Photography Now & Then

I was never a full–time professional photographer nor trained as one. Instead I always had regular employment in fields unrelated to photography. They paid the bills and kept my mind sharp.

Yet I have also done dozens of professional shoots since the early 1980s, either individual commissions or work for clients as varied as Bausch + Lomb, Spike Wireless, The Sydney Morning Herald, Warner Bros Theatrical, Hewlett Packard, The Australian War Memorial and The Australian National Maritime Museum.

In 2024–5 I wrote a couple of personal monographs about photoshoots I did 1980–91, to accompany high resolution scans of the original films. Although they mainly deal with the photos and people, the more I wrote the more intrigued I became about the technical aspects and techniques involved. In particular I became fascinated by how much photography has (and hasn’t) changed since the 1980s. Clearly it was time to write a longer article.

What follows was originally intended for the “Notes” section of my The Boomer Legacy project. Once it grew beyond 15K–words I realised it better belonged here.

All the gear I write about was paid for by myself. I was never given loaners for favourable reviews. No scholarships, grants, awards or bursaries. Nor handouts from distributors/ departments/ partners/ passers–by/ grampa or multi–millionaire racehorse owning Fathers in Law.

90% of the following is unashamedly about photographic equipment. Gear–head stuff. Hardware. Where the metal meets the meat. No bearing witness nor sweeping tapestry of lingering unregeneratively in Plato’s cave. No REVEALED! SHOCKING SECRETS Pros Don’t Want You To Know! clickbait. Absolutely no politics of contested notions of linguistics, identity, borders, universality, colonisation, and the inherent dualism that exists Artspeak. Nor do I indulge in the photographer cliché of lauding my gear while disparaging everyone else’s. Indeed my most used camera (until recently) — the Sony α7RIV — I barely tolerate until I can upgrade to something better. I also poke fun at my Leica SL & SL2 because… why not?

Consider the following a guided tour through the mostly 2nd hand equipment I have used over the last 45 years. Sometimes I explore tangents to address broader issues, other times I tell stories, give obscure advice or dwell on the kind of technical minutiae which could make a nerd’s head spin. It’s all part of the fun and, WTF, it’s my website and I’ll do as I please.

Most of the cameras in this section were manual–only exposure and fully mechanical. I learned from bitter experience you could not trust auto–exposure with film as you only found out it failed when it was too late. You could of course shoot a sequence of ±EV backup exposures, and many did, but it was an extravagant waste of film, especially at $s per frame for 120 medium format.

Minolta SRT–101   (1980)

Purchased my first 35mm film camera in 1980 when I was sixteen: a 2nd hand Minolta SRT–101 with a Rokkor 50mm ƒ1.7 lens. Fully manual and mechanical, the “101” still gets a lot of love online — see this 2024 Reddit thread — but I never felt it. There was nothing wrong with it, but I found the results uninspiring. I mainly bought it to bask in the halo effect from all the prominent advertisements in early 1970s National Geographic Magazines. It was an okay albeit boxy camera, the CLC metering was reasonably accurate (for reflected readings) and the 50/1.7 lens was fine. But I always felt I could do better, so sold it within a year.

Nikon F2   (1981–6)   ↑

In 1981 I spent my final year at high school working two after–school jobs to save for my first proper camera: a 1972 silver chrome Nikon F2 Photomic. Got it 2nd hand for $AUD 490 from a retired accountant — which in today’s money works out to $AUD 2420.

It had a DP–1 Photomic viewfinder, which I often swapped with a DW-1 waist level finder for candid shots. It was a significant improvement over the SRT-101, but after a few months I accidentally dropped it onto concrete and broke the body shell around the lens mount. Despair, grief and irreparable damage. Took it to a few camera technicians and they all shook their heads. One of them laughed. I used epoxy glue to fix it as best I could, but eventually a few years later sold it for spare parts 😢

Twenty years later I bought a 1979 black chrome Nikon F2A. By then I was using a Leica R6.2 and deep in Leica Land, so feelings were more nuanced. Indeed I was so unsentimental I had the F2A butchered modified by a NYC camera technician so it could work with Leica R lenses — see my Leica FAQ.

Nikon F2 merits? Fully mechanical & battery independent operation, aside from the 3V CR1/3N battery for the DP–1 finder. A selection of interchangeable finder options and focus screens. It was motordrive ready — not that I ever used one. A Ti–foil shutter rated for 250K actuations when this was unheard of. Most importantly, it shouted Pro! when as a seventeen–year–old this meant a lot.

I had an accessory DL–1 Photomic Illuminator which screwed into the DP–1 eyepiece to light the frosted upper panel — very convenient for night work, in my case rock photography in murkily lit pubs. I also had a Nikon AR-1 soft release and Nikon AS-1 flash coupler. Over years I cycled through a variety of Nikkor F lenses, too many to list, but the best of them were the Ai–S 28mm ƒ2.8, Ai–S 50mm ƒ1.4 & (Afghan girl) Ai–S 105mm ƒ2.5.

• 

  Rock photography with the Nikon F2 and 50mm ƒ1.4 — Nick Cave & the Birthday Party in 1982

Issues? The shutter + mirror–return were staccato loud, which made candid photography awkward. I also found many Nikkor lenses were (to my critical eyes) meh. Finally, my patched camera yielded distorted images at wider apertures with the frame RHS out of focus 😕

Nikon F   (1986–92)

After breaking the Nikon F2 (and my heart), I swore I would never spend a fortune on a camera again. (Hah!) So I got a pair of “beater” 1960s vintage Nikon Fs for ≈ $AUD 100, with dented and scratched non–metered pentaprism finders. They did the job surprisingly well and I used them for years as “B Cams”, even accompanying me as who cares if they get stolen? cameras to Eastern Europe in 1991. Solid, bulletproof, dependable and after the F2… antiquated and dull. Having to remove the entire camera back to change films was especially annoying. By 1992 I was heavily into 120–medium format and had acquired a shiny new Nikon F4S (see below), so sold the Nikon Fs for roughly what I paid.

• 

  In Moscow with the Nikon F in 1991, at a protest at the entrance to Gorky Park

Stopped a bullet eh? Kid’s stuff! How about the Leicaflex SL2 Mot which survived an 8 km drop out of a fighter jet?…

Nikon F4S   (1992–3)

A big clunky beast with built–in motorised film advance. In ‘92 I had a full–time job as a solicitor and could afford to replace the antique Nikon Fs with a top–of–the–line Nikon F4S (1791), with a MB–21 6× AA battery pack and AF NIKKOR 50mm F/1.8 lens. Similar to the earlier F2 or F3 models, it supported interchangeable finders, so I also got a DW-20 waist level finder for candid work (had to import it from Singapore).

The F4S was the only camera I used in my twenties which was fully electronic and supported exposure automation. It had P_H, P, S & A exposure modes, although I mostly used M alongside a hand–held lightmeter.

Everyone kept swooning over the new “foolproof” matrix exposure metering, but it only took five minutes to show it was as compromised as any other reflected meter. Moreover the DP–20 finders turned out to be susceptible to LCD “leaking”, where the lower viewfinder display developed random ink–like artefacts (!)

I only kept the F4S for 18 months as it was too loud and conspicuous for street/ candid work. Also found the early screw–drive autofocus suboptimal (ie. crap) and realised I didn’t need a 5fps motordrive. At the time I didn’t have a photo trolley, so carrying the lump around my neck turned out to be the kind of character building I didn’t need. Meanwhile Canon EOS–1 fever swept the land, but I was thankfully immune.

Rollei 35S (1998–9)

After the F4S juggernaut I went in the opposite direction. The Rollei 35S was everything the F4S was not: tiny, quiet, inconspicuous and over–engineered. Alas its fixed 40mm ƒ2.8 lens was mediocre and susceptible to lens flare, despite being a Zeiss Sonnar. To make matters worse there was no rangefinder, so focus could only be done by eyeballing the distance and then setting the value on the lens 🤦🏻 Grew so frustrated I bought a Watameter accessory rangefinder. Unfortunately the 35S has its flash shoe on the camera base, so you had to use it upside down, then still transfer the subject distance to the lens by hand. To add to its extensive list of quirks, it used a PX–625 1.35V Hg battery which was so environmentally toxic it was soon banned.

The main point of the 35S was its compact body dimensions — but how do you hold something that small steadily? I persevered for 18 months and gave up. Ditched it for a Leica M and never looked back.

Rolleiflex T   (1981–5)   ↑

We skip back to 1981 and I’m still doing two after–school jobs to save for a Nikon F2, so didn’t have much money to spare. Yet I absolutely had to get a medium format white–face Rolleiflex 3.5F Schneider Xenotar twin lens reflex (TLR). The only problem was, it was prohibitively expensive and they rarely appeared on the 2nd hand market (no eBay back then).

After a few months I lowered my expectations and reluctantly settled for an inexpensive Rolleiflex T (M2). Not what I wanted it, but at least it was a Rollei.

Features:

• 1962 Model 2
• Carl Zeiss Oberkochen Tessar 75mm ƒ3.5 taking lens
• Bay I filters and lens accessories
• A dozen 6×6 (56×56mm) exposures per 120 medium format roll
• Grid–pattern matte–glass focus screen without focus aids
• Built–in “ν” self timer
• Built–in bubble glass Selenium lightmeter
• No auto–load film mechanism

Although it supported double length 220–roll film, I only ever used 12–frame 120. The 75mm Tessar lens could be excellent at ƒ8–16, although you got swirly frame–edge bokeh at ƒ3.5–4. The minimum focus was 1m, which sounds reasonable but wasn’t close enough for head & shoulder portraits. Rolleinar 1 or 2 close–up accessory lenses could help, but they couldn’t do anything about TLR parallax. Even so lots of people use them to obtain good quality portraits, so YMMV.

• 

  The Rolleiflex T 75mm Tessar could yield amazing results. In the 46MP scan of this 1983 image, you can count the fine hairs on the rioter’s wrist…

The built–in Rollei selenium lightmeter was a primitive match–the–needle thing, with its display located coaxially within the LHS focus knob. It didn’t require a battery, but worked poorly in dim light. I eventually got a vintage hand–held CdS Gossen Lunasix 3 lightmeter. It had “bright” and “dark” range settings and despite its age was surprisingly accurate for both incident and reflected readings. Unfortunately it couldn’t do flash readings, and like the Rollei 35S used toxic PX–625 Hg batteries.

What drove me to despair was the top (viewing) and bottom (taking) lenses being slightly out of focus alignment. It had negligible effect at medium to infinity distances, but < 3m it would front–focus by ≈12cm. For example I would focus on a sitter’s neckline, but her face would be OOF while the hands in her lap were sharp 😡 I had to work around it by focusing behind a subject’s face, which was always annoying guesswork [ Note I ].

Aside from the close–focus issues, I was happy with the Rollei T. The shutter was quiet, the lens sharp(ish) and it was relatively compact with the WLF folded down, making it easy to carry in a small bag.

Being unable to change lenses could be frustrating (any lens you like so long as it’s the 75mm bolted to the camera) but compared to the close–focus issue it wasn’t too crippling. As the old saying goes, zoom with your feet.

I also wasn’t worried about the lack of geared wheels for aperture and shutter speed adjustment, as per the more expensive Rolleiflex E/ F models. Some people fuss endlessly about the Rollei T’s cheaper plastic belt design, yet it’s robust enough to survive 60 years of use. Another deal–breaker could be the cost–cutting omission of Rollei’s auto–load film mechanism. I considered it one less thing to fail and how difficult is it to align the film indexing arrow with dots alongside the film gate?

Mamiya RB67 Pro–S   (1985–93)   ↑

Despite the Rollei T’s advantages and its role in capturing many of my early favourite images, I grew tired of the unchangeable lens and guesstimating close focus, so sold it mid 1985 [ Note II ].

Its replacement was a 1970s Mamiya RB67 Pro–S with Mamiya-SEKOR C 127mm F/3.8 lens, purchased 2nd hand from Fletchers Fotographics.

RB67 Main features:

• Medium format SLR with interchangeable lenses
• Fully mechanical battery free operation
• Built–in bellows for close–up (minimum focus ≈20cm)
• Ten 6×7 exposures per 120 roll, via interchangeable film backs. I only had one, but occasionally rented another when required
• The film back could be rotated between landscape or portrait without needing to reorient the camera (“RB” = “Rotating Back”)
• There was no built–in lightmeter if you only used the default WLF
• NO/ NONE/ ZIP Parallax! 🎉

A major irritant was the multi–step process required for each shot:

1. Crank the RHS lever to arm the lens–shutter & lower the viewing mirror
2. Advance the rear film magazine lever
3. Release the shutter (… and behold the incredibly loud KER–THWUNCK sound)

The later RZ67 had a combined mirror & film advance mechanism, along with an option to use a motorised winder. Which was nice, but the camera was so battery dependant I (and many others) refused to go anywhere near it.

A further nuisance was the hunched over the camera waist–level viewfinder, since I was too cheap to buy a prism or chimney viewfinder. The RB67 was also so bulky it required a hefty tripod — I tried shooting hand–held a few times, but it wasn’t easy. Grip holders were available, but they didn’t help with the heft and bulk.

Film–fogging could also be a significant issue when working outdoors in the sun. The RB film magazine dark–slide light traps were notoriously prone to light leaks, mainly due to foam &/or velvet seal deterioration. Discovered (much) later it was an easy fix — replace the seals! I didn’t know this at the time (no internet to search) so hacked a solution by using a gaffer tape flap over the slot. Crude but effective.

Things I liked about the RB67:

• All mechanical operation. During an era when batteries were unreliable (no Lithium Ion back then), you never had to worry about failed batteries ending your shoot abruptly (I’m looking at you rented Canon A1)
• 6×7 aspect ratio. Square format is excellent for various things (there’s a good reason why it was the default on Instagram), but you need to crop it to fit rectangular formats. The RB’s 6×7 is close to both 10×8 and 5×7 print sizes, so no need to cut as much
• Rotating back. You could shoot portrait format, then twist the back and shoot landscape without otherwise reorienting the camera. An alternate solution was 6×6 square format but… we’re back to cropping if you want rectangular results
• Robust & Reliable. I never had one seize on me, despite shooting more than 100 rolls. Wish I could say the same about my Hasselblads 😡
• All metal construction. Tough as, and you felt you could make Soviet field adjustments with little more than a bottle of vodka and a hammer. Completely unlike the more sophisticated and battery dependant RZ67, which used an intricate mix of plastic and metal parts to keep the weight down
• Beefy “Pro” looks. A superficial thing for sure, but clients/ sitters notice. A friend once complained about a dubious modelling gig she did partly because of the amateur gear the photographer used [ Note III ]. When she posed for me a few years later, she was very impressed when she saw the hulking RB67 atop a sturdy tripod, Jesus! Now that’s what I call a bloody camera!

Things I didn’t like:

• Don’t even consider working without a tripod + cable release. This thing is the size of a large shoebox and the weight of small car. I wrestled with it hand–held on a couple of occasions, and decades later still wakes in a cold sweat in the middle of the night. That said, the RB67 isn’t as laughably enormous as a Fuji GX680 (thank god)
• Rapid it is not. See above for the Concorde–like preflight sequence to take a photo
• Film magazine light leaks. Mentioned this above and yes I know Hasselblad can also do it, but having replaced the seals in my A12 magazines, they never leak, even if you leave them in direct sun for an hour (did this to test). When outdoors my RB67 was so bad it used to ruin frame after frame until I covered the magazine dark slide slot with gaffer tape
• Unremarkable lenses. Controversial opinion, but once you’ve used a Carl Zeiss PLANAR T* 100mm F/3.5 CFi there is no going back. Granted the Mamiya K/L lenses were generally okay and at ƒ11–16 could be quite sharp. They also have nice bokeh without distracting (Hasselblad) pentagonal highlights. But they do suffer from veiling–glare, and are noticeably less sharp at distances greater than 4m, especially the Mamiya-SEKOR C 127mm F/3.8

After the RB67   (1993–97)   ↑

I took a four–year photographic hiatus in 1993–7. Sold off the Nikon Fs, F4S and RB67 and replaced them with a “Texas Leica” Fuji Fujifilm GW670III Professional.

It was a large 120 rollfilm 6×7 fixed–lens rangefinder and worked fine. Yet I found it annoying as it was a fixed lens camera and the body was plastic–everything, which offended my all–metal brick sensibilities. The shutter was loud and made a ringing “twang” after exposure; The rangefinder patch was frustratingly small; The EBC Fujinon 90/3.5 lens was average and closest focus was only 1m — ruling out portraiture and close–ups. Again. Used the camera on and off for a few years then sold it without regret. I shied away from the more popular Mamiya 6 as I had read uncomplimentary things about unreliability and lens quality.

Oddly the GW670III still garners a lot of love online and 2nd hand prices are surprisingly high. Mine had < 250 exposures and the 6×7 version was quite rare as everyone else got the 6×9 “GW690III”. Maybe I should have held onto it 🤔

Mamiya C330 Profressional (TLR)   ↑

Svelte it ain’t…

Overview

If you haven’t guessed alread I was an outrageous camera snob in the 1980s. If it wasn’t Nikon or Rolleiflex then I didn’t want to know. Leicas were for dilettantes and Hasselblads were priced so far into the Oort Cloud my meagre undergrad budget couldn’t cope.

As I note above, after a few years of struggling with the Rolleiflex T I replaced it with a 2nd hand Mamiya RB67 Pro S in 1985.

At the time I briefly considered getting a Mamiya C220 or “Pro” C330 TLR, but wrote them off as bloated Rolleiflex wannabes. At any rate, buying another TLR was out of the question after all the focus and parallax issues I had with the Rollei. Yashica Mat TLRs were likewise out as I considered them the antithesis of everything I wanted in a camera.

In retrospect I should have purchased a refurbished C330 in 1981. Used prices were reasonable and 1970s models were easy to get as every Sydney camera store seemed to have an abundance of trade–ins. A C330 would have avoided most of my Rollei T issues and, despite the bloat, was still ⅔ the size of a hulking RB67.

Yes I know the ƒ2.8 or ƒ3.5 E/F Rolleis are famously compact, have fantastically sharp lenses and their focus action is sensually smooth. In particular, the 1970s 3.5F Xenotar models have near Hasselblad image quality, which Mamiya C–series lenses cannot match. They also come with enough bragging rights to satisfy even the most insufferable gear–head. (Who, me?)

Nevertheless decades later in Sept 2024 I bought a 1971 Mamiya C330 Professional from Sydney Super 8 at King Street Newtown.

It was an impulse buy. I originally saw a Rolleiflex 2.8E with lens separation & fungus, then noticed an excellent condition C330 for a surprisingly low price and quickly bought it. By comparison a similar age/ condition Rolleiflex 2.8F could have cost 5× more.

Mamiya C330 overview

The final two C330 production models were the C330 Professional ƒ followed by the C330 Professional S. Mine is the model before them, the straightforward C330 Professional. Apparently the later ƒ and S variants used more plastic components to lighten the load, so maybe it’s a good thing I got the older model. The later models did have a better designed RHS shutter lock and LHS friction lever to make focusing more precise. The S also had a redesigned single action waist level viewfinder and (it was claimed) brighter focus screen.

The much cheaper & simpler C220 is 500g lighter, but you have to manually cock the shutter in addition to winding the film. The C330 has internal gears for this, ergo the extra weight, although you can still cock the lens manually to reduce stress/ wear on the camera winding mechanism.

C330 Features

Rolleiflexes were made as self–contained snapshot cameras with fantastic lenses. OTOH Mamiya TLRs were system cameras designed for studio portraiture and weddings. Their main selling points were their lower prices, interchangeable lenses, focus screens and built–in extension bellows which allow significantly closer focus:

• 35cm for the 80mm F/2.8
• 65cm for the 105mm F/3.5

(Cf. 100cm for the 75mm on the Rollei T)

Which means you can get really close, almost 1:1.5 with the 80mm. No issues with head & shoulder shots — indeed you can fill the entire frame with just your hand! Things are even better with the 105mm or 135mm, where you can move in for head shots yet still be far enough to not spook the sitter.

TLR = parallax issues. The C330 has a viewfinder LHS needle to act as a frame–top guide, along with indicating close–up exposure adjustment — nix for the Rollei. For critical framing of static subjects, the “paramdender” tripod accessory can help.

TLR = no mirror–slap. Which ensures quiet vibration–free operation. The RB67 locks it up as part of arming the shutter, while Hasselblad provides a separate pre–release switch.

TLR = a quiet shutter. A surprisingly crisp little click, as opposed to the KER–THUNK of the Hasselblad or RB67.

TLR = laterally reversed viewfinder images, just like the good ol' days where left is right and right is left. To keep with the '80s vibe, I do my metering with a Gossen Luna Pro F (see below).

120 film = 12× frames per $AUD 25 roll. So make ‘em count!

Unfortunately it doesn’t feel as “solid” as my other mechanical cameras, probably due to the empty interior void for the lens cavity and black plastic concertina focus bellows. People who complain about the C330 weight really need to give my “Hasselpanzer” a try…

Aside from obvious things like close–up parallax, an inherent problem with all TLRs is controlling lens flare. When you look through an SLR you view through the taking lens and see exactly what the flare will look like on film. With a TLR you have no idea because you look through a separate upper viewing lens, which sometimes sees things differently to the taking lens beneath it. It can be infuriating, especially when shooting into the light. And yes Rangefinder cameras suffer the same problem.

I also find it’s easy to ruin slow speed shots by unintentionally jerking the C330 when pressing the side or front “chin” shutter buttons. At s/speeds less than 1/125th you need a cable release (or a pistol grip) for peace of mind. Despite having lots of longer cables from my Hasselblad days, got a vintage Kaiser 25cm release off eBay.

Another benefit of using a cable release (or grip) is to keep your fat fingers away from the spring–loaded shutter–arming lever, which is too easy to impede during operation and will result in a blank frame.

Then there is the dim viewfinder/ focus screen, mainly because you look through an upper ƒ2.8 lens designed for daylight or well–lit studio work [ Note IV ].

At least you can at least easily disassemble C330 focus screens to clean out ever–present dust bunnies. Nix for the Rolleiflex T.

Yet aside from the bulk & keeping your fingers away from the arming lever, the C330 on a cross–body strap works well as a walk around camera. When out and about I often get stopped by younger photographers: How old is your camera?!… Why does it have two lenses?… What kind of film does it use?!…

Accessorising The C330

• Replacement focus screen “C330 Brightscreen MPD #6613 screen”. Not overwhelmingly brighter than the original, but its 45° split–image microprism is a must–have for accurate focus
• Replaced the camera body leatherette using a pre-cut kit bought off eBay. The 1970s original was curling up at the edges, so the new skin makes the camera look and feel brand new
• Bakelite Mamiya M645 Series Pistol Hand Grip with built–in wrist strap. It needs to be used with a screw–in Abrahamsson (mini) “softie” to bridge the gap between pistol grip trigger and body “chin” release. Luckily there is still a bit of slack, preventing the shutter from becoming a hair–trigger. The adjustable wrist strap is also useful for a secure hold
• I originally tried a Hasselblad pistol grip (45047). Although it worked, it tended to twist on the base no matter how much the ⅜” mounting screw was tightened. Not an issue with the OEM Mamiya grip, which avoids twisting via a pair of pins that register with sockets on the camera base
• A custom 3D printed prism viewfinder adapter enables use of Hasselblad viewfinders. It was printed from a Mamiya C-series adapter for Kiev88/Salyut prism viewfinders STL 3D–file
• For a while I used a Hasselblad NC–2 prism, but it made the camera too top–heavy. I now use a Hasselblad Magnifying Hood (42013) Type I “Chimney finder” (see image below) which, being mostly empty space, is much lighter yet still makes focusing and framing easy

The camera with pistol grip and chimney finder is slightly bulky and conspicuous, at which point why not just use the 501CM or 500EL/M?… For starters there is no mirror slap, the shutter is significantly quieter, it has built–in extension bellows and — most importantly for this Independent Thinker — the oddball factor is off scale 🙃

Lenses

Currently use the following:

1. Mamiya Sekor 80mm F/2.8 (black, silver dot)
2. Mamiya Sekor DS 105mm F/3.5 (blue dot)
3. Mamiya Sekor 135mm F/4.5 (blue dot)

Mamiya TLR Lenses don’t score well on the online table of MF lens resolutions. Although apparently the Sekor 80mm matches the Rolleiflex T 75mm Tessar, both the Hasselblad 80mm Planar or Rolleiflex 3.5 Xenotar blow them away. You can clearly see the difference under a loupe → not a disaster, but clearly a downgrade in contrast and sharpness. Most vintage MF lenses were never designed to be hyper sharp anyway, as 120 film requires significantly smaller enlargement ratios.

80mm F/2.8

My silver dot 80mm F/2.8 came with the camera. Image quality? Mush at ƒ2.8–4 but okay at ƒ5.6–11. It is also sharper at 2–4m than infinity and contrast is muted due to antiquated lens coatings.

There are (unsubstantiated) claims the later 1980s Professional S lenses, with purple anti–reflection coatings, could match Rolleiflex & Hasselblad in optical performance. YMMV. All my Mamiya TLR lenses have the original yellow tinted coatings.

Contrast can be improved slightly for B&W film by yellow or orange filters → I always use a 46mm Hoya Y(K2) (HMC) filter, which requires only a +1 stop correction

135mm F/4.5

In April 2025 I bought an excellent condition blue dot 135mm F/4.5 medium telephoto lens. Discovered upon delivery it was a bit of a weirdo since the taking lens aperture and leaf shutter blades were exposed at the rear. I thought I had been scammed, but discovered it was a “feature” of the lens design (!)

A larger quirk is focus, as it’s not a true “telephoto” but rather a long–focus design. Which means at infinity the flange distance has to be 135mm from the film plane, requiring you to rack the bellows to almost half-way. Closer focus requires even more racking (sheesh). Thankfully if you remember to set the lens focal length on the LHS body dial after mounting (!), the amount of parallax and exposure compensation remains the same as for the 80mm.

The good news though is the 135mm is sharp! Magnificent for full–face shots or closeup details.

105mm F/3.5

A month later I got a blue dot DS 105mm F/3.5 lens, which has replaced the 80mm F/2.8 for everyday use.

I find the slightly longer focal length (58mm equivalent on 35mm film) more convenient for everyday scenes, along with tighter crops for close–ups.

Similar to the 135mm it is a “long focus” design, so the bellows also has to be slightly extended to achieve infinity focus.

Discovered upon receipt it had sticky shutter blades, requiring a trip to Camera Service Centre to be CLA'd. Luckily the original seller refunded the service fee from the purchase price 😀

Mamiya TLR Lenses Generally

Changing lenses on the TLR is convoluted but works:

1. Cock the shutter
2. Turn the LHS dial to lower the camera baffle slide (to protect the film)
3. Disengage the front lens wire clamp release
4. Mount the replacement lens & reengage the wire clamp
5. Re–raise the camera baffle
6. Set the appropriate focal length on the LHS dial to ensure the viewfinder parallax/ exposure compensation indicator is correctly configured

Sounds complicated because it is. Yet it’s relatively straightforward when you get used to it. The only problem is it’s too easy to fumble a step — in which case I suggest staying with the same lens while shooting and only changing between rolls.

Because 2nd hand replacement lenses have become so inexpensive (≈ $AUD 300–400), if a shutter dies you can simply buy another lens. Furthermore the lenses are uncomplicated and relatively simple to have serviced, provided your tech can source parts.

Mamiya TLR lenses all use 46mm filters — much easier/ cheaper than Rollei Bay I/ II. Searched my spares bag and found B+W 46mm rubber hoods for the 80mm & 105mm which don’t impinge on the upper viewing lens (original Mamiya metal hoods go for $120 on eBay).

In May 2025 one of my neighbours 3D printed deep dual lens rear caps for the TLR lenses. He did a fantastic job and the new caps are better than the 1970s originals!

All lenses have leaf shutters which enable flash sync at any speed. A surprise is how stiff the shutter springs can be. You can really feel it when you manually cock the shutter. Which explains why so many used C330s have stripped/ jammed body gears from ham–fisted cranking.

Hasselblad 501CM & 500EL/M   ↑

A famous brand this, despite idiotic attempts by management in 2012 to trash their own legacy by releasing “Lunar” and “Stellar” re–skinned digital Sonys.

I won’t spend time dwelling on the entire 6×6 V System, as there are plenty of others who have done this already — eg. Photoethnography or Beyond The Aperture. What I will do is note ‘Blad quirks and observations from my twenty years of experience.

Overview

I bought my first V System Hasselblad in Oct 2004 from KEH.com. It was a 2nd hand chrome 501CM with A12 Type IV back and Planar T* CF 2.8/80 lens. At the time many professional photographers were dumping their gear to go digital, so 2nd hand Hasselblad prices dropped to a moderately “affordable” level. Prices have since rebounded to almost triple what I paid 😠

Although not as bloated as the RB67, I quickly found the 501CM bulky and a pain to carry around. Tried various camera backpacks, which kinda worked, but by far the best solution was a homespun camera trolley made of a photo backpack attached to a wheeled frame. Over decades I have tried a few designs before arriving at my current two, referred to as Mir and Sputnik:

They both allow walking around for hours without breaking your back and can hold a camera with a mounted lens, along with secondary lenses and various film/ accessories etc. Sputnik is the default for everyday use as it can hold a lot of gear yet is small enough to wheel around in confined spaces. The far bulkier Mir is for those occasions when I need to go in heavy and bring the proverbial kitchen sink.

503CW vs. 501CM

These were the last manual 6×6 V System cameras before Hasselblad transitioned to the 6×4.5 H System in 2013. Both feature a “gliding mirror” mechanism to reduce vignetting for longer lenses or close focus, along with “palpas” internal anti–reflection coating. The 503CW is the premium model with support for OTF/ TTL flash and a detachable motor winder. The 501CM was released a year later (1997) as a “more affordable” model without TTL or winder support.

As I didn’t need the additional features, I got the 501CM, followed later by a 500EL/M for motorised work. At the time the 501CM was almost half the price of a 503CW on the 2nd hand market.

In Dec 2025 I got to play with a 1970s 500C/M (10022). It felt more solid than the 501CM, presumably due to tighter tolerances and a greater use of brass. The focus screen was a different story however — I couldn’t believe how dim and murky it was. Give me a “budget” 501CM any day with its Acute Matte D screen and GMS mirror!

According to its serial number my 501CM is a 2003 model, meaning it was practically new when I got it in Oct 2004. In twenty years it hasn’t let me down, aside from the occasional Hasselblad mis–cocked lens jam. For most of my early Boomer Legacy work it was used on a tripod, but from 2012 onwards I prefer a modified pistol grip.

The only snafu is the internal “palpas” anti–reflection coating, which has begun to fade and crack. Cannot be helped alas and luckily mine isn’t too bad. FWIW the pre–palpas coating in the 1970s 500C/M still looked excellent after 50 years…

Hasselblad 500EL/M

In recent years V Series “C” cameras have become more popular than ankle tattoos, yet the same cannot be said of their motorised “EL” cousins. The 500EL/M (10219) I purchased in Oct 2025 was surprisingly cheap as it came without magazine nor finder and its focus screen was in poor condition. Cf. a “mint” condition 503CW which can cost 10× more.

Motorised ‘Blads are unpopular for a couple of reasons:

• They are loud and bulky. Since they were designed for studio use, emphasis was on rapid operation and not “stealthiness”. Noise/ mass were not issues when the camera was intended to spend its working life on a studio camera stand
• Earlier models (500EL, 500EL/M) used a pair of archaic 6V NiCad batteries (“DEAC 5/500 DKZ”) which could only be recharged in–camera. These (unreliable, expensive, low capacity, heavy) cells were the bane of these things, forcing Hasselblad in later models to ditch them for standard 5× AA batteries, and offer a factory conversion service for existing 500EL/Ms as almost an apology

So why bother?…

• Nail, say hello to Hammer. They Are Tanks. They were designed to be simple and reliable and clatter along for 100Ks frames. It’s no coincidence I refer to mine as The Hasselpanzer
• Cheap. Collectors are so preoccupied with fighting over “NEAR MINT” 503CWs that motorised models get overlooked
• They are always armed and ready. Take the picture, Klak, Zeeettt and the lens is automatically rearmed with the mirror returned
• It is the only camera I have ever used which requires a 1.5A slow-blow fuse. There are even three sockets for spares, so they must have been popping them all the time [ Note V ]. Fingers ✗’ed I haven’t blown one yet

I got a 500EL/M instead of a more modern version (eg. 555EL/D) precisely because it was the older 2× NiCad model. They are very unpopular (ie. cheap), yet can now be powered by internal battery adapters which work better than the originals. I use a pair of “Hasselconverters” with USB rechargeable 8.3V 5400mWh cells, as lighter and more sustainable alternatives to 9V Alkaline/ Lithium [ Note VI ].

I specifically chose a 1983 model as it was late in the production run (1971–84) plus was what I would have bought in ‘84 had I the $10Ks required 😕

The 500EL/M has a DIN socket below the A12 frame counter for recharging NiCads, provide external power and for very long cable releases. Haven’t played with it yet. I covered the socket with a cap made from Sugru silicone putty, which can be peeled off if required. Also used Sugru to replace the four cracked/ missing plastic feet on the camera base.

The 500EL/M lacks the “Gliding Mirror System” of later models, but in my case it’s a non–issue as I only use the 2.8/80 or 3.5/100 Planars on this body. If anything the simpler mechanics makes the camera (a tiny bit) quieter and (maybe) more reliable.

Most of the time the EL/M is used with a “46221” pistol grip (see below), although have also purchased a “46063” FK–30 cable release for tripod/ monopod use. I notice after–market replacement shutter buttons are also available which are threaded for mechanical cable use. Haven’t bothered as I already have the FK–30.

Hasselblad Flexbody

From 2012—2024 I used a Hasselblad Flexbody (3072109) whenever I needed tilt, shift and/ or close–up:

• Tilt: approx. ±28°
• Shift: approx. ±14°
• Bellows extension: 22mm

I mainly got it for architectural/ landscape work, where the Scheimpflug principle increases DOF and provides perspective control. Emphatically never used it for (shudder) “miniature faking”.

It worked as advertised and looked imposing on a tripod. Yet was incredibly fiddly, similar to a view camera only more constrained. For starters the lens was mounted at a 90° rotation, with its centre line at 3 o’clock. You could only use standard V Series lenses, which were limited to modest amounts of tilt/ shift — unlike the Hasselblad Arcbody with its dedicated Rodenstock lenses. You rotated a small dial on the camera to arm the lens shutter, then closed it by a half–pressing a cable release. You swapped the focusing–back + 90° viewer for an A12 magazine, then advanced the film via the magazine crank (which otherwise you never touched mid roll). BTW don’t forget to remove the magazine dark–slide as there is no locking mechanism to warn you.

Which all sounds very pure & heroic, but in practice was a curse–inducing PITA. Shot my last roll with it in 2015 and kept it in a trunk until 2024, then sold it without regret. Should I ever feel the urge to Scheimpflug again, I’ll get a Linhof Master Technica and be done with it.

Zeiss T* lenses

Come for the elegant V Series modular camera design, stay for the Zeiss T* lenses.

All of mine are “CFi” versions, with arguably the best ergonomics, lens coatings, internal anti–relfection blacking and reliable shutters. I had each CLA’d a couple of years after purchase, so they shouldn’t need servicing for another twenty years. (A few persnickety forum dwellers claim you should do it every year. Yeah, right…)

Each lens has a B60/B70→67mm filter adapter ring, allowing use of 67mm filters, lens caps and rubber lens hoods. Since I mostly use them for B&W work, I have B+W 040 Orange filters to darken skies and B+W 022 yellow filters to lighten skin tones + less dramatic skies. I have multiples of each so can pre–mount them to avoid fiddling on location. BTW I don’t use UV filters on the Zeiss.

A lot of people wax lyrical about how “perfect” Hasselblad lenses are. Not me. While I admit they are very good, they have nowhere near the resolving power nor colour fidelity of certain Leica R or M optics (see below) or Rodenstock large format or Alpa lenses. Don’t believe me? Mount a V Series lens onto a high MP camera and gird your loins for disappointment. Nevertheless they are significantly better than the Mamiya–Sekor C lenses on the RB67 Pro S or Mamiya C330 TLR.

Like most retro medium format systems, V Series lenses have built–in leaf shutters (B—1/500th), which enable flash sync at any s/speed. This was one of their biggest selling points prior to the advent of high speed focal–plane shutters in the 1990s [ Note VII ].

I have all the relevant Hasselblad boxy lens hoods, along with a Proshade 6093T (40739) matt–box, but prefer B+W 67mm rubber lens hoods on the 3.5/100 and 2.8/80 lenses. They do an excellent job shading/ protecting the front element plus fold back onto the barrel for compact storage.

Loading Film

This is far more fiddly than it needs to be. You have to learn to slow down, or else pre–load your films in spare A12s prior to use. Small wonder the Rolleiflex film “autoload” mechanisms were so beloved by harried press photographers.

The basics of film loading are covered in detail by M.Thomas (2012) Photo: How to Load a Hasselblad Film Back on YouTube.

A few extra tips:

• Do it in a shady place. 120 film is comprised of a dual layer of film + paper backing, so it doesn’t take a lot of direct sunlight to leak around the paper edges to fog the film
• You don’t have to detach the entire film magazine from the camera body, just pop out the film insert
• Make sure the Hasselblad body is always cocked. This takes getting used to when coming from other systems, but with ‘Blads you do everything with the lens armed. If you don’t then you will lose the first frame when winding on. Up–vote for the 500EL/M which does it automatically after every shot
• The YouTube video shows the importance of aligning the film–backing arrows with the triangular marker on the film holder clip. I always give it an extra ¼ turn to provide additional space between the film leading edge and frame 1
• Film magazines (at least Type III & IV) stop at “12”, which is annoying as you cannot cheapskate an extra frame onto the end of a roll (a cool feature on Rolleiflexes)

I currently have three A12 — 6×6 magazines: 2× Type IV (with a rear integrated slide film holder), and a Type III (without). The two IV’s stay on the cameras while the III is used as a “B Roll” when I need to quickly change films. Both III and IV types have the most up–to–date film transports yet their external appearance is sufficiently dissimilar to easily distinguish.

In case you missed it, A12 magazines only shoot 12× frames per roll. At $AUD 25 per roll you better make each frame count. I have never tried a A16 6×4.5 (30082) back as you also need a 90° viewfinder with a 645 focus screen cropping mask. If you follow this route, be careful of accidentally buying a A16S back, which was actually a 4×4 back for “super slides” which worked with (some) slide projectors in the 1970s. “Slide Night” anyone?…

I wouldn’t bother with earlier magazine types, especially the “Magazine C12” (Type I) with its speakeasy peep–hole to align frame #1 — although it is so hopelessly antiquated I may get one just for LOLs!

Some people obsess over magazine shell/ insert serial numbers and insist they match. I don’t, but wouldn’t buy a magazine if the insert was > 2 years older than the shell. Use this site to check Hasselblad S/Ns for the manufacture date.

Finally, am thinking of one day maybe getting a (3:2 crop) CFV ii 50C digital back. Surely at my age I don’t need both kidneys…

Prism Viewfinders

My 501CM came with a standard “42315” (chrome) folding waist level finder. Light and compact, yet I found I was always popping the built–in magnifying lens for accurate focus. The L→R laterally reversed image also got old fast.

A PM–5 (42308) 45° prism solved most of my issues and I still use it today. It also has a “cold shoe” atop the prism for a spirit bubble (see 501CM photo above), or a small flash for weak fill or catchlight.

A few years later I got PME–45 (42297) metered prism because hand–held incident readings could be tricky when using telephoto lenses. The finder has built–in dioptre view–lens correction along with a variety of metering options, including a small diffuser ball for incident readings (!) It uses one CR2 V3 lithium battery which lasts forever. After a while I stopped using it as I found it too ungainly — not heavy since the external housing is mostly polycarbonate. I also became paranoid as eBay prices kept climbing. Reverted to using the PM–5 and now keep the PME–45 in safe storage, should I ever need a deposit for a second car.

When I bought the Mamiya C330 in 2024, I decided it needed a compact eye level finder. The original Mamiya options (Poro Finder or Poroflex or Eye–Level Prism Viewfinder) were overpriced, ancient and murky. Since the heirloom PME–45 was out of the question, I got a Hasselblad NC–2 (52027) 45° prism, mounted via a 3D printed adapter. Worked (very) well, although it did make the C330 top heavy. When I got the finderless Hasselpanzer a year later, I moved the NC–2 over there and had to search again for a finder for the C330.

Ended up getting a KEH “bargain” grade Hasselblad Magnifying Hood (42013) Type I “Chimney finder”. Which is light and works great, but annoyingly I'm back to viewing things L→R reversed again 😖

Pistol Grips

Initially used the 501CM on a sturdy tripod. It worked fine, but was slow and a pain to lug around. Eventually got a much lighter Induro CT214 carbon fibre tripod — but handling remained slow/ bulky/ awkward.

Around the same time I bought a couple of 45° prism finders and started experimenting with using a monopod or else shooting hand held. The monopod worked fine but was still slow and bulky(ish), whereas hand holding only worked at s/speeds ≥ 1/125th, as things got shaky otherwise.

I then discovered Pistol Grips, which promised a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately there were none specifically designed for the 501CM (or 503CW), so I used a generic grip as a kind of chest pod and tripped the shutter via a short cable release.

It was clumsy and inelegant but worked. Yet This Would Not Do. So I modified the trigger on a Kiev pistol grip and now we’re talking:

My 501CM grip is a combination of a modified Pistol Hand Grip Handle for Kiev–88 Salut–S with a Hasselblad Tripod Quick Coupling Release (45004). A little later I tried to similarly modify a Hasselblad “45047” Pistol Grip, but the Kiev–88 version worked much better as the 45047 had a slack trigger spring.

Have used my “frankengrip” for almost fifteen years, and although it would make W.Heath Robinson smile, it is secure and works very well, even down to s/speeds of 1/30th. If I pre–release the mirror then I can get down to ¼th. Any slower and I'm back on a tripod.

For the 500EL/M, Hasselblad made a specific “46221” grip with an elongated trigger finger. Unfortunately it lacks the slide–in convenience of my hacked Kiev grip, as you have to mount it by screwing into the ⅜” socket on the camera base. Consequences.

Miscellaneous Accessories

Bay (60/70) Filter Adapter Rings

Purists will recoil in horror but I have never used Bay–60 or Bay–70 filters. As noted earlier I use a Tiffen Bay 60 (or Bay 70) to 67mm step–up ring. They are made of aluminium and live permanently on each lens, although can be quickly removed if required. They enable use of easy–to–get 67mm filters, rubber hoods and lens caps. Since I tend to lose caps easily, any center–pinch generic 67mm cap will do. Brand aficionados can spend big on a Hasselblad H (3053360) 67mm for £UK 18, or a Ziess 67mm for $US 29 (+ shipping for both).

Hasselblad 45° Cable Release Adapter (50776)

These are available on eBay or online dealers and make using a standard cable release less stressful for the shutter button as they provide free play for the cable to rotate and swing. They also angle the cable go off to the side instead of going forward, which otherwise you have to bend back (see the Flexbody and 501CM photos above).

Hasselblad “unjamming” tool

These are essential to help re–sync desynchronised lenses or bodies, where one is armed but the other not. One end of the tool is to re–arm lenses, the other for the cam on the camera body. They are available on eBay for ≈ $US 20.

Focus Screens

Acute Matte D (42215) is the only way to go and came with the 501CM. It has a central split–prism surrounded by a microprism collar, with a large reference–cross to help with verticals. Unfortunately their 2nd hand prices have reached defence procurement levels (≈ $US 800!). Some money–grubbing diсkheads people even swap them out of motorised Hasselblads to sell the “42215” screen on its own for an obscene markup. In my 500EL/M I swapped out the supplied screen with a Maxwell Precision Optics “Hi–Lux” resurfaced reference–cross screen (42165), which is bright enough and works okay. BTW “Acute Matte” screens are distinguishable by the double–dimple on the metal frame at the LHS bottom.

Prism Rubber Eye Cups

Got a nice prism but the rubber eye cup has deteriorated? Despair not, for you can replace it with a brand new bargain Kiev clone — see Araxfoto.

Hasselblad Quick Coupling Adapters

These are mounts which attach to a tripod/ monopod head and allow “quick” mounting of the camera by sliding it into the adapter. There are many varieties (eg. 45004, 45128, 45130, 45144), choose whichever you prefer. Many people ignore them and instead use an Arca Plate adapter on the camera base, to then mate with a ubiquitous Arca mount on their tripod head. Boat. Float. Whatever.

Leica R6.2

I originally bought a Leica R6.2 (10073) in 1998 to replace the workaday Nikon F90X I was using for commercial QTVR panoramas. I chose the R6.2 because it was fully manual, didn’t require batteries (except for the lightmeter) and worked with my Leica FISHEYE-ELMARIT-R 16mm f/2.8 lens (11222):

I was happy with the R6.2, but when combined with a Motor Winder R (14208) it became bulky and loud (+ heavy as the winder required 6× AA batteries). I eventually sold it and moved on to using Leica Ms for most of my work.

During 2017 I bought a few Leica R lenses to use on my Sony Digital mirrorless bodies, and realised I also needed a Leica R body to occasionally shoot film. Initially got a Leica R7 but found it frustrating, so in May 2017 replaced it with a Leica R9 Anthracite (10090) with an R8 Motor Winder (14209).

Leica R9   ↑

When the Leica R8 was released in 1996, it drew howls of derision for being too heavy & bloated & trouble–plagued. Due to its unique design, which incorporated the viewfinder pentaprism into an undulating top plate, critics also disparaged it as The Buffalo Leica or The Hunchback of Solms.

Nevertheless the R8 was sufficiently successful to ensure an updated R8.2 R9 version in 2002. The new R9 is 100g lighter, has a mode–wheel lock, updated internal electronics, a top–plate frame–count display and is substantially more reliable than the (early) R8 — see Harris, J. (2023) Leica R8 and R9 SLR walkthrough at YouTube.

A note about R9 accessories above:

• The Summilux 50mm (E60) lens has a B+W 55mm rubber lens hood, attached via a Sensei 60–55mm step down ring
• The lens front element is further protected by a B+W “F-Pro” E60 UV filter
• A black silicone rubber ring separates the rubber hood from the (tokenistic) built–in hood, while a paisley blue silicone wrist band covers the lens focus ring to increase “gripiness” and aid in identification (all my R lenses have different coloured bands)
• The camera base has a R8 motor winder
• Peak Design Strap Anchors in the camera eyelets
• The shutter button has a 12mm chromed brass Leica Soft Release button (14015)
• The flash shoe has a Nikon BS–1 accessory shoe cap

The two CR–123 3V lithium cells in the R8 Motorwinder power the camera, including motorised rewind (if you choose). Without the winder the R9 body uses two smaller CR2 3V lithium cells. I have no idea how long the CR2s last as I have always used the winder CR–123s. One thing is certain though, the R9’s pair of CR2s last far longer than the single CR1/3N in the Nikon F3.

R9 Likes

The R9 is my go–to camera for shooting 135 film (that’s 35mm film folks), especially for wide angle or telephoto work. It has a number of benefits which make life more enjoyable:

Access to R lenses

At a time when “CaNikon” were betting everything on autofocus, R lenses were defiantly manual focus only. I didn’t care but a lot of others did, causing sales of Leica Rs to drop precipitously in the early 2000s.

I was lucky when I bought most of my R lenses in 2017, as prices were depressed due to perceptions of it being a dead system. Again I didn’t care as I intended to use them with my digital Sony mirrorless bodies. A couple of years later videographers discovered R lenses and prices soared back into the stratosphere. Why? Because their optics feature a pre–digital spherical design, where in–focus portions of an image are sharp, yet the remainder is “rounded” and “smooth”. This resembles classic Hollywood Cooke (and other) cine lenses which can cost ten times as much. This hasn’t escaped the attention of professional cinematographers, who also snap up R lenses to be modified or even rehoused for movie productions.

R8 Winder

The R8 winder (14209) carries over from the earlier R8 and is IMO essential. The larger CR–123 batteries last forever and having the film automatically advance after each frame is a godsend. I wouldn’t get the 4.5fps R8 motor drive (14313) though as it is enormous and uses an oddball battery pack which can only be recharged using a custom charger. Ditto the add–on Leica Power Pack MW-R8 (14250) for the R8 winder. In case you missed it, without the winder the R9 has to be advanced by hand as there is no built in motor (unlike (say) the Nikon F4).

Film Autoloading

Nikon and Canon had it for years, but it took Leica a while to get the memo. Slap a film cassette into the chamber, pull the leader across the gate and close the back — the winder will do the rest. It makes me smile every time (and try not to think too much about loading a Hasselblad A12 magazine or Leica IIIG…).

Only 36 frames…

… so make ‘em count. Like any film camera really, and a huge detox from the 750383 shots a day a typical mobile phone user does.

Accurate multi–zone lightmeter

In my lightmeters section you will notice I am a hand–held incident–reading kinda guy. The Nikon F4 matrix meter didn’t bowl me over, yet the R9’s built–in meter keeps surprising me with how accurate it can be. Usually. Of course things go awry with light or dark scenes, but otherwise it is mostly spot on.

Winder or manual-advance

This is pretty cool. When you need to tone down the Girls On Film clatter, you can disengage the winder by simply pulling out the manual film advance and then wind on by hand for as long as you like. When done, push the lever back and it’s motorised mayhem again. With the R6.2 “Motor Winder R” you had to partially extract the battery housing to get the same functionality. Using the motor to rewind film is also optional and I usually do it by hand to conserve battery life.

Exposure +/− lever

When shooting in auto–mode, which I seldom do, the +/− lever beside the viewfinder is handy for quickly adjusting exposure with your thumb.

Modes

“M” (fully manual), “A” (aperture priority auto), “P” (program fully auto), “T” (s/speed priority auto), “F” (for flash) — most of the time I use “M”. The R9 has a mode lock button to prevent the dial from accidentally shifting, something which bedevils R8 users.

Dedicated “F” mode

F is for Flash (metering). As explained in a 2002 photo.net post, the Mode Dial “F” setting enables the built-in flash meter only. You have to manually set the sync speed (1/250th) and your (estimated) lens aperture, then trigger the flash via the DOF lever (not the shutter button). The camera will measure the exposure then indicate any change in the viewfinder. F Mode works best with manual or auto thyristor controlled flashes. TTL is proprietary of course, so you need Leica OEM flashes or (say) a Metz 44 MZ2 with SCA 3502 adapter. Although F mode metering works as intended, you are much better off using a hand–held incident flashmeter (see below).

Clear optical finder

Modern digital EVFs can be bright and clear, but Leica SLRs already had it in the 1970s. Also available are a range of interchangeable R9 focus screens, including one with a framing rectangle for the 2005 crop–sensor 10MP Digital–Modul–R digital back. I use a standard focus screen with a central split prism surrounded by a microprism collar. Am still waiting for digital cameras to implement something similar.

• 

  When shooting film I usually prefer medium format. But the Leica R9 is for when I wish to travel “light”

The R9 (+ winder) is a delight to use. Yet they aren’t popular because they lack autofocus, a major deal–breaker for 90% of people. Furthermore Leica abandoned the R System in March 2009. Saying abandoned isn’t hyperbole, as they petulantly sold off all their R spare parts and refuse to service R cameras and lenses evermore. Luckily there are still a few (aging) 3rd party technicians who can do basic adjustments and repairs. Which may explain why used R9 prices remain relatively subdued 🤔

Nikon F3/T   ↑

What? Huh? GAS?!

In Feb 2026 I bought a rare(ish) black chrome Nikon F3/T (1694), a couple of days before this article went live. Will add more information once I have used it for a few months.

It is very hard to find a mint or near mint F3 black Titanium today.

Yeah well, I found one. More later…

Leica IIIG   ↑

Forget the stupid DMC DeLorean, the Leica IIIG is Time Travel With A Vengeance. Mine was made in 1958, six years before I was born.

Using any Leica Thread Mount (LTM) camera is Quirks Mode all the way…

• There are two shutter speed dials, which swap over at 1/30th second. The slow dial (B—1/30th) is on the front and the standard dial (1/30—1/1000th) is on top, which also spins when you press the shutter
• The top 1/1000th speed is Serving Suggestion only. You’d be lucky to get 1/800th, and that’s on a sunny day with a fair wind and your pockets stuffed full of four–leaf clovers
• You have to wind the film before setting the shutter speed, and notice how the s/speed dial slowly rotates as you turn the film wind knob
• Rubberised silk cloth for the horizontal–travel shutter curtains. Nikon started using Ti curtains because Leica users complained the cloth would burn through if you left your camera face up in the sun…
• There are two viewing windows: for focus use the LHS rangefinder and the RHS viewfinder for framing. At least on the IIIG they are located beside each other. On earlier “Barnack” models they are well separated, forcing you to shuttle between the two
• Lenses screw on and off, which is secure albeit slow, with some lenses ending up misaligned with the centre–line not quite at 12 o’clock
• The rubber vulcanite body material is so old now it tends to be crumbly and flake off. Luckily there is an easy solution: scrape the damn stuff off and re–cover using new self–adhesive pre–cut leatherette (did this for mine)
• Film loading requires patience, meticulous dexterity, a couple of pills and a large cup of tea — see Camera West TV (2020) How To Load Film In A Leica Screw Mount Film Camera on YouTube

There is no hinged camera back, so after removing the baseplate you push your film into a separate uptake spindle then poke it through a narrow slit on the base. Many keep the shutter open at “B” so they can see what they are doing from the front, after removing the lens of course. The film leader tongue also has to be longer than usual to avoid getting caught in the shutter. This “tongue” is easy to trim with an “ABLON” template, although many do it by hand. I have a collection of “IXMOO” brass film cassettes (+ Bakelite film cannisters) which I custom–load using a Watson Model 100 bulk film loader, for that Authentic Leica Experience™.

Got my IIIG in May 2015. A month later bought a 50mm Summicron M39 screw mount (11619) Japanese collector’s lens, to mix ‘n’ match old with new. Have been using the combo intermittently since, although it spends most of its time in a display cabinet now. It is incredibly fiddly to load and use, and having to swap between “standard” and “slow” s/speed dials is an anachronistic PITA. In mine the second shutter curtain has also become sluggish, sometimes leaving a narrow overexposed strip on a frame’s edge. Over years I have sent the camera off to various international repairers (my IIIG has circled the globe multiple times), but no one can do anything as apparently spare LTM parts have vanished.

• 

  An allegorical image about technology during 9/11, taken with a Leica IIIG manufactured before the first human spaceflight…

Nevertheless the IIIG is a beautiful thing, a real icon of 1950s industrial design. But… I have better and more practical cameras, so on display it (mostly) stays. Luckily the LTM 50mm ‘cron can be reused on M–mount cameras via a 6-bit encoded Fotodiox LTM–M lens adapter ring.

Leica M6 TTL (0.85)   ↑

Introduction

For years I refused to countenance Leica M rangefinder cameras as I considered them overpriced toys for effete dilettantes. Yet I was so impressed by my Leica R6.2 that I began to wonder if there was something behind the hype. So in Feb 2000 I bought a cheap 2nd hand Leica M4–2 (10106) from ECS in Paddington. As I didn’t have any M lenses, they rummaged through a spare parts drawer and threw in a beaten–to–death Summicron–M 50mm (11819) (which I now use as a loupe to examine processed films).

After a few rolls I was hooked. Sold it to defray the cost of a new M6 TTL, then started acquiring better condition M lenses. A couple of years later I also got a M4–P and then a 1964 M3— both of which I sold when I went down the Hasselblad route and needed to (temporarily) reduce the GAS.

M6 TTL — one of a kind

The Leica M4-P worked fine, but I found it workaday and uninspiring. My late production M3 was legendary and very inspiring, and had also been overhauled by Leica in Solms. Yet the 1950s film loading was awkward (and no the “14260 Quickload Kit” didn’t help) and the 50/ 90mm viewfinder frustrating → see my Leica FAQ M3 entry.

Enter the chrome Leica M6 TTL 0.85 (10466), which I got new in July 2000.

A few notes about the M6 TTL in the photo:

Custom Leatherette

I replaced the boring leatherette with a pre–cut self adhesive skin which better resembled traditional Leica vulcanite. When I peeled off the original I discovered 1999 written in pencil on the front camera shell, between the battery compartment and “R” rewind switch

Shutter soft release button

A 12mm chromed brass Leica Soft Release button (14015) to make slow speed shooting less shaky. I have a collection of similar “softies” made from anodised aerospace alloy (see “Accessories” below)

Hot shoe cover

Is the same Nikon BS–1 accessory shoe cap used on the R9 (and Hasselblad PM-5 prism finder etc.), although I cut a small notch to allow it to mate with the hot shoe front pin. You can get fancier ones from PPP for £UK 10 each (+ postage), presumably the elevated price being due to the pin–notch being cut for you…

Black Leica badge

I replaced the ubiquitous “red dot” with something more Bruce Wayne — see my Leica FAQ

Elmar–M 50mm II lens

I have a few M lenses but mostly prefer the 50mm Elmar-M (11823) as it has excellent optical qualities, collapses down for transport or storage and matches the retro look of the M6 TTL. (You can see it collapsed in the “TAR” photo below.)

Chrome M4–P base plate)

It isn’t obvious, but I replaced the original M6 TTL baseplate with an older one from a chrome M4–P. Did so to enable use of reloadable 1950s “IXMOO” brass film cassettes, as the older baseplate has an internal clutch mechanism linked the external lock key, to Auf/ Zu the cassette — see my Leica FAQ

M6 TTL features/ use in detail?

There is already an excellent M6 TTL write up by “Emulsive”, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Controversy Corner

Similar to the R8, the M6 TTL triggered a lot of feelings when it was released in 1998:

Oversized “Wrong way” shutter dial

The s/speed dial has a larger diameter and rotates in a direction opposite other Leica Ms. Many objected they had been using their Ms for decades by pinching the smaller more elegant s/speed dial and turning it the “correct” way. Having to forgo decades of muscle memory was thereby distressing and cruel.

TTL at only 1/50th?

The added electronics were welcome for more accurate flash exposure, but it was moot when most flashes, aside from Leica’s overpriced models, didn’t support it. Sync speed also remained frustratingly slow at 1/50th, ruling out daylight use unless you stop down to ƒ128 or have a supply of 6–stop ND filters. After the M7 Leica dropped TTL support in future M film models. Luckily they didn’t change the TTL protocol, so any M6 era flash will still work with current Leica cameras (pay attention Sony…)

“Bloated” dimensions

The TTL circuitry required 2.5mm to be added to the camera’s height, which is visible by the increased gap between the rangefinder window and top plate. Many people lost their minds over this: They’ve ruined the timeless aesthetic of classic Ms!

“Flare prone” viewfinder

Online wisdom declared Leica was in financial straights in the late 1990s and had to skimp on M6 TTL viewfinder glass and coatings. Er, not quite. While the rangefinder focus patch may sometimes flare, under known conditions, it is an issue for all M models between the M3 and MP mdash; see my Leica FAQ.

Zinc alloy instead of brass

The greatest amount of outrage was reserved for the retention of (lighter, cheap) zinc alloy for the camera top plate instead of reinstating (heavy, expensive) brass. This had been done earlier for Leica M6 models to simplify manufacture and reduce weight, although it may have theoretically made the housing more susceptible to cracking and corrosion. Online arguments about this raged at “New Coke” levels — see my Leica FAQ. In time the issue turned out to be greatly overblown. After a few zinc problems with early production M6s (eg. see this M6 with a bubbled cover), the problems were resolved by 1990 and my 1999 (silver chrome) M6 TTL still looks and works like new. Leica however became shell–shocked enough to revert to using brass for subsequent M body shells, although this time CNC’d instead of forged to simplify production.

Things I like about the M6 TTL

The shutter speed dial

Yep. Its larger diameter makes it easy to rotate with your index finder while looking through the viewfinder. It also has a separate “Off” setting to preserve the battery, unlike the previous models which use the ‘B’ for ‘Bag’ setting. I don’t care it rotates the wrong way. The larger dial was also used on the M7, but was dropped on later models due to persistent whining from collectors, “influencers” and grampas.

Fully Mechanical

It has internal steel gears to cope with motorised use and — aside from the lightmeter — is battery independent and fully mechanical. As there is no automation to mess things up, this thing is build to last. It is also the final production M which can use Leica “IXMOO” brass film cassettes, provided you switch the baseplate. BTW if you want to see how intricate mechanical Leica Ms can be, see this 2026 Leica M4 restoration video (!)

Built–in Lightmeter

Light through the lens is measured by being reflected off a grey disc printed onto the shutter front curtain. Which is surprisingly effective as it averages any scene contrast. Who needs computer–controlled matrix metering? The M6 TTL viewfinder display has also been upgraded by the addition of a central LED between two triangles to indicate correct exposure ▶ ● ◀ Only one arrow is lit during under/ over exposure, you then rotate the aperture ring or s/speed dial in the direction indicated until the 3–LED “bow tie” illuminates.

Choice of viewfinder magnifications

0.58 (for 28/ 35mm), 0.72 (general purpose) or 0.85 (for 50/ 75mm). I chose 0.85 as I mostly used 50mm lenses and it has the greatest rangefinder baseline separation for improved focus accuracy — important when shooting wide open at ƒ2 or beyond (eg. ƒ0.95 Noctilux).

Rare(ish)?

Apparently less than a 1000 silver chrome 0.85 were made, although no one is certain. Factor my simple modifications and it’s safe to say my M6 TTL is reasonably unique 🙃

M6 Battery Availablity

The lightmeter requires a Lithium 3V CR1/3N battery, which is becoming difficult to get. Not impossible, but not easy either. In April 2024 I visited a bunch of Sydney CBD electrical and camera stores and struck out every time. Luckily a few days later I managed to buy a pair from a specialist battery store in Penrith — phew! The sales guy also gave me a handy tip: as they are used in dog shock–collars, contact a pet store if things get desperate (!) BTW the CR1/3N is also used in the Nikon F2 and F3/T.

And yes I know you can use a pair of (1.55V) S-76 Silver Oxide or (1.5V) LR44 (Alkaline-manganese type) cells instead of the Lithium CR1/3N. Only if you are desparate IMO as they don’t last anywhere near as long.

Rapidwinder

The Tom Abrahamsson Rapidwinder (“TAR”) is a trigger operated film advance which replaces the baseplate of M models with internal steel gears & slotted motor cams (eg. M4–P onwards). It doesn’t work with older models (M4 and previous) because they lack the internal cam and use softer brass gears.

Think of the TAR as a manually operated motordrive, where you advance film by pulling laterally on the spring–loaded lever. You can only advance in one direction as the clutch disengages on the return stroke. You also have to separately press the shutter following each stroke, as you cannot hold it down while repeatedly pulling (yanking?) the trigger. You can however switch mid roll between using the TAR or camera advance lever without changing the camera base.

It was so successful it “inspired” Leica to design their own version in 2003: the Leicavit M (14676). Yet the TAR was mechanically simpler, more reliable and cheaper — see the TAR website and my Leica FAQ.

Unfortunately Tom died in Jan 2017, so you can only get them 2nd hand now, at inflated prices. I bought mine new in Oct 2001 and it is not for sale [ Note VIII ].

Leica Motor M

As mentioned earlier I primarily used a M4–P to shoot 360° panoramas. With a 16mm full–frame fisheye lens you needed 8× frames to cover 360°. At first I advanced the film by hand, but after a while got irritated enough to get a Leica Motor M (14408).

It is far more compact than the earlier “Leica Winder M” and has two speed settings of “I” (1.5 FPS) and “II” (3 FPS), neither of which is particularly loud (cf. the “Hasselpanzer” !)

It uses a pair of 3V 123A batteries and unlike the R8 winder, does not power the lightmeter — you need an additional 3V CR1/3N in the camera body. Similar to the “TAR” the M Winder cannot rewind film, but it likewise allows manual film advance while the motor is still attached.

Worth it? Depends how much you shoot. It is fantastic if you hammer through rolls, but for occasional individual frames — not really. Again, see my Leica FAQ.

DIY Leather Wrap

When I first posted photos of my leather wrap in a Leica forum in 2003, it drew a lot of admiration: A case is like sticking a ‘car bra’ on the front of an otherwise beautiful sports car … That’s the stupidest damn thing I have ever seen! … Does it come with tatts, studs and a nose–ring? … I would be ashamed to go out onto the street with such a ^%&#ing ugly thing!

Unlike the bottom half of a Leica 14870 case, my wrap is made from a single piece of 5mm full grain leather hide (with a rolled surface pattern, bought from a tannery), lined internally with 2mm felt and held together by four brass press studs. At the rear I cut a 10mm hole for the viewfinder and added a vertical cable–tie with 2× Peak Design Strap Anchors. I cut the leather by hand using electrician’s shears + an artist’s scalpel, then finished the edges with fine emery board and a paint pen. The leather was treated with preserver and Dubbin. The photo was taken in Nov 2025, twenty–two years after I made it. Like its maker it has aged rather well 😉

Rationale? Cheap; No need to fumble with a “never ready” case as the camera is always ready; It keeps greasy finger marks off the body; It helps protect the camera from scratches and bumps; It muffles the shutter sound (a lot); Is soft, pliable, feels & smells great (!)

Do I sell them? No. Can I send you a template? No. I notice you can buy “Artisan & Artist” half–cases now, although they are much thinner so won’t protect the body nor muffle the shutter as much.

Leica M Accessories

Over decades I have found the following useful:

“AUFSU” finder

An accessory right–angle viewfinder made in the 1930–40s, which slides into the camera's flash accessory shoe. It can be used in landscape or portrait format, and contains a tiny silvered pentaprism to display the scene right way up and correct lateral orientation. As you can imagine it is fantastic for candid shots, although I find the image rather small nowadays. I have added a hotshoe bubble level to avoid “Dutch angles”. I note collectors in recent years have pushed up prices to insane levels. More detail at my Leica FAQ.

Brightline Finders

I have two by Voigtländer: 35mm and 50mm (see YouTube video). They act as auxiliary viewfinders with (very) bright frame lines and are only useful for framing as they don’t couple with the rangefinder. Again, see my Leica FAQ.

Abrahamsson “softies”

These were made by Tom Abrahamsson from 7000 series aluminium and (with great difficulty) anodised. From L to R in the photo: red mini, black chrome regular, titanium regular, silver chrome mini — the latter I buffed into a mother of pearl finish.

Flash sync terminal socket cap

You can get generic plastic versions for spare change. OEM Leica versions are ridiculously expensive.

Leica “red dot” badge

In the early 2000s they were a spare part you could order directly from Leica as Badge circular ‘Leica’, 710 271 000 000. They were (of course) expensive and I don’t know if they are still available.

Shooting with the M6 TTL

Since most of my work is digital now, I don’t use the M6 TTL as much as I did twenty years ago. Even when I shoot film today it’s mostly 120 medium format. I also I prefer the R9 for the (very) occasional roll of 135. Yet… there is nothing like working with a rangefinder camera. Maybe one day I will get a 2nd hand (digital) Leica M10–R (20003)…

• 

  In the early 2000s one of the best ways to shoot candids was with rangefinder camera, here my Leica M6 TTL

Overview

When estimating photographic exposure there are two ways of measuring light: “reflected” & “incident”. “Reflected” is done by every TTL camera: light goes through the lens and electronic sensors inside the camera figure out the exposure. For “incident” you use a separate hand–held meter to measure the amount of light falling onto a scene.

Reflected readings are fast and convenient as they are built into cameras. The problem is they all assume a scene’s average reflectance is 18% grey, which it seldom is — especially if it is black or white. Reflected readings will always be messed up for photos on the beach or on snowy hillsides.

With digital cameras you can immediately see if the exposure reading is out and adjust accordingly, but with film you have to guess. Hence the reason pros shot a lot of Polaroid instant prints in the ‘80s and ‘90s, to get the exposure right before to recording onto film (which was expensive even back then).

Incident readings however cannot be fooled by a scene’s colour or contrast, as they directly measure the intensity of light falling onto a scene. To do this you need a hand–held meter and need to stand in front of the scene/ person/ object you need to measure.

As a result incident readings are accurate 90% of the time. Unfortunately they don’t really work for fast action or long telephoto shots. In which case you need to revert to reflected readings and compensate and hope. Many people use spotmeters, but despite being more precise they still have the inherent flaw of measuring reflected light.

Even today I still pack a hand–held meter for occasional incident readings. It isn’t strictly necessary, but call me old school. It is however essential for metering flash photos.

The following are what I have used for the last 35 years. They are all German–made by Gossen and have never let me down. In the late ‘90s I flirted with Sekonic and Minolta alternatives, but found them either too cheap (S) or fiddly and expensive (M).

All three Gossens support flash and EV scale readings, which dovetail nicely with EV settings on Zeiss Hasselblad lenses.

Luna–Pro F   ↑

In 1982 my first proper lightmeter was a 2nd hand 1960s Gossen Lunasix 3. It worked well for daylight but couldn’t measure flash, forcing me to rely on dodgy G/N calculations or built–in flash auto–thyristor control.

By 1990 I got fed up and replaced it with a decent flashmeter — a 2nd hand 1980s Luna–Pro F:

• All exposures were spot–on thereafter 🎉 😀
• It measures daylight and flash, or any combination thereof
• Uses a PP3 9V battery, which lasts forever with a Lithium 1200 mAh cell
• The film–speed dial is still in “ASA”, as “ISO” was only introduced in 1987
• I mostly use it in incident mode, although the spherical white diffuser can be slid aside for reflected readings

I sold it after a few years when upgrading to a Sixtomat Flash, but missed the retro dial so much I bought another in Mar 2017. I continue to use it for 120–format B&W, but the tiny numbers for aperture and s/speed are difficult to read now without glasses 🔍

Being an ‘80s relic with an analogue needle + magnetic coil + 9V battery, it is a bit bulky, which can make pocket storage awkward…

I originally wanted a Profisix SBC. It had an extensive range of accessories and was claimed (at the time) to be the most professional of Pro lightmeters available. Unfortunately it was also eye–watering expensive, even 2nd hand, and cost more than the cameras I wanted to use it with!  Ironically for flash use, the cheaper Luna–Pro F was a better option as it already had the flash functionality built in, whereas a separate “Profi FLASH” attachment was required for the Profisix.

Sixtomat Flash   ↑

Bought this to replace the Luna–Pro F as it was thinner and solid–state with no fragile moving parts. Of all my lightmeters the Sixtomat Flash has seen the most use, having measured 10Ks scenes over twenty years. Like the Luna–Pro F it measures ambient or flash or any combination thereof.

Despite its all–plastic build, it’s a robust thing with an easy to read display (without glasses!). It uses a single AA 1.5V battery which in Lithium 3000 mAh format lasts years. My only issues are having to hold the meter horizontally when doing measurements and the white diffuser sphere being a bit small.

Gossen make an updated “F2” version with red buttons and a few additional markings, but I haven’t bothered upgrading as it’s basically the same meter.

Digipro F   ↑

Around 2010 I was looking to upgrade from the “Sixtomat F” so got the Digipro F. Frankly it’s not much different and also uses single 1.5V AA battery, although the ball head is much larger and can swivel fore and aft.

What I like is being able to use it vertically to read exposure values during measurement. What is annoying is the swivelling ball–head which sticks out the top, making it considerably longer than the Sixtomat. What I hate is having to unscrew the ball diffuser when I need to take reflected readings (with either the Luna–Pro or Sixtomat–Flash you slide it out of the way).

Again there is an updated “F2” version, with black buttons, red & white livery and a few additional fringe features. Again I haven’t bothered upgrading.

Most of the time the Sixtomat–Flash is used for everyday scenes or Luna–Pro for 120 B&W film. The Digipro F is mainly used for flash exposures due to its larger swivelling ball–head.

Rationale

Most of my work now is digital, yet I still occasionally shoot film. Not so much for a retro film–look aesthetic, but simply because I enjoy using film–era cameras.

With older mechanical cameras there is no forest of menu options. No chasing the focus point around the EVF. No nose–activated hyperactive touchscreen. No AEL. No half–remembering which dial does what. No continuously draining battery. No beeping audio feedback you have to drill twenty levels down to silence. You get a clean, simple haptic interface. Clearly marked aperture ring and s/speed dial (on the Leica IIIG you get two). A clear viewfinder with manual focus aids. You measure the light, set the aperture and s/speed, focus, wait for the right moment and take the bloody shot.

It saddens me that few digital camera makers understand the value of this and instead insist on varying amounts of automation to make things “easier”. FFS. If you wish to use digital cameras with manual only control, then your only options are luxe digital offerings from either Fuji or Leica (I’m looking at you M11–P…)

Yet film has one other benefit I suspect will eventually bite most digital users — archivability. In 2023 I set about high resolution rescanning my favourite shots from the 1980s & 1990s. Some of the films were more than 40 years old, but due to careful processing, storage — and luck — the films were still in excellent condition and the resulting 40MP scans look spectacular. I extracted tones and details I had never seen before and I’m certain no one is going to be extracting anything from RAW digital files in forty years time…

To be clear I do not miss the downsides of film. Things like the forever–increasing expense or sweating in a “dankroom” or engaging in photochemical warfare when mixing solutions or rocking trays. Nor do I miss having to retouch scratches and dozens of ^%&#ing dust spots. Even today, working with film requires far too much guesswork and finger crossing. Development remains a PITA (Why won’t this damn film slide into the processing reel? Is the developer still okay? Is the fixer exhausted? Crap, the negatives are too thin — the solution must have cooled during development). So aside from developer or toner fumes, I’m not misty eyed about any of this and, to be honest, nostalgia only works if you have a faulty memory.

As a result, I now use film as merely a first step in an otherwise digital process.

While completing this article in Feb 2026, film prices increased by ≈17% due partially to the speculative bubble in silver bullion & futures contracts. Good and bad news. The bad is obvious → more $s per frame. The good is it will force everyone to do what I’ve been saying all along — make every shot count.

B&W vs. Colour   ↑

I have written about this already in my Critics essay, so I’ll keep it short.

You see the world in colour, why not record what you see? B&W is an obsolescent medium invented only because colour technology was not available at the time.

That said, I appreciate the abstraction (and processing simplicity) of B&W. Most images work in colour, some in B&W, and despite self–righteous grandstanding informed discussion in online forums, the requirement to shoot exclusively in B&W to capture people’s souls does not in my universe constitute the Eleventh Commandment.

Black & White Film   ↑

Over decades I have tried a large variety of B&W films, but have settled on only 2–3 for current use. For 120 medium format I prefer Kodak TMAX–100. I used to be a huge fan of Ilford films and papers (and still use their developers) in the 1980s and ‘90s, but over time found their FP4+ and later Delta 100 emulsions too grainy in comparison to TMAX–100.

If I need something faster then I opt for 400 ISO Kodak TMAX-400. I tried Ilford HP5 a few times, but again found it too noisy for my taste. Back in the 1980s I used to push–process Kodak Tri–X to 1600–3200 ISO, but with digital there is no need to do this anymore.

I face a conundrum for 135 format in that results will always be grainy no matter what you do. This is because greater enlargement ratios are required by the smaller frame size (“135” = 24×36mm vs. “6×6” = 56×56mm or “6×7” = 56×69mm). I have tried 135 versions of 100 ISO Ilford 100 Delta Professional and Kodak TMAX-100, but wasn’t satisfied. In the 1990s I used Kodak Technical Pan 2415, which was amazing but slow (25 ISO), red sensitive (great for skin tones but would lighten lipstick & nail varnish) and required a special developer. It was however exceptionally fine–grained and sharp, yielding impressive 40MP scans decades later. Unfortunately it was discontinued in 2004 due to its stiff “Estar-AH” base, which tended to jam in motor–driven cameras or when being fed into auto–load developer reels 😕

As mentioned earlier I mostly shoot 120 medium format now, so a lack of satisfactory 35mm options isn’t too frustrating. But never say never. In Dec 2025 I started experimenting with Ilford Pan F Plus. At only 50 ISO it is s–l–o–w, especially with a −2 EV orange filter, but initial results are promising.

I tend to buy film in 100–foot rolls or multi–pack lots, then store it in their original unopened packages in a freezer at −18°C. My freezer has a shallow middle tray which is ideal for this:

To prevent condensation on the film surface I thaw the unopened film for 2–3 hours before use. Kodak have a Technical Information Bulletin about this: Storage and Handling of Unprocessed Film (PDF, 2022). See also their Storage and Care of Kodak Photographic Materials (PDF, 2017) for tips on archival storage.

B&W Processing

To my amazement a lot of photographers outsource this to labs or friends or random people they meet on the bus — not me. As far as I am concerned, choosing the right film + filter + lens + camera is only part of the equation, making the little Ag granules to snap to attention is the remainder.

Ceaseless experimentation in the early ‘90s has yielded the following:

Development

Ilford Perceptol at 1+1 dilution. Perceptol for the fine grain and 1+1 dilution for greater temperature control and acutance. It’s a one–shot process so you discard the solution after use, which guarantees fresh developer every time. One litre of full–strength concentrate is adequate for four 120 or 135 format films. I tried 1+3 dilution once, but it exaggerated the acutance so much it overwhelmed the film’s grain structure. The necessary increase in development time was also ridiculous (≈20 minutes).

Figuring out the correct development time(s) for each film used be difficult, but is much easier now. Look up your film at the Ilford Films colour development chart (PDF) or The Massive Dev Chart database, then apply temperature time corrections using the Ilford Temperature Compensation Chart (PDF).

I have done this for my favourite films, then created an Excel spreadsheet + PDF chart:

The same development technique is used for every B&W film:

• Pre–wash with plain water for 2 minutes at the desired temperature to wash off the film anti–halation layer
• Pour in developer, start the clock, aggressively tap the tank to dislodge air bubbles and give 30 seconds initial agitation, followed by 5s every 30
• A spindle is used for rotary agitation instead of the more common inversion method
• I try to maintain the solution temperature at 21–22°C, although keeping it there in winter can be difficult

Have used Patterson daylight tanks since 1981, but replaced the Patterson film reels in 2016 with a pair of Omega alternatives. These have longer film guides to make them easier to load, especially with curly 120 film. (BTW it helps if you round off the film leader corners before feeding into a reel.)

Stop bath

Among other things I am an ex-industrial chemist, so I use ≈ 1ml of glacial acetic acid in 500ml water, which is enough to stop a freight train let alone developer. For LOLs I once tried a couple of drops of oleum, which worked fine but was a bit maxtreme even for me. Those who frighten easily can instead use a splash of vinegar or (gasp!) a commercial stop bath.

Fixer

This one is easy: Ilford Hypam at 1+4 dilution. Slosh it around for 4 minutes and pour it back into the storage bottle to be reused. Have found 1L of 1+4 diluted solution is adequate for 4–5 rolls.

Wash

Twenty years ago I would add hardening agent to the fixer to reduce scratches and improve drying times. The bad news was having to wash for 60 mins in running water. As I no longer do this, 30 mins of running water is enough. A gentle flow of 2L/min is adequate, just enough to flush residual chems off the film and out of the tank.

Drying

It required a lot of voodoo to get this right. Fill the tank with warm water at ≈ 40°C, add 3ml of Kodak Professional Wetting Agent 200 and agitate to get a nice foam. Then hang the film to dry with weighted s/steel clips. Do not squeegee excess water — let it drizzle off. Since the surfactant solution is quite warm, its surface tension is low enough for the solution to flow down without leaving drops or residue. Hang the film in quiet room and wait ≈ 4 hours to air dry — although again for LOLs, I once hung my film out to dry with the laundry on the backyard clothesline on a windy day. It dried quickly but there were more dust spots than all the stars in heaven…

Storage

The processed 120 films are cut into strips and stored in Print File Archival Storage Page sleeves. Which really are archival as I have films which have been stored this way for 40 years without deterioration.

“Keeper” shots on 135 film are cut into individual frames and mounted in glassless GEPE plastic slide mounts. These don’t seem to be available anymore, although similar alternatives are easily to get.

Digitising

I still occasionally use an antiquated Epson Perfection V700 scanner with VueScan software, but from 2024 onwards have been digitising my films using a home–made digital camera copy rig. Since there are plenty of articles and videos about this already — Google it mate.

Colour Reversal Film   ↑

When I started shooting colour in the 1980s, I initially used C–41 negative film. It was relatively cheap, easily available and there were minilabs everywhere for quick & inexpensive processing. Unfortunately the convenience ended there, as I had a nightmare of a time getting decent quality prints.

The problem was you couldn’t determine colours by merely inspecting the (orange masked) negative. Which opened the door for lousy guesswork from disinterested (colour blind?) lab technicians. High–volume wedding and portrait photographers worked around it by setting up their own RA4 print machines to get prints done with reasonable colour fidelity. Not an option for us little guys.

I found had to photograph a colour test target at the beginning of every C–41 roll, with standard RGB and CMYK elements, for lab technicians to pretend to use. Part of the reason Polaroid proof–prints were so popular back then was to provide colour images to help guide our visually impaired “Pro Lab” friends.

Enter Plan B, colour reversal film. Aka “transparencies” or “slides”. No more guesswork — WYFSIWYFG. There in front of you under a loupe was a master image with all the colours exactly the way you wanted. No more arguments 💕

Reversal film solved the colour fidelity issue as you placed the original onto a calibrated lightbox and kept adjusting the scanner/ printer CMYK settings until the two (reasonably) matched. In the pre digital era this explains why magazines and advertisers only accepted images on reversal film (or hard–copy prints at a stretch).

Restricted Dynamic Range (D/R)

Maybe only 5 ƒ–stops. Ignore claims that reversal film has 8, or even 12 ƒ–stops exposure latitude (eg. for Kodachrome 25). These are best–case scenarios from lab density measurements, not real world images. The adage of expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may came from shooting slide film. Highlights would routinely blow out, shadows were unfathomably dark. Some people liked it, others built their careers upon it (eg. Alex Webb) — but I found it frustrating. You had to use fill flash and/ or reflector boards for just about everything, indoors or out.

Mixed lighting/ Mixed results

The greatest issue with reversal film is being unable to cope with artificial light without colour correction (CC) filters. There is no AWB when shooting film. Since there is also no such thing as “objective” colour [ Note IX ], photochemical processes can only record what was present and not what our minds “saw”. Eg. light from fluorescent “daylight” tubes is recorded as emerald–green, while tungsten filament light–bulbs are rendered yellow–orange, despite our minds reporting “white” in both cases. When artificial light is mixed with natural light, colours can run riot — see the Dean Stockwell Camelot service station scene in Paris Texas (1984) or Alex Webb’s A City of a Hundred Names (2001).

An 80B (blue) filter will tone down tungsten orange, or a CC30M (magenta) for fluorescent green — yet more stuff to carry around. CC filters also absorb light and thus reduce the effective ISO, requiring longer exposures. Cinematographers don’t muck around, instead of filtering the lens they gel all the light sources with CC filter sheets and adjust until they have exactly the colour they want. Not really an option for “run–and–gun” candid street photography…

FWIW I always use a faint blue 80C filter when shooting indoors to boost the blue channel

Transparency films came in two broadly different types based on their processing chemistry: K–14 and E–6:

Kodachrome (K–14)

Kodachrome was a magnificent film. Don’t be fooled by lousy digital scans of shots taken in the 1940s and 50s, as colour images from this film were made to last. I have shots from the early 1980s which look like they were taken yesterday — no fading, yellowing or “cyanification” of red dyes. Because there were no dye–couplers in the film structure, it had fewer layers, making it thinner and consequently sharper than any other colour film — an important feature when shooting onto small formats like 135.

The resulting colour was also fantastic. Neutral but with a bit of saturation to make things pop. Kodachrome 64 (64 ISO) was good for general use, with Kodachrome 25 (25 ISO) for hyper–sharp sunny landscapes. Kodachrome 200 (200 ISO) was also available near the end, but I found it boring compared to K64.

So what’s not to like?…

Strong contrast

As mentioned earlier, reversal film had limited dynamic range so was naturally contrasty. Kodachrome took it to the next tier. You worked around it by exposing for the highlights, but occasionally you wanted to see what was also going on in the shadows, right? Thus fill–flash was almost mandatory, despite 35mm cameras having slow sync speeds [ Note VII ].

Limited formats

For a long time Kodachrome was only available in 135 rolls, with 120 medium format (eg. PKR–6033) only introduced in the late ‘80s (and then discontinued a decade later).

Limited Processing

K–14 was such a complex and toxic process that, outside of the USA, each country only had one centralised facility. In Australia it was at the Kodak factory at Coburg outside Melbourne. For anyone who didn’t live nearby, it meant relying on the postal service to send film across the country for processing. 10–day turnaround times from Sydney were not uncommon. Neither were lost films. Towards the end the Coburg plant closed and film then had to be sent to the next closest facility… in South Africa.

Slide Mounts Only?

The default way of receiving processed Kodachrome was mounted as individual frames in cardboard (or for a while plastic) slide mounts. Few people realised you could request film be returned uncut in a single roll, by clipping a mysterious corner off the yellow prepaid film mailer envelope.

End of an Era

Kodachrome was already rare in the late ‘90s, but somehow managed to linger for a few years until it was finally discontinued in 2009.

• 

  This K64 shot of Franklin Dam protesters was taken in Feb 1983 and still looks new. Notice the murky shadows due to the film’s limited D/R

Ektachrome (E–6)

Kodachrome’s turnaround times in Australia were brutal. As were the high contrast and lack of film size options. Commercial photographers typically worked with large format film — 120, 4×5 or even 10×8 inches — so Kodachrome was automatically excluded. Wedding/ portrait photographers mostly shot C–41 due to its broad exposure latitude and quick processing/ print times (especially if they had their own processing equipment).

Due to the publishing/ reproduction demands of magazines and advertising clients, commercial photographers were forced into shooting colour transparency film. They also needed a range of film size options + rapid turnaround times.

Ergo E6 Ektachrome:

Kodachrome’s Poor Cousin?

Until the mid 1980s, correct. The release of Ektachrome 64 in 1976 didn’t fool anyone, but it was available in a range of sizes and got the job done. E6 films finally came of age though in 1988 with the release of EPP–100 (Kodak Ektachrome Plus Professional 100 (6005)). It was reasonably sharp (see below), had excellent colour and fine(ish) grain. Surprisingly it also turned out to be quite stable — I have EPP–100 shots from the early 1990s which still look great (!)

Fast local processing

This was E6’s trump card: you could get it done in a couple of hours at Professional Labs dotted around Sydney. In the early ‘90s I used Vision Graphics at North Sydney, then moved on to Visual Image Lab in Redfern. Am amazed both are still in business, although a third lab at Holt Street Surry Hills seems to have vanished.

Large film variety

Not only different film sizes, but a variety of E6 film types, ISOs and different manufacturers. Fujichrome Velvia 50 was immensely popular in the ‘90s, especially for those who liked their colour saturation at 11. I detested it and wryly note its cousin Fujichrome Velvia 100 was not only toxic aesthetically but also chemically.

Tungsten Balanced options

Ektachrome 64T meant you didn’t have to monkey around with 80B CC filters. Tried it a few times and hated it, but at least the option was there.

Sharpness?

Nup. Kodachrome was king, although EPP-100 got somewhat close. The main issues were the extra layers of colour couplers in the E6 film structure, which Kodachrome eschewed. Part of the reason professionals shot larger format films (120, 4×5 etc.) was to reduce enlargement ratios and thus reduce the impact of E6 film’s inherent blurriness.

DIY processing

Yes! You could buy kits to develop E6 film in a standard daylight tank. I did it once in 1981 with a 12–step E6 process, which was painful enough to never do again.

Digitising

Digitising transparency film is relatively straightforward. You have the original for reference and can easily tweak your scan to match. Furthermore if you digitise using a camera, then you can use the camera’s built–in AWB to ballpark the colours.

After an initial “scan” I can get a good colour match in about ten minutes and exact within thirty. With C-41 and its ^%&#ing orange mask, even with years of practice, it can take hours to get things right.

Colour Negative Film (C–41)   ↑

Films

In the ‘90s and early 2000s shot kilometres of this stuff, both in 135 and 120 formats. It has a tremendous exposure latitude (ie. “dynamic range”) of at least 12 ƒ–stops, fine grain and, unlike E6 transparency films, is sharp. It is also far more forgiving of daylight/ artificial mixed light.

In 120 medium format I prefer Kodak Portra VC 160. Great skin tones, sharpness and fine grain. I still have a batch of ≈ 16 rolls in my freezer, despite expiring in 2013. I sometimes shoot a test roll and (amazingly) still works okay.

The 135 format films I used in the early 2000s are no longer made (eg. Kodak Supra 200). The current Kodak Eastman GOLD 200 should presumably work okay.

Processing

C–41 film used to be easy and cheap to get processed, as every shopping centre had a Nortisu or Fujitsu minilab. Since I used to get 5–6 (135) films developed each week, I soon befriended a couple of owners and they would put my films through in less than an hour. For 120 film I had to use pro labs in the CBD, whose turnarounds were 3–4 hours, or 1–2 days if you wanted to save a few dollars and weren’t in a hurry.

That was then. C–41 labs still exist, but you have to hunt around and be prepared to wait. Best options are via better photography stores — eg. Sydney Super8 in Newtown — but there are others (try the E6 pro lab links above).

DIY home processing is another alternative. In 2013 I bought six Tetenal C–41 Press Kits but never used them as I was wary of the ±0.1°C development requirement. Ditto the limited solution shelf–life once mixed. Since at the time C–41 processing was still easy at suburban minilabs, I couldn’t be bothered tinkering at home. (Still have the unopened Tetenal kit packs. Wonder if they work after 13 years?…)

Snafus

The killjoy for C–41 film is its orange mask base. I acknowledge it was done to compensate for imperfect CMY dyes and because paper stocks couldn’t handle the contrast range of colour films. Fair enough but come on, most people digitise this stuff now and the orange mask screws everything up. For good measure, different C–41 films use differing orange mask tints, crippling your ability to standardise a software workflow ☢️

Film scanning software will do most of the heavy lifting, eg. VueScan, but you still have to twiddle RGB forever. Add an order of magnitude of hassle if you digitise via a camera for sharper, faster and higher resolution results. Since my preferred RAW software refuses to implement C–41 profiles, there is no alternative to converting C–41 “scans” other than laboriously by hand. Did I mention WTAF?

It is because of this ^%&#ing mask that I have mostly ^%&#ing stopped ^%&#ing shooting this ^%&#ing kind of ^%&#ing annoying film. [ Note X ]

When digitising legacy shots, I need to set aside hours to manually adjust/ tweak/ voodoo the RGB balance using “Channels” and “Levels” sliders. All done back–to–front and upside down because the original is a negative. Then add at least another hour to spot retouch all the ^%&#ing dust spots and tiny hairs.

• 

  It can take forever to get C–41 colours “right”, but at least it has an extensive D/R. Reversal film would have blown out the skies here

Lighting photographs is a huge topic, so I’ll stick to a few things I have learned over years and will write a separate essay later. Maybe.

Studio Strobes   ↑

I started doing photography in the 1980s when people shot at 100 ISO or even 64 ISO. Which meant studio flashes had to emit a lot of light to be enable use of small apertures like ƒ8–11. Unfortunately due to the intense bursts of light, portrait sitters would usually flinch during the first few flashes until they got used to it. Startled kids would cry. Being film you couldn’t review shots to see if anyone baulked, so you had to take a lot of extra frames for insurance. Eg. while waiting for my film to be processed at a pro lab once, I saw a pair of 120 transparency film rolls on a light–table, containing twenty–four almost identical 6×6 shots of a model in a haute couture hat. Clearly that photographer wasn’t taking any chances.

Because you needed a lot of light, you had to use powerful strobes. For portrait work I would occasionally hire a pair of Elinchrom 250 Professional Monolight studio strobes, on stands with silvered umbrella reflectors. They were 240V mains powered and rated at 250W each, with enough output for ƒ11 at 100 ISO, along with “rapid” recycling times of ≈2 seconds. To shape the light I would run the output for one at 75% and 50% for the other, then use a small on–camera flash — an antique National PE–2006 — to wirelessly trip the Elinchroms via their built–in slaves (no radio triggers back then). The small flash also served as a catchlight to add sparkle to a sitter’s eyes.

Studio strobes had built–in continuous modelling lights — usually a 100W tungsten bulb — to approximate what the light was like. The flash output was easy to adjust in intensity and with accessories. You could use the bare flash bulb with a small parabolic reflector for highly directional light with hard shadows — very dramatic and “Yousuf Karsh”. Or bounce the output off a silvered umbrella interior for directional yet diffused light with softer shadows (my personal preference). For more diffusion run the output directly through white translucent umbrellas. Everyone uses enormous soft–boxes nowadays for heavily diffused light with almost no shadows — a bit boring IMO.

For photographing larger subjects, the sky (and budget) was the limit. Some strobes could be so large they were informally known as “fish fryers” or “swimming pools”. I never got to use them, although I did once see a pair of “pools” in action during a car shoot. Each strobe was the size of a billiard table and suspended above the car via cantilevered mini–cranes, while their floor power–packs were as large as hotel mini fridges…

Jump forward to today. Digital cameras can easily produce high quality images at 1600 ISO, so you can work at considerably dimmer output levels. In the ‘90s I used “medium power” Guide Number 60 strobes with 100 ISO film. By contrast modern strobes at 1600 ISO can be dialled down to anaemic puffs of only GN 10 (!) Which results in more compact and portable monolights. If I was going down this route today, I would get the 3–strobe battery–powered Godox AD300/ 100 kit. Expensive but adaptable for all kinds of work.

Camera TTL   ↑

The problem with studio strobes – even modern ones — is that they are bulky + heavy + a pain to cart around and set up. They can also be overkill for outdoors work, especially if you only need to fill shadows and separate subject(s) from background.

In the past I used auto thyristor controlled strobes which had photo–sensitive circuitry to control light output. If you were shooting at (say) ƒ11 and needed the flash exposure 3–stops down at ƒ4, you set this on the flash and its built–in sensor would automatically truncate the output. Did this for decades on mechanical cameras with my compact Metz Mecablitz 32 CT2. In combination with a flashmeter, you could easily fine–tune flash output to avoid screamingly obvious shadow fill.

That was 20+ years ago. Cameras were developed with built–in TTL circuitry to accurately control the flash from within the camera. Neat! There were a few caveats though:

1. Each manufacturer had proprietary TTL protocols (+ hotshoe pin arrangements), forcing you to buy separate OEM flashes for each of your camera brands — for me Sony, Hasselblad & Leica
2. TTL = reflected exposure measurements, with all its subject colour/ contrast problems
3. Some of the TTL flashes were huge — easily the size of the camera
4. It became dangerous to use older flashes, like my “32CT2”, due to their higher flash trigger voltages — potentially frying your camera’s electronics whenever the flash went off (!)

Time to get a new flash. In 2017 I mainly used flash with Sony cameras, so I sidestepped their overpriced OEM models and instead got a compact Bolt–VC 310SMI. It has a GN 31 and worked well in TTL mode for all my Sony gear, that is until I got the (intentionally?) TTL–crippled α7RIV in 2019 🤬

Luckily the “310SMI” works fine with my (retired) SLT-A77ii and new α6700, so I can still do TTL. It also can tilt upwards and rotate 90° to bounce light off walls or ceiling. Its horizontal body design greatly reduces any shadow cast by lenses. The output is a little harsh, so I always use the supplied diffuser attachment. An undocumented feature is being able to internally recharge 2× Eneloop Pro AA batteries via its Micro–B USB port (!), despite the manual saying it was for firmware upgrades only.

In 2024 I looked at the popular Godox V1Pro → for me too large & ungainly (+ fragile?) for an on–camera flash. In 2025 I looked at the Godox IT30Pro. Much more compact, full TTL and built–in Godox 2.4GHz X wireless trigger. Unfortunately it’s a bit underpowered at GN 15 and you need an accessory “TR Hotshoe Riser” for tilt. Godox addressed this with their newer Godox IT32. Still a bit anaemic at GN 18, but looks promising. Since my more powerful “310SMI” (GN 31) continues to play nicely with the Sony α6700, will wait ‘n’ see if the Godox “IT32” with Leica TTL support works as promised with the Leica SL/ SL2.

Compact Manual Flashes   ↑

The flash TTL vendor lock–in got everyone’s goat. It was (just) tolerable if you only used one camera brand or needed extended functionality. But for general use with all your gear?… There had to be a better way.

Fujifilm got the ball rolling in 2016 with the release of their compact Fuji EF–X20. Admittedly it was only GN 20, but in manual mode it worked with any camera. By using trial–and–chimp on digital cameras, you could quickly tweak the flash exposure to whatever you liked. A kludge, but it worked. Flashmeter people (ahem) did a measurement and took the shot.

Apparently due to poor sales the EF–X20 was discontinued after a year. Yet over time demand has increased so much it can now fetch ≈ $US 1K on the 2nd hand market. That and Tom Ford/ Terry Richardson direct flash has become a thing again.

Godox noticed and released their Godox iM30 (GN 15) to soak up the demand:

The iM30 is compact, surprisingly powerful and only requires 2× AAA batteries. Works with any camera since there is no TTL support (ie. manual output only). Alas it cannot tilt nor twist. I only use it at 1/64th power as a fill–flash for close to medium subjects, or as a catchlight to slave–trigger more powerful strobes. Similar to the Bolt 310SMI I recommend using it with a flash head diffuser (pictured), although unlike the Bolt you need to buy it as a separate “iM30–DF” accessory. My diffuser is actually an Moordiel generic thing, which I prefer as its translucent front panel is a bit farther from the strobe tube, yielding (slightly) softer light. I have also inserted a LEE 162 Bastard Amber gel to warm the output to get nicer skin tones.

Metering Flash   ↑

Monkeying around with strobes is a lot of fun, but to do it properly you need a hand–held incident flashmeter.

I learned (the hard way) in the 1980s when working with film and manual flash. You never knew what you got until after the film was processed, so you had to nail it beforehand. How? Measure the flash output with a flashmeter and set the camera exposure accordingly. OTOH people who learn during the digital era tend to shoot in an iterative fashion until the exposure works. Which is fine, but also unprofessional when the sitter is waiting (im)patiently for you…

Thyristor and TTL controlled flashes made things easier, but the only way to do it reliably is by measuring the flash intensity using an incident meter. No guesswork, reflectance or subject contrast issues. You directly measure the strobe light falling onto the subject and you’re done.

I have already written about my three flashmeters. Even if you baulk at their expense, use something. Don’t rely solely on camera or flash automation!

Continuous Light Sources?   ↑

Time for another story:

In 1985 I did a couple shots of a UNSW friend (“RB”) for her modelling portfolio. Her flatmate “L” was impressed and commissioned me to do her portrait in B&W. Not any ordinary head–shot though, but rather a copy of Greta Garbo in profile, taken by Clarence Sinclair-Bull to promote the movie Susan Lenox (Her Fall & Rise).

L wanted her portrait to be a close facsimile of the 1931 original. She even brought a bookmarked volume of Garbo Portraits to the shoot to make sure. You can probably guess L was formidable. She was 27, brilliant, confident, elegant, elusive, demanding and beautiful. I was a gobsmacked 21–year–old undergrad — who was I to say no?

The best way to recreate the 1930s feel was by using tungsten lights. Since I was part of the stage crew for the UNSW Law Revue, I borrowed for the shoot a 250W Strand Patt 23 spot, 500W Strand Patt 123 “baby” Fresnel and a 1000W Strand 6” Fresnelite with barn–doors. I also hired some lighting–stands from the Elizabethan Theatre Trust, bought a roll of dark grey paper backing and set it all up in my Hurstville unit garage. During the shoot L reclined almost horizontally on a chair, letting her shoulder length hair dangle behind. I moved in close with my RB67 on a tripod and metered the scene using incident readings from my Lunasix 3. We only did a couple of rolls — twenty 6×7 frames — and for a few of them stretched a black stocking over the 127mm lens for a soft focus effect. During the first few frames I said amusing things to put her at ease and make her smile & laugh, which she did often. But then she told me to shut up and added, I don’t want smiling for this portrait, okay?

I placed the 250W spot on the ground behind her and pointed it up for a rim–light effect. The Fresnels were in front, with the main 1000W to my right and the fill 500W on my left. I also had an angled silver reflector on the ground for shadows. I didn’t have a dimmer rack, so had to crudely rely on I∝1/R² and adjust the brightness by moving the lights back and forth. They were all plugged into the same 240V power board, yet the total 1.75KW was still within safe limits at ≈ 7.5A. It was seriously hot though, and we had to soon open the garage door for circulation. We also had to take regular breaks to cool off and dab sweat from L’s face. Despite the trio of intense lights, the slow 50 ISO B&W Pan F film required long exposures at ƒ16, so L had to stay still and sometimes even hold her breath.

It was the first time I had used continuous light for a photoshoot and it was a revelation. You could see immediately what the illumination and shadows were like. No more guesswork or hope or churning through packets of Polaroid instant prints or (the shame) do a reshoot. Set up the light(s), measure the exposure, set the camera and… take the picture.

Small wonder a new generation of photographers mostly avoid flash to use continuous light, both in the studio and on location. It also dovetails nicely with video production — eg. the multitude of YouTubers and TikTokkers who use LED ring lights.

The tungsten–based rig I used in 1985 worked very well, but it was big and heavy and the heat was something else. We were working with lights designed for overhead stage use, not at 1½ metres, and were both sweating like mad despite being the last week of winter. I can imagine how testing things were for portrait photographers back in the 1930s, with their massive studio Fresnels and carbon arc lamps!

Thankfully heat is no longer an issue with modern LEDs. Output intensity is however. Aside from multimillion dollar film–sets, a decent flash monohead will output far more light than any consumer LED, although the latter are catching up. Yet dim output isn’t much of an issue anymore as most people shoot at ƒ2.8 or wider at 1600 ISO. But if you want to stop down to ƒ11 at 100 ISO, then you gotta crank up the photons and current (affordable!) LEDs cannot. This is where flash still rules.

Nevertheless I have a cheap and small Knog Qudos Action LED lamp bought years ago for quickie use — eg. as shadow–fill for the equipment shots in this article. It has a puny battery but the entire thing is so tiny it is easy to always have with you. Wouldn’t use it to light a ballroom, but as fill for a face or small object, why not?

What about reflectors to tame shadows? Use ‘em all the time, especially outdoors when camera flash sync is too slow for bright sunlight. For decades I used homespun things like crumpled aluminium or gold mylar foil stuck onto cardboard. I currently keep a tiny umbrella in my Sputnik trolley because it unfolds to a large silvered concave surface. You can also buy reflectors which fold away into small portable sizes, eg. the XLite 105cm folding reflector kit. If you can live without the supports, the reflectors alone cost less than half.

So what happened to L’s portrait?…

A few days after the shoot we met again in the art deco lounge room of RB’s flat in Bellevue Hill. I brought a couple of contact print sheets and L thoroughly examined each 6×7cm image with a large magnifying glass. RB was amazed by the results and half–jokingly said she was jealous. L was more circumspect. Out of twenty frames she selected only one, and marked it with a neat black cross in its bottom right corner. I encouraged her to choose a couple of alternatives, but she was obstinate.

She then gave detailed instructions on how to print the image. I was to crop it into a square ratio and print it at a 45° angle, since she intended to have it mounted as a diamond shape to suit the art deco theme she was after. She emphasised she wanted to avoid anything conventional. I warned her the print wouldn’t be very large, maybe only 8×8 inches, but she said it was preferable as 1920s prints she’d seen weren’t huge either. I was to supply the completed print and she would look after the mounting and framing.

Then came the awkward part — she insisted I also hand over the negatives once the print was done. I baulked, it would be like a composer handing over their only copy of the score! She calmly responded with a number of reasons, some sensible (another photographer had dudded her in the past) some paranoid (she was worried I would sell prints without her permission) and some based on Attractive Young Woman Privilege (it was what she wanted and that’s that). She looked me in the eye with an imploring expression, grabbed my hand and… I caved. She gave a subdued smile, which stabbed at my heart, and promised $100 on top of my fee. The following week when I handed everything over she paid in full and seemed pleased.

A month later a cocktail party was held to celebrate the unveiling of her new portrait. I was (belatedly) invited and the tiny apartment was filled with her top–tier associates. Her teak–framed photo hung as a diamond on the wall, harmoniously blending with the art deco surroundings. Her guests emitted Oohs! and Aahs! and I have to get one just like it! as they delicately sipped their champagne and drifted past. I became embarrassed. After a while L, dressed impeccably in a dark satin suit with cream silk blouse, asked for silence and gave an informal speech about the portrait and how much Garbo meant to her. She spoke softly and at length, but forgot to mention the bloke up the back who made it all happen. The guy who trekked across Sydney without a driver’s license to arrange the lighting, then took and processed the photo and sweated in a red–lit darkroom while he dodged & burned & selectively developed lighter portions of the Ilford Galerie print, by rubbing his bare fingers all over her face’s image while it was still immersed in the developer tray. Nor did she mention him inhaling concentrated selenium toner fumes, nor the hours of meticulous print washing & drying nor the entire evening he spent obsessively spotting and highlighting the dried print with archival retouching dyes.

People sighed. People laughed. I left when she finished. What could have been a small early triumph instead became a lifelong object lesson in what to never do again [ Note XVI ].

Introduction

Lens filters have fallen out of favour in the last couple of decades. Which is understandable as a lot of the effects they provide can now be easily done in post, either in a RAW editor or Photoshop equivalent.

Yet I still use them, especially for B&W photography. UV protection filters are also handy and indeed have saved two of my lenses from expensive (perhaps irreparable) damage.

One major caveat though, aside from UV/ Haze filters they all absorb light, resulting in longer exposures. For Neutral Density (ND) filters this is the point, but for others it can be a nuisance.

Filter Notes   ↑

Orange

They significantly darken blue skies for B&W shots. Not as dramatically as with a red filter, but a notable step up from yellow. It has a 4× filter–factor, so you need to increase exposure by 2 stops (eg. ƒ8 instead of ƒ16). They are also useful for colour work during sunsets, although it’s a good idea to dial back the effect on digital cameras using their “custom colour temperature (K)” option.

Yellow

For B&W these darken blue skies, although not as much as orange. They also lighten green foliage and skin colour, which can otherwise end up too grey. They are great for general purpose B&W and I have one on each of my Mamiya C330 TLR lenses. They have a 2× filter–factor, so you need to increase exposure by 1 stop.

UV/ Skylight/ Haze

The original purpose was to reduce bluish haze in distant landscapes, as film at the time was overly sensitive to UV. Now with digital they are mainly used to protect the lens front element from spills, sparks, accidents etc. I have almost indestructible UV filters by Aurora Aperture made from Gorilla Glass for most of my full–frame lenses, although I don’t use them on my Hasselblad nor Leica R macro lenses as their front elements are deeply recessed and therefore adequately protected.

Neutral Density (ND)

Want to shoot at ƒ2 in bright sunlight? ND filters to the rescue. I have two 4–stop NDs in different sizes (E39 and 67mm), the former for Leica M lenses and the latter for my SEL1655 APS–C zoom and various Leica R lenses. Video shooters also need a way to reduce light intensity if they are going to follow the “180° shutter rule” and shoot at 1/50th in bright light.

I should mention graduated ND filters. These are mainly used to darken skies, where the upper part of the filter is a ND filter, but it tapers to clear about half way down. In practice I have found the ND parts of these things can deliver different colour balances, particularly a magenta cast to cloudy skies (URTH claim to have solved this). TBH I haven’t used graduated filters for years because you are better off darkening skies in post.

Polarising

Used P/L filters all the time for colour (film) work, but rarely do so now. Their main purpose was to reduce reflections from smooth surfaces like glass or marble, along with darkening blue skies. Unfortunately they also reduce reflections off skin, resulting in unnatural suede effects. At certain angles water bodies can end up looking strange as well. Then sometimes the sun is in the wrong part of the sky, resulting in minimal if any darkening. As for Circular vs. Linear polarisers: the former are required by cameras with semi-silvered mirrors or beam splitters (DSLRs, Sony SLT), while the latter work with everything else. It’s a moot point now as nearly all P/L filters are circular.

Colour Correction (CC)

These are white balance correction filters to shift the light temperature. Use 80 (A,B,C) for blue/ cooling and 85 (A,B,C) for amber/ warming, with FL–Day to correct fluorescent. Hoya have renamed their CC filters but they are same thing. Many argue they have become redundant for digital cameras with AWB, and I mostly agree. But if you know you will be shooting under (say) fluorescent light, you will nail the colour balance if you use a FL–Day filter to assist the AWB. Likewise a faint 85C when shooting under LEDs is handy to dial down blue–heavy spectrum.

Close–up lens

Eg. Sigma AML72-01 which provides 1:2 magnification (≈1.75 dioptre). It has a 72mm thread but with step up/down rings can fit (almost) any lens. Use it on my SEL1655G whenever I need to get close(r) but haven’t packed a macro lens. These close–up lenses once had poor reputations (ahem, aside from the specialised Leica ELPRO 1:2–1:1 Near Focus Attachment (16545)), but the “AML72-01” is surprising good, plus cheap enough to not worry about getting lost or scratched. Indeed my 67→72mm step up ring cost twice as much as the filter [ Note XVII ].

Soft focus

These things are a waste of money. Get a cheap UV filter and apply Vaseline. In my case I stretch (and I mean really stretch) black stocking material over the front of a lens. Black fishnet also works for a more subtle effect. This is for when you wish to soften things during in the shoot, otherwise it’s easier to create the effect in post using Photoshop or equivalent.

Welcome to the Party   ↑

You are probably expecting me to say something curmudgeonly about Gen Z and their ^%&#ing phones, but no, my current 12MP iPhone 17Pro is used for pictures almost every week. Before that it was the 12MP iPhone 13Pro. Indeed all the equipment shots in this article were taken with the “17Pro”.

As the hoary cliché goes: The best camera is the one you have with you. Mobile photography has superseded Polaroid Instant Photography and is incredibly useful for quickie stuff indoors and out. Shoot in RAW for “keepers” and HEIF for everything else.

Use it for important work? No. Do I take hundreds of shots? No. Selfies? No. Plate after plate of nutriment I am about to ingest?… Nyet. But when I think of all the times I wish I had a camera with me but didn’t (despite having a trunk full of them at home), I’m grateful mobile photography now exists.

No social media though. Ever. Also the likelihood of me shelling out $AUD 500 for a Leica LUX grip (18562) is nil.

Another story:

It’s February 2024 and I’m still in Switzerland, although this time at the upper terminus of the Gornegrat Bahn railway near Zermatt, 3100m above sea level.

I’m walking around in the snow with my Sony α7RIV + 24–70mm GM2, taking photos and minding my own business. It was cold and I was wearing a heavy black woollen coat with a fur ushanka, looking like I just wandered off the set of Dr Zhivago. After inspecting the “Locomotive 3” display near the station, a bloke from a large group noticed my camera and called me over. Considering how I was dressed, he was surprised I could speak English. He asked if I could take their picture. Why not? But as I raised my camera he interrupted, No, no! Can you use my camera please?

He then handed me his mobile phone, while a dozen of his friends began arranging themselves by the guardrail, with the snow–covered Matterhorn in the distance. Like everyone else they all wore fluorescent–coloured puffer jackets, although some were long enough to reach the ground and looked more like sleeping bags.

They clearly had no idea who they were dealing with. First I cleaned the phone lenses using a microfibre cloth (do people eat their lunch off these things?), then started shooting well before they were ready. Took three shots before they set up, then another four in quick succession, varying the height and angle slightly for each. Then did a couple of the group laughing, two or three with them serious, then moved in close to do subgroups of 3–4 people. No questions, discussion, permission or collaboration. Prompt, frame, pause and take the bloody shot.

After about sixteen shots (individual, not motorised) I handed back the phone. The bloke was stunned but thanked me, and began to put the phone away. I told him to check the results. He replied, No need, thankyou, I’m sure they will be great! I told him, One thing is not the other. Do it now while we are still here.

I waited while they gathered into a tight group and reviewed the results. One of the sleeping bags was startled and said they had no idea I took so many photos. They laughed at some and gasped at others. As I turned around to walk up the hill I heard one of them say Who was that guy?

Early Steps…

I resisted going digital for years as I regarded the image quality greatly inferior to film. It had limited dynamic range (D/R), was ≈12MP (the same as my film scans), viewfinders were reverse–telescope tiny and batteries barely lasted a day. I didn’t care about being able to take thousands of shots “for free”, for the more you shoot, the more you have to review.

I also detest “chimping” — spending forever clicking through your images while you take them not only shouts ineptitude, but is antithetical to how I shoot. Of course I also do quick occasional checks, but having acquired my skills during the film era, I save detailed reviews for when I get back home.

Eventually in 2006 a client required a low–budget “bullet-time” sequence of a Holden Captiva SUV, with the camera “flying” around the car. Because this would require 100s of individual frames, film was out.

The camera I used was a cheap 8MP Olympus EVOLT E–500 (4/3rds) with a Nikkor 24mm F/2.8 AI (11879) via a lens mount adapter. It did the job, but I found it poky and frustrating, so a couple of months later upgraded to a 12MP Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 (4/3rds) with an auxiliary DMW-LVF1. Both cameras were interchangeable Micro Four Thirds mounts, which allowed use of almost any manual lens via adapters. Unfortunately 4:3 has a brutal crop–factor of 2×, which among other things meant your full–frame lenses had their focal lengths effectively “doubled”. So a 50mm lens would be cropped to the field of view of 100mm, while a wideangle 24mm lens would frustratingly end up a normal 48mm. Although at first I could live with it, after a while it became so frustrating I moved on to using an APS–C format 16MP Sony NEX-5N in 2011.

APS–C still has a crop factor of 1.5× (eg. a 24mm lens would become 36mm), but it was good enough. Full–frame DSLRs were of course available, but they were bloated, loud, expen$ive and only worked properly with OEM lenses. There were also mirror clearance issues with adapted wideangle lenses. But then Sony released the full–frame 36MP mirrorless α7R in late 2013, and everything changed.

Exposure Automation

As I noted earlier, I always use manual exposure with film cameras because there is no way to know if exposure is accurate until after the film is processed. With digital this obviously no longer applies. Mirrorless digital cameras can even be configured to simulate exposure in the EVF display, so you can see immediately if the automation got things wrong and adjust accordingly. Unlike our DSLR friends, no chimping required.

I prefer “A” (aperture priority) for depth of field control, although often use “P” (fully program) when I don’t care or when using TTL flash.

Sony DSC-RX100   ↑

Meanwhile in Dec 2012 I got a tiny 20MP Sony Cyber–shot DSC–RX100 as a high quality camera to always have with me, at a time when most smartphones produced lousy quality photos. In 2024 I noticed compacts became popular again, presumably because people wanted better quality images, especially in low light. Teenagers also realised compacts weren’t covered by the NSW school mobile phone ban.

The “RX100” has a 20MP 1” CMOS sensor and collapsible 10.4–37.1mm Zeiss Vario–Sonnar zoom lens, which works out to 28–100mm equivalent. It can shoot RAW and even has a tiny popup flash, although it doesn’t have a viewfinder, forcing you to use the rear LCD screen (and my reading spectacles). I added rubber grip tape as I found its smooth metal body finish too slippery. Have also beefed up the shutter button with Sugru silicone putty to make it easier to press without jerking the tiny camera.

More than a decade later I still use it whenever I wish to leave the battleships at home. It’s also useful for quickie scene grabs when shooting film, to act as reference guides when processing scans.

Over the following years Sony have released a number of RX100 variants (currently RX100 VII), but I haven’t bothered upgrading as they all use the same 1–inch 20MP sensor.

Sony SLT–α77 II (2016–20)   ↑

In 2016 I got a 24MP Sony SLT–A77 II as I found my Sony α6300 or α7RII too slow for action sequences at athletics or swimming carnivals. I paired it with a general purpose APS–C Sony DT 16–50mm F2.8 SSM (SAL1650) and full frame Sony 70–300mm F4.5–5.6 G SSM II (SAL70300G2) for greater reach. For a while I also had a full frame Zeiss Vario–Sonnar 24–70mm ZA SSM II (SAL2470Z2) — a spectacular lens but so staggeringly heavy I had to sell it after a few months [ Note XI ].

Notice the Sugru on the shutter button again. The rare RRS BA77 L–bracket probably has greater resale value than the camera!

Although by 2016 the A77II SLT pellicle mirror design (inspired by the film–era Nikon F3H?) was starting to show its age, its phase–detection AF was still adequate for motorised sequences. It also had (primitive) IBIS and a tiny popup flash useful as a catchlight. Moreover I appreciated the longer–life 1600mAh NP–FM500H batteries compared to the puny 1080mAh NP–FW50 in the mirrorless bodies. For a while I added a VGC–77AM battery grip, which made vertical shooting easier + housed two FM500H cells, providing more than enough juice for a day’s work.

Mount a fill–flash and it was a conspicuously beefy setup which could blow carnival attendee’s minds. At least no one could accuse me of sneaking around taking pictures…

I was happy with the rig and the 24MP results were excellent, especially compared to what schools had previously been getting. But time passed and it was obsolescent. The ergonomics and 12fps were still great, but the viewfinder was poky and the 79–point AF was hit and too much miss. It also couldn’t use 3rd party manual lenses without extensive surgery. Most importantly, low light performance was noisy and 1:1 zoomed images started to look substandard compared to what I was getting from newer gear. So in 2020 my A77II+DT16–50 was retired and joined my Leica IIIG in a display case. Luckily the excellent 70–300mm (SAL70300G2) lens could still be used with my current Sony FE cameras, courtesy of a Sony LA–EA5 lens adapter.

Sony α6300 (2016–25)   ↑

In 2014 got a Sony α6000 and used it for a couple of years before upgrading to the Sony α6300 — a fantastic APS–C camera and used for almost a decade before upgrading to my current α6700 (see below). I loved its light weight and compact dimensions, along with excellent RAW image quality. 24MP was a bit on the small side, but sufficient. The shutter gave a crisp little click and the camera + lens could easily fit into a small camera bag. I essentially used it as a “cheap” APS–C format “EVF Leica” a decade before the EV1 (Typ 4246)

I mostly paired it with manual focus lenses, either M–mount Leica or Voigtländer, with a Hawk Factory helicoid lens mount adapter. If I didn’t need close–focus, then a plain Novoflex NEX/LEM adapter worked well. Either gave excellent results and the Leica ELMAR-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH (11648) lens turned the α6300 into a discreet manual–focus street shooting machine.

I eventually added a few Sony prime AF lenses. At first the “Zony” Sonnar 24/F1.8 (SEL14F18Z) — which was excellent but restricted to APS–C. Sold it in 2018 when I got a full–frame 24/F1.4 G–Master (SEL24F14GM) – a brilliant lens I still use today for both FF and APS–C (at a 36mm cropped equivalent).

APS–C zoom lenses were more tricky. First got a “Zony” Vario–Tessar 16–70/F4 (SEL1670Z), but my copy was decentred, resulting in the RHS frame being slightly out of focus at focal lengths > 40mm. Ditched it in 2019 when the Sony E 16–55mm F2.8 G (SEL1655G) was released — a fantastic professional grade APS–C zoom which has practically lived on my camera(s) ever since [ Note XII ].

Sony α6700 (APS–C)   ↑

In Dec 2025 I replaced the α6300 with a Sony α6700. Benefits:

Better Battery

The 2280mAh NP–FZ100 has more than twice the capacity of the puny NP–FW50.

Improved Sensor

The 26MP CMOS BSI — the same as in the FX–30 — has much better low light performance and more AF points. Its readout speed is also a tolerable ≈25ms, so you can use the electronic shutter more often, although you still need the mechanical shutter during rapid movement to reduce “rolling shutter” artefacts [ Note XIII ].

IBIS

As none of my Sony or manual 3rd party lenses have OIS, having built–in stabilisation is a blessing for low light work.

Lossless Compressed RAW

Automatically reducing filesizes to ≈ 34MP without bit–depth reduction in single–shot mode ✓

Articulating LCD screen

I don’t use the rear screen a lot, so it’s handy to flip around for protection against the camera body. It was a feature I liked on the A77II and miss it on my other digital cameras. Since I’m a left–eye shooter, my nose constantly rubs against the screen, inadvertently activating things unless I disable touch. No need with the α6700 as I can flip the screen around when not in use.

New Sony Menus

An improvement but for some options it remains peekaboo you can’t find me.

Improved AF algorithms

Useful for my Sony G/ GM lenses, although I no longer shoot school sports and was never a 30fps BIF/ NASCAR tracking kinda guy.

Substantially Improved Video

Shrug. (TBF the dynamic range is much better and inclusion of “PP11 (S-cinetone)” is great.)

Fits my SmallRig half–cage

The SmallRig half–cage used on the α6300 also works with the α6700. I need it for better handling and to link to my QD connector sling/ wrist straps.

Why didn’t I instead get the full–frame Sony α7V, released in Dec 2025?…

1. I needed a modern APS–C camera to work with my SEL1655G lens
2. The α6700 was less than half the price
3. I don’t care it only has one SD card slot
4. According to the date on the box, my α6700 was manufactured in early Nov 2025 — barely five weeks before I bought it – making it the newest camera I have ever bought. (The oldest was the Leica IIIG, which was almost 40 years old when I got it.)
5. The α6700 is significantly more compact than any Sony α7 full–frame body

Sony FE Full Frame

I leapt into buying the mirrorless Sony α7R (ILCE–7R) when it was released in 2013. I must have been among the first 50 people in Australia to do so. No ifs, buts or wait ‘n’ see… Add To Cart now God dammit.

I was so keen because after a decade of (im)patiently waiting there was finally a full frame body which worked with my “legacy” Nikon F and Leica R lenses. Maybe even my smaller M lenses. Leica had dropped the ball in 2009 with their abortive Leica R10, while purveyors of fine DSLRs (and for that matter Sony SLTs) deliberately hobbled any ability to mount 3rd party lenses without tricky lens mount surgery (eg. Lietax lens mount kits).

Then in 2013 the “7R” swung open the door and I rushed eagerly through.

Sony α7RII (2015–23)   ↑

Work, say hello to Horse.

For a while I was happy with the 36MP Sony α7R, but its limitations became quickly apparent. Image sharpness was compromised by its vibration prone shutter. It also did not work with Leica M lenses, despite initial starry–eyed reviews and wishful thinking. This turned out to be due to the non–telecentric design of rangefinder lenses at focal lengths shorter than 50mm, resulting in vignetting and magenta artefacts as you move away from the centre toward the frame edges 😠

Adapted SLR lenses however worked fine, especially my Nikon F and Leica R collection. Much amazement and delight, many hundreds of shots and finally I could shoot digital without crop factors!

When the improved Sony α7RII was released in 2015 I upgraded immediately. 42MP BSI sensor, better IBIS, superior shutter, viewfinder and improved ergonomics. Over the following eight years I shot thousands of frames with it, and still kept it as a backup when I got the α7RIV in 2019. I only sold it in 2023 because GAS was getting out of hand (again).

“7RII” Likes

• 42.4MP BSI CMOS sensor. Amazing then and now. Set the standard for high resolution photography and its BSI design enabled greatly improved low–light performance
• IBIS. Much better than the “7R”. It still wasn’t a magic bullet, but it did help at slower s/speeds
• High quality images with legacy SLR lenses. After trying a variety of 3rd party lens adapters, I settled on Japanese Rayqual adapters as they guarantee an exact lens–to–mount flange distance, vital for FLE design wideangle lenses

Dislikes

• Battery. Both the “7RII” and “7R” were seriously underpowered from the start because they used a single 1080mAh NP–FW50. Things were so dire you could sometimes watch the battery % indicator countdown in real time. I even got a bulky VGC2EM battery grip to double the battery capacity and lessen the number of spares I had to cart around (at one stage I was packing six batteries)
• Slow. The “7RII” maxed out at 5fps, so had to get a A77ii for 12fps motorised sequences
• Firmware. ☢️ FFS Sony, how hard is it to fix bugs and enable features already supported by existing hardware? Improves the operational stability of the camera. Yeah right, what about the time the “7RII” got bricked because I ran an upgrade without a Sony lens attached?… Three weeks in Adelaide to get that operational stability fixed. Then the update process on MacOS used to be exquisitely painful — you had to plug your camera into your desktop (don’t forget to use the antiquated USB2 cable originally supplied), then run a Sony app after disabling your MacOS security preferences. WTAF!
• Menu system with its bifurcated layer upon layer of carefully concealed options. It could be vexing, although I wasn’t as distressed about it as many other (cough “Canikon”) photographers
• “1/250th” flash sync speed. Sounds good, but only with Sony OEM flashes. Otherwise you topped out at 1/160th. Yet another Sony Gotcha™

• 

  At the Bethesda Steps in NYC with the αR7II in 2017

Sony α7RIV   ↑

I skipped the α7RIII in 2017 as it had the same 42MP sensor as the “7RII” — why spend $Ks to get exactly the same image quality? But when the Sony α7RIV was released in 2019 I jumped on it. A new 61MP sensor, much quieter shutter and higher capacity NP–FZ100 battery. The “7RIV” has been a mainstay ever since.

In 2022 I likewise skipped the “7RV” as it used the parts–bin recycled “7RIV” sensor. I also didn’t care about the new AI predictive focus nor magical game–changing flippy screen. Admittedly the lossless compressed RAW would have been handy (use it all the time in the α6700), but I have Adobe DNG Converter to squeeze RAW files in post, so it’s no crippling loss.

Likes

• 61MP sensor. A MF sized sensor in a 35mm body 🎉 The high resolution also enabled digitisation of films to obtain ≈ 40MP “scans”. Alas it has a slightly lower dynamic range than the “7RII”, and in low light is a bit noisier, but count the pixels man
• Access to Sony GM(2) lenses. In 2013 Sony continued their partnership with Zeiss, but in 2016 they started releasing their own line of G/ GM/ GMII lenses. I have a mix — outstanding things and some of them even have aperture rings (gasp!)
• 26MP APSC support. The “7RIV” & “7RV” were the best ways to shoot APS–C until the α6700 was released in 2024. I took it a step further by programming Sony lens side buttons to drop into 26MP APS–C mode when required. A handy way to get two focal lengths with a single (full–frame) lens
• EVF. No more poky viewfinders. It still lacks the clarity of optical VFs (eg. on the Hasselblad 501CM or Leica R9), but the 5.76M dot OLED is good enough and unlike optical VFs, there is no guessing about the final image. Like I said earlier WYFSIWYFG
• Tethering. Rock solid with Capture One Pro, unlike the Leica SL2 where you have to jump through burning hoops and even then is patchy
• Handling. Used the “7RIV” for years with a RRS L–bracket before getting a SmallRig compact cage in 2023 (see photo above). Can now securely grab it from any angle, still use my QD connector straps and the alloy exoskeleton protects it from the kind of drop which busted my Nikon F2 in 1982 😢
• Quiet longer–life shutter. A welcome change from the “7RII” staccato klack!

Dislikes

• Firmware. FFS Sony, again. See my remarks for the “7RII” above
• 61MP sensor. What? Love/ hate. The RAW colour and dynamic range was a subtle downgrade from the 42MP in the “7RII” — you can get equivalent results, but you have to work for it [ Note XIV ]. Since the larger sensor has more photosites, the 93ms readout speed is too glacial for e/shutter use on moving subjects. Then those uncompressed 61MP RAW files at ≈ 120MB sure like chomping through SD storage cards
• Video. In a high rez stills camera with horrible rolling shutter artefacts, when Sony have much better video support in their other cameras?… Yeah right
• Beast. Especially in its SmallRig cage, we’ve come a l–o–n–g way from the compact “7R” in 2013…
• 3rd Party Flash. For unknown reasons my compact Bolt–VC 310SMI flash refuses to work in TTL mode at any shutter speed. Worked fine on the A77II, “7RII” (at 1/160th) and also with my new α6700 (again at 1/160th) — but nup, not gonna happen with the “7RIV”. Sony Gotcha™ rides again. Must have really annoyed Bolt as well, as I notice they don’t make flashes for Sony anymore

• 

  The 61MP quality from the αR7IV can be stunning, but you have to work for it

If the touted 80MP Sony α7RVI turns out to confirm the early speculation, then I will upgrade when it’s released in 2027. Which will be seven years after I got the “7RIV”, making the “$s per annum” calculation worthwhile.

Sony Digital Image Quality

I reach for my Winchester 70 Safari whenever I hear someone squeak Color Science. I suppose if you’re a fumbling Instaweenie and only know how to shoot JPEGs, then I guess you’re stuck with the pix the camera hands you. But for the rest of us who shoot RAW?…

Import the RAW image into your favourite RAW editor, then manipulate the RAW colour to your RAW heart’s RAW delight. Sky too cyan? Adjust. Skin too magenta? Adjust. The green, green grass of home not quite green enough? Adjust. You want your Delicious apples to match your fluoro yellow Mardi Gras furry leg–warmers? Er, adjust.

Surely it’s a fundamental part of photography that capturing an image is merely the first of many steps required to produce a photograph. In film days you took the shot, processed the film, retreated into the “dankroom” to dodge & burn & sweat over chemical trays while you developed your prints. Ditto with digital (sans the chemical fumes): take the (RAW) picture, import into a computer, adjust colour/ gamma/ sharpness in a RAW Editor to taste, fine tune in a Photoshop equivalent. I embrace solitude, yet surely I am not completely alone in doing this?…

Admittedly even with RAW there are differences between Sony “color” and (say) Leica. Which means tweaking a bit more to get things right. Really. An order of magnitude simpler than the brute–force adjusting, for hours, to get scanned C–41, with its ^%&#ing orange mask, looking “right”.

Lost in Leicaworld

Have we reached the Holy Land yet?…

No.

Are we getting close?…

Maybe.

Appearances to the contrary, I am not a die–hard Leica fanatic. I scoffed with (almost) everyone else when Leica released their Leica SL (typ 601) in 2015: no IBIS, 24MP, only three native lenses, the weight of a small car, wildly overpriced.

Leicas have always been expensive, but the justification used to be you could get 40–50 years of hard use out of them. Spread over a camera’s entire lifetime, the steep initial outlay worked out to be reasonable on a year–by–per basis. And unlike Contax or Minolta (+ many others), Leica’s business model clearly works, for in 2025 they celebrated “100 Years of Leica”. Shame EIIR wasn’t around to send them a centenary birthday letter.

Yet digital cameras, no matter how lovingly crafted and assembled, have significantly shorter lifespans than their film counterparts. Maybe fifteen years, although ten is more realistic. Which for current Leicas work out to too many $s per annum — roughly double that of competing marques. Did somebody say too damn expensive?…

Over decades Leica have also scored so many own–goals that other manufacturers must set aside entire meetings to shake their heads. The Leitz highlight reel features such joyful memories as… Embarrassingly tacky one–offs (eg. Gold Leica MP). Petrostate and other dubious special editions. The film–era Leicaflex SL2 which could only be sold at a loss. The Leica M5 CdS lightmeter on a swinging stick. Early M6 zinc rot. The IR over–sensitive digital APS–H M8. The M9 with its ticking time–bomb CCD corrosion issues. The SL3 with its is this thing still on? soft power button… Thankfully the much despised “Swastika Leicas” were grubby post–Soviet fakes, although the studio–based 26.4MP Leica S1 (1997) wasn’t.

You get the idea. Our friends at Leica are far from perfect, even if they wear cute little pointed hats and tend to whistle while they work. Any fist–shaking grampa who rants otherwise, really needs take their meds instead of just staring at them.

Leica SL (typ 601)   ↑

I gleefully sneered when it was released in 2015, then bought one two years later 🫢

Hear me out. By 2017 I was getting supremely piѕѕed off dissatisfied with Sony’s approach to ignoring bugs in their camera firmware. Our Digital Liege Lords simply refused to address snafus in the “7RII”, and many of us became convinced their strategic plan was to force you to buy the next model if you wanted problems fixed. Maximally infuriating.

Meanwhile I kept an eye on the Leica SL (typ 601) (10850). It also had (serious) problems upon release, but unlike Sony, Leica addressed them with regular firmware updates. And not just hand–waving improves operational stability but meaningfully specific fixes and even (gasp!) addition of new features. Indeed the most recent SL–601 firmware update (v4.1) was realeased in March 2024, 8½ years after the camera premiered!

In 2017 I finally wiped the grin off my face. Although I couldn’t justify paying full retail, I hoped I might be able to get a good condition 2nd hand SL–601 for much less. After all, people who buy these things tend to be retired dentists, actuaries or elderly folk, hardly the sort known for rock ‘n’ roll trashing their gear. And then I got lucky. Found a demonstration model at a Leica dealership in Melbourne. It was still “new” and came with a statutory 1 year warranty, which qualified for an additional year provided I registered on the Leica Australia website. So… an almost new SL–601 at a 30% discount with a 2–year full warranty. Bargain (sort of).

Bauhaus Brick

With its angular weather–sealed body milled from a single block of Al–alloy, this thing is solid. Rampaging grizzly bears and bull elephants take note, it has sufficient heft to stop a .375 H&H Magnum round. Worried about your Airbus A380 rolling across the tarmac? No problem, chock the wheels with a SL–601. I mentioned earlier the Leicaflex SL2 Mot which survived an 8km drop from a fighter jet, the SL–601 would survive re-entry from low Earth orbit, although the “Leica” red–dot may need to be replaced.

Hoo boy. Attach a RRS bracket and you’re looking at 0.98 kg before mounting a lens. But at least you can use it as a club to beat up miscreants. Or grizzly bears. Or as a hammer to repair the heat–shield on the ISS. Presumably it’s why there aren’t any labels on any of the buttons — who has time to read things when you are bashing through drywalls or engaging with nature red in tooth and claw?

Die User Erfahrung

You payz yer considerable bucks and… OMFG.

Viewfinder

4.4M dot with user adjustable dioptre correction — which was ground–breaking in 2015 and still impressive a decade later. I had thought the “7RII” 2.36M dot viewfinder was good — nup, not even close. There is one tiny snafu though, my SL–601 has a subtly green tinge you cannot correct. At least with the Sony, in one of their carefully hidden menu options, you can adjust the VF colour to whatever you like.

Shutter

Silky discreet. Not as quiet as my leather jacketed M6 TTL, but subdued enough to forestall panic–attacks from bystanders. Yes you can go silent with the electronic shutter but… expect rolling–shutter artefacts from the 50ms refresh rate. The s/speed range is 30min (in M mode) to 1/8000th, but it can go out to 1/16000th in electronic shutter mode. So you can set your lens to ƒ2.8 and shoot in the midday sun at 50 ISO and not worry about overexposure (much). It has a peak burst rate of 11fps, although realistically it is closer to 7fps sustained. Flash sync is true 1/250th and not 1/160th pretending otherwise.

“Floaters”

My SL–601 originally had a few tiny hairs trapped between the sensor and its protective glass cover. No amount of blower bulb puffing or wet/ dry wiping could exeunt them. Most of the time they weren’t visible, but they came out to play whenever there was sky in the upper ⅔ of the frame. Easy enough to retouch in post, but eventually sent the camera off to be depilated. As it was still under extended warranty, the repair was free. A few months later [sic] it came back and the pesky bastards were finally expunged ✓

Adaptability

The main purpose of getting a SL–601 was to use my R and M manual lenses via appropriate lens–mount adapters. I have three Leica versions: R Adapter L (16076); M Adapter L (18771) & R Adapter M (14642), along with a Novoflex Nikon F to L. The only downside is that lenses have to be used stopped down, as the adapters cannot close the lens to working aperture when taking a shot. Likewise no AF for adapted lenses. Otherwise they all work brilliantly. I got the Leica OEM adapters because “16076” and “18771” have lens contacts which can read EXIF data from Leica R ROM lenses or 6–bit encoded M lenses. Cheaper 3rd party adapters cannot. Some people assert wideangle M lenses exhibit colour aberrations on L–mount Leicas, but I haven’t experienced it with my 24mm, 28mm or 35mm M lenses. OTOH wideangle M lenses all have significant issues on the “7RIV” or Panasonic Lumix S1RII.

Haptics

The minimalist “typ 601” interface perfectly suits my INTJ personality. You’ve got the ubiquitous red–dot and bold “Leica” logo in front, but otherwise there are no labels or icons, aside from the on/off switch at the rear. Don’t know what a button does? Learn. No magic game–changing flippy LCD screen either — it is immovably fused into the camera back. I especially appreciate the two rotating dials, which instead of cogs & ratchets use tiny rare–earth magnets to achieve the same detent effect, but can never wear out. The simple on/ off switch at the rear (and not around the shutter button — I’m looking at you Sony) remains stiff after thousands of cycles. The unlabelled interface buttons are dual purpose and can be set to do one thing for a single press, or something else if you hold it down. The rear LCD is touch enabled, although it was the first thing I disabled as I’m a left eye shooter and my nose kept inadvertently changing things.

Lame AF

Guilty as charged. 529 focus points should be adequate, but they are contrast–detect only. Subject tracking is also sub–par (Sony rules here). Thing is, for 8 years I only used adapted manual R & M lenses, so passionately didn’t care. When I finally got an L–series AF lens in 2025, I found AF–S centre–point worked fine, disparaging claims to the contrary. YMMV.

Built–in GPS

Incredibly useful for geotagging. Not infallible, but works well most of the time. The GPS receiver’s black trapezoidal prism is on the top plate to the left of the viewfinder. Most other cameras have to pair with mobile phones, which opens whole other can of worms. I love the GPS feature and am puzzled it was removed in subsequent SL models. In the current SL3 they have a dial in its place, which many use to quickly adjust the ISO (something I rarely do).

Battery life

Not as horrible as many claim, but with GPS enabled it can drain faster than desired. Things are better with the new 2200mAh BP–SLC6 cell (versus the original 1860mAh BP–SLC4), yet I rarely found battery life an issue as I only used manual lenses and thus wasn’t powering lens AF/ OIS motors. I also set the camera “Auto Power OFF” to a miserly 10 seconds since it wakes up quickly when you tap the shutter button. Online claims to the contrary, the new SLC6 battery works fine with the SL–601, provided you upgrade your camera firmware. There is disappointingly no ability to recharge in–camera, so you need a separate charger — I use a Nitecore USB “ULSL”.

Image quality

Dual ISO base of 50 and 200. I have set auto–ISO to 200–800, with most daylight work at 200. In low light I don’t go higher than 800 as things get noisy fast. That said, due to the absence of an AA filter you get razor sharp images with excellent RAW colour/ contrast out–of–the–box. As I mentioned earlier you can get similar Sony RAW results, but you have to fiddle in post to achieve it. Not so the SL–601 — shoot, import, tweak, done. The only downside is the camera shoots in uncompressed RAW, making file sizes ≈ 50MB for 24MP resolution. Lossless compression by Adobe DNG Converter to the rescue.

No IBIS

Should be a down–vote, but at least you are guaranteed sharp images if you keep the camera still. If you need stabilisation then lenses with built–in OIS do the job (eg. the fantastic but 1.14kg Vario–Elmarit–SL 24–90mm zoom). This was partly why I got the “cheap” Panasonic LUMIX S 24–105mm F4 MACRO O.I.S. lens in 2025. Surprisingly excellent (see below) and only 680g.

Video

Shrug.

JPEG image quality

(See “Video” above.)

• 

  The Leica SL (typ 601) can still produce excellent images, and contributed 20% of the content in my “Boomer Legacy” project.

If it wasn’t for the dinky 24MP resolution it would be my forever camera. Despite upgrading to the 47MP Leica SL2 in April 2025, I still keep the SL–601 around as my no–nonsense go–anywhere hammer. In theory I could have upgraded to the low–light friendly Leica SL2–S, but… Steak… Hamburger… Why bother?

Leica SL2   ↑

In November 2019 I attended a launch event for the 47MP Leica SL2 (10854) at a warehouse in Alexandria Sydney. Found the new camera very impressive, despite the presentation heavily leaning on Steve McCurry’s new–found love for Leica. One would have thought he’d be persona non grata after being exposed three years earlier for faking much of his “photojournalistic” oeuvre, but there you go, bask in the glory of the new “Man for All Seasons”.

The SL2 had some significant improvements:

• 47MP sensor designed by TowerJazz and made for Panasonic/ Leica ✓
• Still no AA filter for sharpness ✓
• 5.76M dot OLED dot viewfinder ✓
• 30 min — 1/40000th shutter, 20fps continuous ✓
• Upgraded Maestro III processor to handle increased MP ✓
• IBIS 🎉 ✓
• Improved menu structure ✓
• In-camera battery recharging via USB–C ✓
• On/ off switch remains a simple toggle (I’m looking at you SL3…) ✓
• Improved video (shrug)
• Sleeker body with curved edges and increased leatherette (wimps)
• New rear button layout to match other digital Leicas (sigh)

Alas, Wetzlar giveth and Wetzlar taketh away:

• No built–in GPS – you need to pair with your mobile phone ✗
• Increased image data + IBIS = more battery drain ✗
• 1–stop worse dynamic range at 200–400 ISO ✗
• Tethering (with Capture One) was initially hopeless with early firmware. It got better with updates, but you still need to remove the SD Cards + set the connection to PTP + only use premium tether cables (?!) ✗
• The “typ 601” Bauhaus design has been consigned to the Outhaus ✗
• Strap eyelets now protrude from the body ✗
• The body redesign necessitates a new RRS baseplate and multifunction grip (see below) ✗
• To quell newbie anxiety, the four rear buttons were reduced to three and given labels: “Play”, “Fn” & “Menu” ✗

Although I found the SL2 “interesting”, I had no burning desire to upgrade. I had my 24MP SL–601 for bear–bating and had recently gotten a 61MP Sony αA7RIV for the megapixels. Both did everything I needed.

Fast forward to April 2025. The Leica SL3 had been released a year earlier, so I figured I might be able to get a good condition SL2 on the used market. Searched eBay a few times, got lucky and again managed to buy a “new” demonstration model from an Adelaide dealer, also with a 1+1 year warranty. As it had a 50% price discount compared to the original SL2 price, this time it really was a bargain.

Using the SL2

It isn’t hugely different from the SL–601 — see this long–term SL2 review by “Macfilos”. Admittedly the built–in IBIS is handy for manual lenses and the 47MP images are gorgeous. The uncompressed RAW files at ≈ 90MB chew through SD Card space, although I tend to shoot < 200 frames a day and my existing cards can handle it. Once transferred to a desktop, Adobe DNG Converter can pack the RAWs down to a more reasonable ≈ 50MB each.

Image quality remains fantastic, as do the ergonomics. The only issue was the Logo Tax retail price prior to 2025. Due to dumb luck I paid half, yet it was still too much. Leica have since the early 2000s transitioned to be more of a luxury brand, where extravagant prices are part of the cachet of ownership. Nods in the Chairman’s Lounge. People hailing you from a fashionable café to admire your camera [ Note XV ]. As I saw on a Reddit forum recently: Leicas have become Hermès handbags which also happen to take photos. Ouch but true.

HG–SCL6 Vertical Hand–Grip

In previous years I used detachable vertical grips on both the Sony “A77II” and “α7RII” to double battery capacity and help with vertical shooting. I didn’t use them all the time as they added considerable bulk & weight — mount a hefty portrait lens and who needs curling dumbbells?

Because the SL2 baseplate dimensions have changed, original SL–601 accessories like RRS brackets or the HG–SCL4 multifunction grip no longer work.

A few months after I got the SL2 I bought a used HG–SCL6 multifunction grip, not so much because I couldn’t survive without it, but because the like–new mint price was too attractive to ignore 😉

A couple of things:

1. It doesn’t work with mixed batteries — use either a pair of BP–SLC6 or BP–SLC4, but not one of each
2. Make sure you keep the gold electrical contacts clean on both SCL6 and SL2 camera base, as the tiniest amount of dirt/ oil can mess things up. I use isopropyl alcohol with Q–tips

Panasonic Lumix S 24–105mm Zoom

A month before getting the SL2, I bought a Panasonic LUMIX S 24–105mm F4 MACRO O.I.S. (S–R24105) lens for use with my SL-601. The previous year I had travelled in Switzerland and although I was satisfied with the results from my Sony α7RIV + Sony FE 24–70mm F/2.8 GM II (SEL2470GM2), it was conspicuously bulky and the 61MP images were overkill for — let’s face it — travel snaps.

Enter the Lumix S 24–105. Mount it on the SL–601 and you get fantastic optically stabilised 24MP images. But then on a whim I tried it on the SL2 and… it hasn’t left the camera since.

I am aware the “R24105” is merely a “cheap kit lens”, yet have found it a phenomenal all–purpose zoom. At 105mm it also has a (semi) 1:2 macro setting. Maybe I got lucky with my copy, but have found it sharp corner to corner at all zoom settings, unlike my Sony SEL2470GM2 which is weak at RHS infinity at > 55mm. The embedded “R24105” lens profile in Capture One Pro additionally makes the results sing (alas they lack one for the SEL1655G 😡)

Its maximum aperture of ƒ4 could be better, but otherwise I cannot recommend it highly enough. OIS on the Leicas work much better than IBIS on the “A7RIV”, while Leica RAW files have all the benefits of sharpness, colour and contrast without having to tweak, tweak, tweak.

• 

  Have found the Leica SL2, combined with the Lumix S 24–105, to be an excellent large MP walk–around combination

My Digital Workflow   ↑

I have already referred to this a few times, so it’s time to share some more detail.

Typical Camera Settings for stills

• Aperture Priority, usually between ƒ4 — ƒ11
• Auto ISO set 200 — 1600, with the high end depending upon the camera’s low–light performance. For flash I set ISO manually
• Compressed RAW if available, uncompressed otherwise
• E-Front Curtain shutter most of the time, although I switch over to fully mechanical if shooting with a lens wide open at fast shutter speeds
• Focus Peaking is always off as it’s too vague and unreliable
• AF Focus Area: Centre Fix or Expandable Spot (almost never Zone or Wide)
• AF–S. Rarely use AF–C. A lot of my time is spent shooting with manual lenses, in which case I regularly activate EVF zoom to enlarge a portion of the image for critical focus
• A/B card duplication if the camera has 2 slots
• Networking/ WiFi is off

AZN Workflow

Storage Media

Mostly 64GB Sony Tough-M Series SDXC UHS-II V60. These “Tough” cards are dust, drop, splash proof and difficult to bend. Got them in 2023 and they work fine for stills photography + motorised sequences, despite being only V60. If I was shooting 30fps or 4K video then I would get the faster V90, at a considerable mark–up 😕. The difference between V30, V60 or V90?… I’m glad you asked. The free Sony “Media Scan Utility” and “BlackMagic Disk Speed Test” apps are occasionally used to test the card(s) — so far so good.

RAW only (“.DNG” or “.ARW”)

Losslessly compressed RAW if I can get it (eg. α6700), uncompressed otherwise. A few years ago I experimented with various kinds of JPEGs, but always found the D/R limited and colours off.

“Image Capture” (MacOS app)

After a shoot I eject the SD Card and plug it into the SD card reader on my laptop/ desktop. Apple provide a pre–installed app called “Image Capture”, which is used to transfer files to my desktop input folder.

Adobe DNG Converter (MacOS app)

The only piece of Adobe Software I still use. It takes RAW files and losslessly compresses them to DNG format. Space savings of 40% are typical. Caveat with C1 Pro as the generated DNGs can sometimes lose the manufacturer’s lens correction data.

MetaImage (MacOS app)

This is a standalone app to batch edit image EXIF data — vital for creating files which can be indexed & searched in a “DAM” database (see below). Yes I know EXIF Tools does it for free, but I prefer to work with a professional UI instead of arcane command–line prompts.

Capture One Pro (MacOS app)

Prior to 2017 I was an avid user of Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Eventually got fed up with the former due to its spinning–beachball slowness and becoming $ub$cription–only, while the latter was abruptly discontinued by Apple. So I switched to PhaseOne Capture One Pro. I also prefer their “sessions” project model instead of bloated catalogues, which I always hated on Lightroom, and use the full-price version which I upgrade every 2–3 years.

Photo Supreme (MacOS app)

Once I stopped using image catalogues, I needed a way to DAM index and search my collection of images. The single–user version of PhotoSupreme appeared to be the best cross–platform option, although it is far from perfect. It is slow on my M4 Max (although v2026 is getting better), searching is mostly “quirks mode” and being built on top of SQLite doesn’t inspire confidence. Indeed they recommend regularly “compacting the catalogue” to strip out dead/ broken links (!) To use DAM efficiently you need to get into the habit of adding detailed EXIF tags to your images → hence “MetaImage” as part of my workflow.

Affinity Photo 2 (MacOS app)

After scraping the Adobe stuff off my hard–drives in 2017, I needed a substitute for Photoshop (for which my skills were ironically profiled by Adobe in 1999!). I tried and still occasionally use PixelMator, but Serif Affinity Photo turned out to be the best alternative. Version 2 added AI masking, which sounded like an on–trend gimmick but works surprisingly well.

Our good friends at Canva purchased Affinity in 2024 and immediately took it offline. When it reappeared it was part of a “freemiun” suite of applications. YouTubers fell about swooning with delight, but many realised there would be a catch. And indeed there was → you now need a registered Canva account and it saves files in a new format which only the Canva Affinity suite can read. Did anyone say Enѕhittification Business Model?

Luckily Affinity Photo 2 continues to work with MacOS 26. Should it cease then I may have to brush off my PixelMator skills, or maybe even get Acorn.

Topaz Photo (MacOS app)

Of all the annoying garbage shilled on photo forums, Topaz Labs is up there alongside 7Artisans, Viltrox, Macphun Skylum Luminar. Every blog seems to be littered with blinking ads for DEALS! and AI this and Magic that and Game–changing whatever. So I was sceptical in 2024 when Topaz released “Sharpen Ai”. Yet to my amazement it worked (!) especially for fixing blurred images from slight movement or missed focus. So far so okay… but old spammers die hard. They continued pointlessly iterating through various “AI” themed versions until their current Topaz Photo. I still sometimes use it, but have noticed they gimped the desktop AI models to force encourage you to use their cloud $ub$cription. If they go any further then I’ll be scraping my hard–drive again.

Digital Asset storage

Forget CD–ROMs or Blu–Ray data discs. Forget SSDs. I use two 8TB IronWolf Pro NAS spinning disc HDs in a RAID 1 mirroring configuration. 2.5M hours (ie. 285.3 years) MTBF, which should be enough. Short of “Billion Dollar Brain” magnetic tape, physical spinning platters are still the most reliable way to long–term store your data.

What about image format? Important images are 16–bit TIFFs, which should be readable far into the future. Plain vanilla 100% quality JPEGs could also work, although it is difficult editing them losslessly. RAW image files like “ARW” (Sony) or “DNG” (Leica) will have a tough time though. Maybe DNGs will survive due to support from our beloved Adobe, but other RAW formats will struggle in fifty years time, maybe less.

The Impact of AI   ↑

Before we get started, watch the video from fStoppers (2025) The Dark Side of AI: Is the Photography Industry Doomed? TL;DW → most commercial photography is obsolete.

I first got an inkling of this twenty years ago. I was flipping through a copy of Street Machine magazine and noticed many of the new car “photos” were actually CGI renderings, exceptionally well done. Which was a shock! When I started photography in the ‘80s, car & truck photographers occupied the summit of the profession, mainly due to their enormous studios with heavy turntables, “swimming pool” strobes, front projection systems, 10×8 view cameras and Rodenstock lenses costing 3 months salary each. These pros would have entire teams of assistants & retouchers, charge $10Ks per day and spend forever getting the composition and lighting right, reflections tamed and imperfections retouched directly on the large–format transparency films. They garnered awards. People shouted them drinks. Photography magazines lauded them with gushing adulation. Yet all this imaging wizardry could now be done with keystrokes on a (powerful) computer by a couple of people for $$s instead of a specialist team of artisans for $$$$$$s. And this was circa 2005…

Twenty years later the fStoppers video shows it has become even easier, and can now be done by anyone with enough nous to write a specific text AI prompt. Coding, 3D modelling skills and render–farms no longer required. Which has gotta hurt, right?

Maybe. Things may look dire, but it isn’t necessarily The End of Photography. Although most commercial/ fashion/ architectural/ travel photography has been dealt a blow, there are still a few areas which AI may augment but never fully replace:

Weddings

People will always want a record of their Big Day. Some will strive for authenticity, others for insta–friendly artifice. AI could be used to “tidy up” the bridal party and guests, or the location, but original images still need to be taken. A much larger threat are the ubiquitous mobile phones wielded by every attendee, but any half–decent professional can still produce better and more memorable images.

Events

If anything demand for event photography has grown. Better cameras, better results, more demand. For years I shot school events as part of my job as a high school teacher — which along with my WWCC meant I was automatically qualified to work with under–age students.

AI cannot greatly impact event photography as you still need to capture original and recognisable images of attendees + organisers. Where it can help though is in post: to mask, remove or replace embarrassing moments in the background (the stories I could tell…)

Fine–Art

A lot of contemporary fine–art photography is already borderline AI–lite, yet there will always be demand for art created by humans for humans. AI cannot (yet) weave a subtext or metaphors or allegories into images, nor even occasionally subvert the main theme. Despite using AI to create “stuff” being trivially easy, no LLM will ever match the real–world depth and complexity of (say) W. Eugene Smith, Ansel Adams or Sebastião Selgado.

Reportage

Photojournalism took a severe hit in the early 2000s, but news events still need to be reported; Historical events witnessed; Celebrities exposed; Politicians unintentionally lionised; Unpopular royals depicted as rodents; Beloved TV matrons made youthful; Suffering have–nots pitied; Sports Stars mindlessly adored.

Leaps into the unknown

LLMs are fantastic at synthesising already existing work to regurgitate “new” material. Or analyse overwhelming amounts of data to uncover subtle trends. Or design an efficient rocket combustion chamber or (almost) diagnose a swallowed toothpick. What LLMs cannot do is make unexpected connections and idiosyncratic jumps forward. Produce an artwork in the style of Amedeo Modigliani ✓ Write prose in the style of Ernest Hemingway ✓ Create a long meandering article about photography and cameras crammed full of elliptical asides?… ✗

Here’s where my liberal–arts friends will find things tough going. They have been painstakingly indoctrinated taught that ransacking plagiarising appropriating paying homage to other’s efforts is a valid and praiseworthy endeavour. Yeah well, LLMs can do that too. Faster Cheaper Better. But those creatives who are capable of directly drawing inspiration from the world around them, along with their own imagination, insight, training and experience, to create unique and unexpected work… will thrive. Backward looking BFAs, MFAs and their ouroboros Art World enablers will not.

Photography as a Side Hustle   ↑

As I mentioned thirty–odd–thousand words ago, I never worked as a professional photographer. Or more precisely, I never earned my entire income from professional photography. The closest I came was in 1997–2006, when I did software/ web/ VR development which often featured photographic content I was commissioned to shoot.

Fact is, I was headed down that path in my twenties but had my own (cliché alert) “sliding doors moment” when I sold my Rolleiflex T to a commercial photographer in 1985. Had I accepted his offer of working as an assistant, then in a few years I too would have become a commercial photographer. Yet a little voice said don‘t do it and like Yoda, When Speaks The Voice Listen Will I.

In the following decades I never regretted it. Since I had a regular income from other things, I could pick and choose photographic projects I wanted to work on. If a client became too tiresome, or stupid, then I could drop them fast. Because I was a qualified (although no longer practising) solicitor, lord help the pseudo patron who tried to avoid paying my invoice. Every economic downturn or technological advance (hello mini–lab owners & professional film retouchers) passed me by without impact. My career path has been unique and fascinating, and I have met and worked with people I never would have otherwise. Creatively and financially I have also benefited. Aside from a few occasions when I was commissioned to do work by demanding & powerful clients (cough, Warner Bros), I have had complete control over my images — something most gun–for–hire photographers cannot say. Greta Garbo II taught me that important lesson when I was twenty–one

FWIW my advice is this: forget about being a full–time photographer. For every staggeringly successful Bearded Sensei, there are fifty who barely make a living, and have to spend their lives doing unremarkable work under close supervision of clueless wankers Editors and Art Directors, which will all be swept aside by AI anyway. Being independent also means you can sidestep the we don’t have a budget for this right now, but the exposure you’ll get is priceless man–bun grifters. Nor waste months writing detailed applications for creative arts grants you never had the remotest chance of getting.

There is nothing embarrassing nor diminishing about having a day–job, especially if it pays reasonably well and isn’t morally & intellectually degrading. Musical composer Alexander Borodin was a professor of chemistry. During his “Miraculous Year” Albert Einstein was a Patent Office Science Specialist 3rd Class. Philip Glass was a plumber and drove taxis. TS Eliot worked (contentedly!) as a bank clerk at Lloyds Bank. The 20th century is littered with creative people who had paying jobs unrelated to what eventually made them famous: Allow me to present Exhibits A, B and C.

Whatever you do, use your day–job to broaden your horizons and sharpen your mind. Food Delivery Rider ✗ HSC tutor ✓ Marry for money and connections ✗ Get three different tertiary degrees in three different disciplines ✓ Advertising copywriter ✗ Solar panel installer ✓ Waste data handler ✗ Software developer ✓ Arts worker ✗ CAPA teacher ✓ Physics teacher ∇×✓ Airhead TikTok™ influencer (sigh) ✗

We can learn a lot from Charles Proteus Steinmetz — become the wizard who solves the problem, not the slob who has to implement it.

A Website of Your Own

One last story:

In July 1992 I quit my Gilbert & Sullivan job as a junior solicitor at a major Sydney law firm. Figured it was time to see if I could sell any of my photographs. So I visited a couple of galleries in Paddington, a fashionable part of Sydney noted for its art, artistry, connections and vibe.

Being self–taught, I lacked what turned out to be a vital letter of recommendation from an established artist or art–school, so the gallerists treated me with a mixture of suspicion and scorn.

I showed them my portfolio of a dozen meticulously printed and toned 11×14 B&W images. Prints which had made my friends exclaim Holly ѕhit! Did you do that?! barely registered a response.

Eventually one overfed grandee stated I had “some potential” and should return when I had something more substantial to show. At another gallery a pixie–cut matron said she couldn’t do anything with my images as they lacked a “cohesive overarching theme”. Yet she whimsically added I was free to submit my work on Tuesdays when they held viewings for new & emerging artists. She warned if they accepted any of my work, on consignment, then I would have to pay for exhibition quality framing (which they did of course), and if any of my photos sold their commission would be an additional 50% to cover things like insurance, advertising, cataloguing etc.

Heads they win, tails I lose. I gave her a sardonic smile and left. I note with satisfaction both galleries imploded within a few years.

You have to get your images out into the public space so they can be seen. Unfortunately a phalanx of gatekeepers will block you every step of the way. Unless you are a posh friend/ colleague/ crony/ nepo baby/ professional victim or affiliated via marriage, first nations heritage, middle eastern allegiances, media connections or identity politics. They love to superciliously disport in vibrant couture and bloviate IAE nonsense like exploring the vital role museums and galleries play in creating spaces for debate, reflection and free thought, but no one believes it. Who, whom? and one progressive hand washes the other. Welcome to their country.

Yeah well, in the early 2000s an asteroid in the form of the internet struck and most of these lovelies were swept away. A tiny remnant retreated to microhabitats at universities or publicly funded galleries or broadcasting, but the remainder vanished. The fossil record is patchy.

The only guaranteed way to get your work seen now is by putting it online yourself. Forget galleries. Forget curated exhibitions. Forget the Publisher/ Literary Agent Complex. Similar to photographic lighting, this is a huge topic which merits its own essay. Not now though.

To maintain full independence online you need to… Register a top level domain. Rent space and bandwidth from a web–host. Write basic code in HTML & CSS, then scripting languages like PHP, JavaScript and eventually database programming in (say) SQL. Then figure out how draw traffic to your site and analyse which parts are successful and which are not. And no, you don’t need fancy GUI effects to be “more engaging” (sigh).

Which all sounds daunting because it is. I worked for years as a web–developer so can do it adequately. Others will face a steep learning curve, but don’t be put off as the basics are surprisingly straightforward. I would strongly advise against taking shortcuts and displaying your work on social–media sites, as only the broligarchy will benefit. Ditto the ailing Flickr Pro. Then there’s the attendant swarm of trolls, bots, spam, hackers, tracking and neckbeard stalkers. I similarly don’t recommend “easy” website builders like “SquareSpace” or “GoDaddy”, as they will hold your content hostage while assiduously draining your bank account. Where do you think they get the mountain of money to pay for their incessant advertising?

The crucial thing is to own and control the environment where you exhibit your work. Similar to what Ken Done did with his gallery in The Rocks, Sydney. Although I am no fan of his work, I do admire the way he ruthlessly dis–intermediated the Art World intermediaries.

It’s your work displayed in your own space which you maintain and control yourself. No one can ever dictate what you can and cannot do. WTF it’s your website and you can do with it as you please. Now get your work out there and get it seen.