the other point you mentioned about the anticipation and surprise you get when you first see the end product, thats why I love film.
The two examples I have included were like that, taken in a dimly lit cellar bar, just a Canon A1, 50mm lens opened right up (to the detriment of DOF) no flash, (I don't own one), I hadn't a clue if they would come out or not, Surprise is not the word.

B.T.W, I am going out today to have a look at a S/H C330 in my local camera shop, if the price is right, I may buy it.
It’s all your fault you know!!!

Regards,

JimP.
http://www.pbase.com/jim_panzee/image/24006737
http://www.pbase.com/jim_panzee/image/22769945

[jamesbogue]

Jim,

That's funny, I wouldn't want to put you through the same torture that I go through with my C330. But I agree, it is a good camera and well worth the purchase for it's market price these days. One thing I have learned is that you don't need to chase around expensive photo gear to make good pictures. A lot of old cameras have quality glass sufficient for most needs. And sometimes other cameras that do not have quality glass just add character. It all depends on what you really want to do with it. Right now the digital market is at a neck-breaking pace. Until the issues of standardization of image type, future software/hardware compatibility are straighten out, I am happy doing my serious work on film cameras. However I also respect the fact that digital has rekindled the love of photography for many people, and made it accesible to many others for the first time. Well I tend to write essays when I really just want to make a quick point so I'll just say good luck with your hunt for a C330.

One other recommedation if you get it, is that Epson flat bed scanners are relatively cheap for high-res scanning capability of medium to large format films. I have an Epson 2450 that does a decent job scanning my medium format film. The res is 2400 x 4800, and the current street price I have seen is as low as $150 (US). I have had prints blown up to 16 x 20 from my scanner and it looked really good. There are newer models that I'm sure do a much better job, but I mention this model because I have it and the price has come down dramatically from what I originally paid.

Review:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_rev ... _2450.html

James

P.S.
Likewise you inspired me to keep my canon A2e, and purchase a fast 50mm lens. I've been thinking of selling my camera because I hated the bundled zoom lens, so I rarely use it. Nice photo of the bar, I love the atmosphere of pubs. Cheers.

[jim_panzee]

James.

Jeez you must be a mind reader, I am also in the market for another scanner to replace my old HP 5300C, which is on its last legs. Thanks for the tip. All I have to do now is find the money.

JimP.

Ps. Just looked up the price of the new Epsom 2580 here, 150 Euros, wow now I can get the C330 and the scanner, and go into bankruptcy in style.

Thanks a lot.

[jamesbogue]

Jim,

There is always the $16 (US) Holga medium format plastic lens camera. I have a gallery here:

http://www.pbase.com/jamesbogue/holga_view

But I'd say get the scanner, if you can afford one, maybe on the used market like ebay. It would handle all your film sizes fairly well. And continue exploring with your 35mm. Then maybe after winning a few bets, or selling your neighbor's pet you can pickup an old TLR for fun. Either way, I wish you good fortunes..

James

[jim_panzee]

Hi James.

Well, I decided to get the scanner, the M/F camera will have to wait for a while (Christmas is coming. ) I got the Epson perfection 3170 photo, for a good deal from the local computer supermarket, Reg. price 289 Euros, reduced to 209, plus I had a 10 Euro voucher, so I got it for 199 Euros.
I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment, but it seems very good, much better than my old HP. This is an old slide I took in Myrtle Beach SC in 1993 done on the scanner this afternoon. Thanks again for the tip. By the way the guy in the photo is NOT me.

http://www.pbase.com/jim_panzee/image/34978339/large

JimP.

[jamesbogue]

Congratulations on your purchase. From your sample photo I'll mention two things I notice: Wide Gamut with details in highlights and shadows, and no noise in shadows. The right scanner breaths new life into film photography as compared to digital. Unless you step up to a digital SLR like D70/10D, or only shoot at ISO 50 on prosumer/point+shoot cameras there is always the big issue with noise artifiacts.

James

[jim_panzee]

Err, does that mean you like it

[jamesbogue]

If like the scanner? Yes, It seems it scans very well. If I like your photo? Sure, technically it has proper exposure with details in highlights and shadows. Did I understand your question correctly?