 |
Recent studio image of Bronwyn Sims, Monadnock Ledger Transcript |
Last year, about this time of year, I upgraded my workhorse camera to allow me access to better quality theater and studio shots. By all accounts, it was a VERY successful year, with several published images, three permanent banners at Keene State College along with some very satisfying breakthroughs in my photography technique. Then, this past weekend I upgraded my workhorse camera again so that I could see beyond to the next level. Only, this time, I went to the top-of-the-line Nikon and something else happened that hadn't happened before: All my lenses drastically changed what I saw which, until now, the changes had been very subtle.
The last time this sort of "seeing" event happened, was probably 20 years ago, when I borrowed a medium format camera from a local pro camera shop. For $50 a day, the feeling of slowing down my shooting process to take a single print
on a roll of eight pictures was intoxicating, as was the amazing quality
of the slides that I produced with this camera. I distinctly remember that feeling as I handheld a Fujica "Texas Leica" with a 90 mm lens on a cold Baltimore morning, pointed it at a doorway and took a single image that would eventually grow into a mounted four foot by six foot print at my first gallery show in Washington, DC. Mind you, the pictures from this Fujica's 90mm lens looked more like a 42mm lens but this technical translation was purely an academic exercise. And, unlike my 35mm camera, I didn't have other lenses to choose from, no zoom lenses to properly frame a shot, not even other focal lengths, just a lot more film to expose and work with. So, in effect, what I saw with that camera was simply more volume and detail than what I saw before. And it was really hard to go back to seeing less.
Seeing more in medium format also meant that my 35mm Olympus lenses that I had been using successfully for years, no longer satisfied me to look through. Compared with the Texas Leica, these lenses didn't seem sharp enough to be able to justify charging people money for the results, and that was the defining moment for me when I turned to Nikon, like my father before me. This time, I bought well, just a couple of sharp, prime Nikkor lenses that I used thoroughly over time. For a 35mm film shooter, those were the "salad days" when film technology, my confidence, and my technique converged. During this time, two children were born and photographed with these Nikkors, sculptures lit, and art portfolios made, eventually resulting in a magazine cover in 1999. Although I ignored the changes to digital happening all around me, these were, in reality, the last dying days of film and as much as I could hold out, it wasn't until five years later that I went to a digital single lens reflex. That camera, an auto-focus Nikon D70 (which I still use for less critical event work) was now affordable at just over $1000 and it never occurred to me that anything had changed from what I saw through the viewfinder, but it had, and the difference was surprisingly subtle.
 |
| November 1999 cover of the Improper Bostonian |
Of course, for the first three years I used the only autofocus zoom lenses I owned and, on occasion, one of my manual focus lenses. With my eyesight starting to degrade, autofocus went from a novelty to more of a necessity. My 20mm ultra-wide lens, a 28-70mm zoom kit lens and a 70-300mm zoom became pretty much my standard workhorse kit. Without questioning, I accepted the degraded quality of the zoom lenses along with the ability to shoot thousands of digital images at a time, for no cost. But aside from that, what else had I given up? It took more than eight years to figure it out and now I know what it was I lost: my perspective. And I lost it because, like many of us, the 35mm film cameras seemed like an era gone by, rather than a perspective change.
 |
| Big format quality, a 35mm perspective, combined with digital speed |
So, what was the perspective change? Well, like the translation I had made accepting that a 90mm lens looked more like a 42mm lens to a Fujica 6x9 medium format camera, I had accepted that my 20mm looked more like a 28mm, my 55mm looked more like an 85mm, and my longer zoom lenses, well they looked even longer (which was better), However, aperture "sweet spots" were gone, and so was real depth of field meaning that every shot I took tended to hide fine detail behind the digital "wall of pixels" rather than bring out what was there in better detail. Sure, a better DX camera and professional editing software helps to sharpen and clarify colors and details but it is that ability to nail details and gradually blur out others was never going to happen until I could see the actual perspective of each lens. And never going to happen until my camera exceeded the limitations of the lenses I own which, really, puts everything back to square one.