Back to a stupid future with Pentax

So the Pentax 17 film camera has been finally introduced.

Yes, this camera is not for me. I spent too many hours in a dark damp darkroom, back when I was doing theatrical photography. Just as I quickly ditched the hated Vinyl LP, when the CD came onto the market, I was a fairly early adopter of digital, when the Nikon D70 made serious digital photography affordable. Maybe my Engineering background makes me allergic to technological nostalgia.

Shure my grainy B&W pictures of Jazz musicians from the eighties have some sort of period charm, they are of their time. But the world moves on, and I cannot see the point of recreating photography of that period. I have shot a few concerts with digital, and I saw no point in reproducing the style and technology of those old prints. I am interested in content, not groovy grain, bad colour or lens defects.

This Pentax nods heavily towards the Lo-fi Lomo cameras that have never been out of production. The giveaway is the viewfinder. I quess the market for this camera is the same. Half frame film will certainly be Lo-Fi, even if the lens is decent and the vertical format is perfect for the iPhone generation. So if you really must have a crappy film camera, go for the Lomo.

My only hope is that some of the adopters of this toy camera, will move on to discover a deeper interest in photography and realise that the art of photography is something more than using the outcomes of using the defects of an obsolete technology as an illusion of individual creativity.

Film still does have a relevance, with large format cameras. The prints I had made from my old 5x4 camera, were a thing of great beauty, with creamy tonal transitions and no visible grain on my 12x16 I had made at the time. But I guess using a view camera is too much effort, and requires study, and skill.

I understand your point of view very well
This camera wasn't designed for you, and not for me either.
But if it can amuse a certain category of new photographers, why not.
In the end, I'd rather see Pentax go its own way, than doing the same thing as other brands.

my 21 yo daughter is into shooting film. i gave her an olympus trip35 that i had pulled apart and serviced,
it was just uninspirering to shoot compared to the konica lexis 70 full auto with flash and a good zoom. the images are first class.
young people want compact fully auto film cameras not cameras like the pentax. the new rolei film looks good shame it doesnt have a compact zoom lens.

Yes, I believe you have described the situation very well.

“ the art of photography is something more than using the outcomes of using the defects of an obsolete technology as an illusion of individual creativity.” - I wish I had come up with that!

Rich

It's a wild guess but I think analogue photography has a real future. Digital images, especially with the emergence of AI are being devalued. The market is being swamped. I can see a future for crafted analogue images. By that, I mean the whole process, Shot on film, hand developed and printed on fibre papers. Possibly techniques such as platinum printing. There's a craftsmanship aspect that I think (there's a lot of hesitant "I thinking" going on here) will still have a market and possibly a market that will grow.
People want something to hang on walls that immediately "looks" like art. Print it big on textured paper. Make it a numbered edition and make the numbering clear on the face of the print. Add moderately prominent signature. Have a "plate" with all the tech data, including something of the darkroom technique.
The Ricoh isn't the camera for a journey like this (unless you are going down the ultra grain road). I'd be looking to pick up a used 2 1/4 square model.

That to me sounds more like someone subliminally posting about their own skill and/or technical limitations because back in the days when that obsolete technology was actually state of the art surely photographers were still creating art using that technology.

There was no illusion in their creativity, so why should there be any illusion now?

Here we are talking about something subtly different, I believe. The Pentax 17. like Lomo points towards the lazy use of defects to make pictures in a particular style that is well known. The photographer has no real control over the outcomes. Maybe you are old enough like me to remember those horrible tabacco coloured skies, and other bestialities produced by the use of Cokin filters. That is what I am talking about

The art photographer, using film, is trying to get the best out of analogue materials, using his skill and a truly individual style to create something unique. As I said in my OP, large format film photography is not obsolete, as it still holds a few technical advantages over digital. My old 5x4 prints are still an object of beauty. My 35mm pushed Tmax 400 Jazz prints have a vintage vibe, imparted by the limitations of the materials I had at my disposition back then.

If you are interested in 120 film photography, the work of Michael Kenna, is well worth digging out. His small prints are wonderful, if you can get to see the actual prints.

Thanks for that. I didn't know of Michael Kenna and I like what I see of his work. I spent decades doing my own processing, mainly with 120film images. I no longer have a film camera or darkroom.
While I can't see the new Ricoh as a path, I believe I can see a market for images like those of Kenna. There is always a market segment that appreciates craftmanship. It's why, for example, mechanical watches continue to be appreciated.

I did a lot of darkroom work too. I had it built in the attic space, with running water and electricity, when we bought our top floor flat forty years ago. My darkroom is still up in there. But I must admit I have little enthusiasm to take it out of mothballs. I found I could do some brilliant things with Capture One, on my old Jazz negs, that would have been impossible in the darkroom.

This shot was pretty difficult to print. The negative is pretty thin and it has a busy background. At the time it took me a lot of work to make a print like the one above on Grade 4 paper. With C1 I made an even better print as I could work locally with contrast as well

I dont know what heath effects Selenium toner and all those other chemicals had on my heath.

Lovely shot. You need to have worked in darkrooms to appreciate what is involved. Which is why I think a market is developing (pun) for images with a complete analogue process.
Potassium Ferracyanide was the chemical I used that bothers me most. I spent a lot of time with formulas to boost asa. Loved high contrast grain. Ref Sam Haskins. I used X ray developer at one stage. When overdone, I needed to resort to potassium Ferracyanide to rescue negatives.

Yes, I had forgotten that yellow liquid with a nasty name!

I was involved in film photography (excuse me, but I refrain from the trendy, analog appellation) and daily darkroom work from 1955 into the early 1990s. Yes, we created art with the "state of the art" materials of the time. We knew our craft. We knew our materials and our equipment. A high percentage of us did our own developing and printing.

To a great extent, photographers now, using the last dying remnants of old and disappearing cameras, the limited film stocks still being produced, sending 100% of their film for development by someone else, getting their film scanned to a digital file, and then viewing those images strictly on computer monitors have very little understanding of film photography.

To a dismaying extent, to them, the mere fact that their image has been made on film somehow elevates it to "art" status. It's sad, but it's also ridiculously presumptuous. So, yes - there is a lot of illusion.

I won't harangue you with my opinion of digital "film sims."

Rich

no different than someone saying they renovated there house when all they did was hire tradesmen 🫣 how many of those dumb home revo shows are on tv,
i laugh every time.

That's a nonsensical argument because very rarely is a single person 100% responsible for the design, organising, financial inputs and controls, labour and project management.

If your argument was valid, then very rarely could anyone say they renovated their home which would be nonsense.

The 17 looks good. Not a toy camera in the least, by any definition. Between this and the new Rollei coming out, it’s nice to have some new 35mm options with a camera and warranty.

The Rolli, seems a better proposition, as it at least has things like auto focus. It is a bit sad that that, the only thing it has in common with that historic brand, is the licenced name on the front.

I see your point about new 35mm cameras coming onto the market. Buying thirty year old cameras is a risky buisness at best.

The Rollei does sound good too. I agree about the history being lost…but I guess beggars can’t be choosers. Now if Nikon could just bring back an F100…we’d have all the bases covered!😂

I agree on all that Rich (although I am not sure why you see "analog" as a trendy appelation." It's why i think there is a developing market for fully analog produced images. Obsolete, yes. Like handmade wooden furniture. Or painting.

Tom Hogan has an interesting article about this camera, which pretty much aligns with my opinion

I wonder what the Greta Thunberg generation thinks about this aspect of a product aimed at them:

" Pentax marketing has specifically called out the Y and Z generations (18-44 years old) as their target, and even more specifically those "who use social media such as Instagram on a daily basis" and are "stepping up from toy cameras."

One decidedly unenvironmental aspect of the Pentax 17 is that it uses non-rechargeable CR2 batteries (you can't use the rechargeable versions). So, throw away batteries, throw away film canisters, and if research is to be believed, most film users these days are throwing out negatives and just asking for digital scans. Not cool."

Well, because film photography was "film" photography before there was "digital" photography, and it still is. There's no need for a name that relates it to the new-comer, from the new-comer's perspective.

Interesting that you include "handmade wooden furniture" in this discussion. I agree.

My "other" avocation is fine furniture making.

My father taught me woodworking. My uncle (his brother) taught me (film) photography. There's a great deal of shared mechanical aptitude between them.

Rich

he didnt teach you what a dovetail saw is used for ?

Huh?

Rich

i didnt see any through cuts on your image, and thought you were chiseling them. if you made stopped dovetails a saw wouldnt be used.

i didnt see any through cuts on your image, and thought you were chiseling them. if you made stopped dovetails a saw wouldnt be used.
[/quote]

It's the pin board in the first image. Two-inch ash wood. Hard as Hickory. Had to re-sharpen every few minutes. Condor tails.

Look closely. The saw cuts are all there down to the shoulder line.

In a stopped (half-blind?) version, a saw would still be used to cut most of the line.

Thanks for the lesson in joinery. (I think)

Rich