Stranger Things, Press Conference

LOL

I didn't see the segment, but I am for 99% sure it was world press photo award winning photographer David Burnett. An icon in the Graflex world and an icon in the world of photo journalism.

Assuming it was David, he also shot the Olympics with a Graflex SLR.

To my knowledge he is a high in demand freelancer now.

He uses normally a wooden (meaning, the leather was removed) Graflex SLR Super D. 4 x 5 Modified by John Minnicks. Also very well known in the world of Graflex .

If it was a speed graphic (pacemaker) it might have been a copycat and in that case I have no idea who that was. But with a brass lens (Bausch and Lomb?, Dallmeyer?, Daguerreotype?) It was probably him.

Rudy,
Not sure which model, but definitely a Graflex. He was shooting in "portrait " mode too! Can't imagine who would hire him, since the images he would get, after developing them, would be OLD!
Rich

I have no idea about his work flow, but he has been doing it this way for a long time, so I think he will be okay. He explained once that he also has a small P&S digital thingy.

I don't know him personally, so I don't have any answers.

Rudy,

I Googled the guy and he's OLD, LIKE ME!!! This guy had black hair from what I remember....

Rich

"In 2004, Burnett also used his Speed Graphic with a 178mm f/2.5 Aero-Ektar lens removed from a K-24 aerial camera to cover the Presidential campaign of John Kerry."

It is possible. There are others, but I don't know them

Rich,

They do make hair color for men you know! LOL

I have my dad's old Graflex in storage. It was his wedding camera and what he used until he retired from photography the second time around. LOL
The first retirement didn't take, brides would call him at home, begging and crying until he'd finally give in and shoot their wedding.

Susan,

Yeah, more than hair color.....maybe 30 years younger! I had an old friend, that used to shoot for a newspaper out West and he used that camera from the back of a horse, when shooting Polo games......

Rich

Maybe one of those you gots to know somebody people!

Rich - I am just interjecting what always strikes me when I think of the quality of black and white film. I am not a photographer so don't know why or exactly what the difference is between film and digital, but I see it or more accurately - feel it. I was recently going though some old photographs and was wondering if it is the "perfection" of digital that is the difference? What is that called - wabisabi?

I saw that guy. He had what looked like a medium format, in a sea of digital cameras. Guess he was going for the artistic approach to documentary. I think he was shooting that rusty guy, which Is a little ironic.


----Mike Savad

Val, "film" has certain attributes, some very subtle and some more in the mind of the users, like using an old tool that has been passed down in your family, value is more about the memories than the actual device. FILM is like that, reminds people of a bygone era, and like that era, has been replaced with something better. for the average photographer. ARTISTS can and should explore both, but for a "working" photographer, a decision has already been made.....digital.

You can't hold a "digital file", but you can hold a piece of a film....

Mike, no, was a 4x5 camera, Graflex, Speed Graphic 4x5. NO idea WHY? NO ADVANTAGES that I know about and shot 4x5 for YEARS! ON A MONOPOD, so the shutter speed had to be pretty fast, probably negative film, probably B&W Tri-X, or some of the newer B&W films with no grain....

Rich

After a few decades being a photographer I went finally digital in 2008 until 2018. I couldn't do it anymore, the feeling was gone. Cameras became disposable computer peripherals and the lines became blurred between photography and digital art. So... I shoot either with a Graflex 4 x 5", a wooden field camera, or my 1938 medium format walk around camera (my pocket camera). If I don't shoot with any of these, I shoot with a pinhole camera, which is just an empty box with a tiny hole and actually my favorite.

Going back to analog in 2008, especially to large format, was like coming home.

I just ordered my chemicals for salt printing, the oldest photography print process for printing on paper. Has been around since 1842

Obviously this is just for me. Other people's milage vary and that is good. There is something for everybody. Photography is united in diversity.

Rudy,

As an artist, you've made a decision that's right for you. I was a photographer for 40+, had all types of cameras and enjoyed them all. Today, to capture what I capture, ONLY a digital camera system will do. The "quality" of the captured digital images, is beyond what I could easily produce back then and of course, plenty of apps to make any file look like Kodachrome or Tri-X,etc.

It's a TOOL for a particular job, and not designed to cross over, easily.....

Not sure I shared this with you, but a few years ago, I think on Instagram, there was this guy, using a "wet" process and travelled the US and took pictures of some National Parks. Towards the end, he "upgraded to using a Hertz truck as the "body" of the camera, and then his "sheet" was taped to the back of the truck, I think something like 4 feet by 8 feet.....

Rich

Ah, Rich and Rudy. You make me yearn for the "good old days" of film and flashbulbs. I shoot wedding to help work my way through college. 220 roll film in a Mamiya Twin Lens Reflex - with interchangeable lenses. I had a "standard" 80 and a tele 180 - and got some great stuff.

Sometimes I think I would like to go back - and I do still have a Nikon 35mm film camera. But, nah - I'm pretty happy with digital. Now that my wife and I are into travelling, I can carry everything I need for 95% of what I shoot in a shoulder bag weighing less than give pounds.

Bill,

Yeah, great times.....sometimes! I remember one job, shooting a building and then at the end, I was on the roof, shooting the employees and boss. Maybe 60 people. I brought my backup camera, the Mamiya RZII, but was shooting this big shot with the 4x5. My building shots were all on E-6 stuff, but the group shot was on color film, Fuji, 4x5. I had loaded the E-6 film, had a case of loaded film carriers and my assistant had loaded the color negative film, which was in separate film holders. When up on the roof and shot a couple of Polaroids, 4x5, was ready. My assistant handed me the first film holder and as I usually do/did, would shake the film holder to HEAR the sheet inside......NADA!!! My assistant loaded the film holders, but grabbed EMPTY ONES!!! I quickly made some excuse to the 60 people below, changed cameras, shot a Polaroid and finished with the RZ. Worked out, barely. They still got a nice huge print for the lobby.....just NOT as large as they wanted....

Many stories like this....

Rich

Rich

There are actually quite a few people who travel like that doing wet plates. Some are more wel known than others.

Of course 4 x 5 feet is a little big and I am not sure how he would handle that in the field.

Wet plate collodion is probably one of the more popular alternative processes. That and cyanotype. With wet plates, the exposed plates have to be developed within 15 min of exposure, so you need to bring your darkroom with you.

I've run across a few photogs who still do some old version of "analog", and I'm curious about why. I've gotten several different rationales from them, but they were all about art and aesthetics, so, even if I disagree, at least I understand. I can't imagine doing something in the instant, 24/7 news world that way, considering how the images will get treated in the media (newsprint, conversion for broadcast or web site posting, etc). Aesthetics are mostly lost, and mainly what you need is an instant, no-hassle image that fits into digital use, especially when it's showing politicos at their worst. None of that seems like an argument for chemical photography.

I'd like to hear that discussion. I wonder if the photog uses flash powder for night shots.

Rudy,

He used the inside of the truck as his "darkroom" and from what I remember, mostly night shots.....which would help with any light issues....

Doug,

Yes, kind of strange, as I mentioned. His "image" would be hours OLD compared to the instant uploading of the other photographers' digital cameras system, so can't be for immediate release....

Rich