SAD296: Uh oh.

As you know, I decided to give away my stash of film. I had shot through all of my color film as well, even the freebies sent by Kodak for reviewing Ektar. All I had left were a couple of rolls of Tri-X, which I figured would be good for testing shutter speeds in disposable cameras or something.

It looked like the end, folks. I'll be honest: With the SAD Project drawing to a close, and my bank account already at a close, I could see myself parting ways with film. With the little cash I could get for my SLRs, I could probably afford to have that "I(heart)Ilford" tattoo removed, with a little left over for a second digital body.

But, oh, the webs we weave . . .

During my fight with the Leica zombies, I spent a good deal of time on the Rangefinder Forum. At some point, their chanting must have started to sink in, because I did have to admit that there might be actual advantages to "the rangefinder way."

I decided that if I were going to give up film, I should at least give rangefinders a try. If it really is all about the results, and if I really care nothing for the process itself, then what could it hurt? Right?

So I emailed my dad, ever the source of good photo gear, and asked to borrow a rangefinder. I specifically asked NOT to borrow his Leica, because I am hard on cameras, and because I'll never be able to afford one even if, ha ha, I did happen to like shooting a rangefinder. I picked up the camera at lunch and loaded one of the rolls of Tri-X, feeling very much like I was writing a check with a crayon. On the way home, Jes and I stopped at the used bookstore and I blew through the roll, shooting most of the frames at 1/15 or 1/30. I souped the film in the kitchen that evening.

Pulling the negatives off the reel, I literally froze, and said: "Uh oh."


SAD296 - Konica Auto S2 - Hexanon 50mm/f1.8 - Tri-X - September, 2009 [Click to view larger. It's that good.]

Let's go over the mantra again. A rangefinder camera allows the photographer to hand hold at slower shutter speeds because of the lack of mirror slap. A rangefinder camera allows the photographer to see his subject during the moment of exposure. A rangefinder's optics are sharper and better corrected because they can sit closer to the film. A rangefinder is easy to focus in low light. A rangefinder is quiet.

It never occured to me that the best place to test all of these is a bookstore. But in the following shot, I saw Jes turn her head as the shutter opened. You can see her face is not sharp. But the book she's putting back on the shelf . . .




[Click to view larger.]

This was no good. No good at all. I popped the loupe out of my eye socket and started feeding negatives into the scanner. I'd still have a shred of dignity as long as the images weren't nice and snappy while still retaining a full range of tones. I might like rangefinders, but never tuh-tuh-Tri-X . . .



. . . Uh oh. Photographic identity crisis in 3, 2 . . .