Using a film camera reminded me once again of how much things have changed in just 10 years! Yes, that's all it's been since almost everyone in the WPF relied on film cameras and were just experimenting with the new-fangled, poor image quality digital machines. I don't think anyone believed that "digital" would take off so fast that it's still causing some of us problems that we just can't get our heads around. Of course the problems are not really with the photography but with the quantum leap in digital technology and paraphenalia required to produce a picture.

OK, enthusiasts (digital photo nerds) like us are perhaps attempting to climb a digital photo Everest, often with limited kit, experience and training and that's maybe why we sometimes have problems. A good pal of mine, who isn't "into" photography, uses his digital compact on Full Auto (never anything else), takes his memory card with unmanipulated images to Tesco and is very happy with the prints he gets - no problem. He and his like are probably the reason for the digital photo revolution and not us, the "non enthusiasts" vastly outnumber us "enthusiasts" and that's where the money is being made. Kodak realised this very early on and true to their historical background of "photography for the common man",  they pulled out of the enthusiast market to cater for the mass market with sales of $14.3 billion in 2006 (remember that the USA is a huge market for Kodak).

Anyway to get back to my day out. I took four hours in scenic surroundings to use up my 10 frames. At one time I happened to be standing next to a chap who was trying to photograph butterflies on a bush with a digital camera and I'm sure he must have taken 50 or 60 images in five minutes. I didn't even attempt Butterflies with the Leica, it's the wrong tool for that job.

What film photography, with it's limited number of available exposures and the constant awareness that uneccessary EXTRA exposures cost money, does, is make you far more thoughtful about what you're taking, why you want to take that picture and is it the best viewpoint, timing etc etc. OK you might miss  a cracker of a shot from the " freebie digital extras" available with a digital camera, but it does make the taking of the shot more meaningful. It's like using a "film rifle" rather than a " digital machine gun".

The other huge difference is that I have no idea whether I actually got the good pictures I thought I was taking, I'll have to wait for the film to get developed and I actually quite like that anticipation of success or failure sometimes.

Next time though I'll probably take my digital camera - and maybe a film camera too just for fun.

Before photography, pictures had to be drawn or painted, and over time this led to an extremely wide variety of styles in visual art. Some depicted what they saw as realistically as possible (Rembrandt) whilst others just gave the impression of what they saw (van Gogh) and let the viewers interpret the image and some produced their own unique and very unusual vision of the world (Dali).

When photography first came about, it's strength was it's ability to record reality with all it's detail, a high-fidelity visual medium. This was something new and quite different from any drawing or painting, there was no artistic interpretation, the camera just recorded what was there (warts an' all) with no visual addition or subtraction. Early photographers quickly adopted the compositional tricks of artists and soon some art critics declared that "Painting is dead"!

That was over 150 years ago and for some kinds of photography very little has changed. Realistic and true-to-life photographs are still required to record scenes and objects for legal evidence; and natural history regulations insist that the photographs be true and un-manipulated.

Many photographers enjoy producing such realistic images and I admire their skill, and in the field of natural history, their patience and knowledge of the subject too. But it's not for me.

Yes, of course I make realistic photographs. I probably shoot about 50% realistic images to record holidays and family events etc. The rest of the time I like to move my photography into an area with more freedom of expression, where reality no longer exists. Here, I'm free to interpret what I see and make images that, whilst still grounded in the real world, are my interpretation of reality. It might be just producing a monochrome image where reality is in colour, or something far more extreme, there are no rules!

These days I tend to find "realistic" photographs not terribly interesting or inspiring, even though I can appreciate the immense skill needed to produce them. Reality is all around us and it's out there to see, so why bother making a photograph of it? (answers please).

Unfortunately our competition judges usually demand "reality"; good focus, sharp detail, true colours (no casts), full tonal range, etc etc etc . They're often judging technique and there seems to be very little room for creativity; indeed some judges readily admit to being completely flumoxed when presented with " creative and unusual" images. I'm looking forward to our "What is it?" competition, it should be a hoot and a breath of fresh air!

I've always admired the work of photographers that "broke" the rules and produced images that were a bit different and less "real". Their photographs reflect something of the photographer and not just the subject or scene in front of the lens.

So where do you fit in? Real, unreal or plain weird?

Kevin
Sorry about the lack of response, I didn't read the forum until today.  If you went to Cardiff may I apologise on behalf of the club members.  With the weather being so unpredictable last night the decision was made to go to Porthcawl and photograph the waves for seascape images.  Unfortunately we couldn't get in touch with you, maybe you could give your phone number to some of the members to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

Hi Colin

Thanks for the reply

I was not really expecting a reply as I left it late to post my question the clock on the forum is running an hour out so it was just gone 6 I will sort out some contacts on tuesday

Cheers Kevin

That’s what I thought Colin.
At what point does a ND filter get to dark (6,8,10 stop) that you can’t see enough light through it that you can’t focus. Do you then have to focus on the subject then attach the filter without moving the ring?

Could any tell me if we are going down to Cardiff tonight if so has anyone got a contact number so i can call to arrange to me you all there as it is easier for me to go direct to cardiff

Cheers Kevin