Creativity and a Rolleiflex TLR 2.8 / by Edward Goodwin

RolleiColour.jpg

In September 2018 I bought a late 1950’s Rolleiflex TLR f.2.8 E2. The earliest reason I can recall for wanting one maybe went along the lines of: “Vivian Maier had one of those and if I get one, I too can be enigmatic and an awesome photographer.” So I think we can agree it was a mature, well thought through, and practicable plan… But with the wisdom of hindsight I’d now tell myself: “Don’t think twice - get one! It will be transformative.”

If we think about the creative process, the emotional responses and relationship we have with our tools is a crucial element in inspiration, vision, process and therefore output. Composers of symphonies might state they prefer composing on a piano in comparison to another instrument. Artists may prefer to sketch in pencil and watercolour washes. And so for photographers we ought to think of the potential implications of our choices when opting for digital over film, and/or with autofocus over manual. The implications for me are noticeable and catalyse a different creative process and output, which I can best put down to the following factors.

Let’s deal with the first two obvious differences between my digital and film setups; differences that also have consequences. First - film does not offer the safety net of immediate feedback on a rear screen. No instant gratification or crutch here, but that has a calming effect on me (which seems counter-intuitive) and thus on my mood when looking for images. I just think “what will be will be”, which is oddly chilled for me. You see, it’s either something that was an amazing thing I just got to see, that happens to translate into an image, or it won’t translate but will still be this amazing thing I got to see that will forever remain a personal memory. And of course something I’d forgotten over the last 20 years… boy is it exciting waiting for the film to come back in the post…

… which almost outweighs factor two, which is it’s expensive – flippin’ expensive; a roll of 120 film + developing + scanning at good resolution + p&p is £25/US$32 or over £2/US$2.50 per shot.  Medium format film photography doesn’t allow for a throwaway consumerist culture – or at least I can’t afford to approach it that way. This sharpens the eye and trains me to be more discerning. What is more, it calls for me to use my brain. I have to be far more alive and alert than I tend to be with my digital camera - more switched on to my environment, to see images before I even look through the viewfinder. My mind’s eye will be constantly assessing then rejecting or activating, and if the latter, then raising the camera to consider it in the 6x6 square of the viewfinder... which often leads to more thinking and then rejecting! Since having the Rolleiflex, I have therefore found myself rediscovering and improving my photographic eye. ‘Behind the Lights’ (in <documentary travel> projects) was a classic example of this; of me walking along, seeing the alley-way, seeing an image and my brain assessing it and activating my engagement… although sadly by that time I had gone a further 10 steps past the alley, which meant a ‘ministry of funny walks’ style 180 degree spin on my heals to go back and see if it looked good in the viewfinder. Which it did… if only there could be someone as a focal point in it. Which required a bit of patience…

… which is exactly what film photography and the Rolleiflex encourages. And this is a third factor. Taking a photograph on (expensive) film means checking and getting it right – like with the DIY saying ‘measure twice, cut once’, this is check everything three times, release the shutter once. So you naturally work more slowly. And then the camera forces you to slow down. It is manual focus, which means a very human and mechanical decision needs to be made about where to focus. I also need to think about exposure times, and even more importantly what depth of field I want to achieve around that focussing point. It is composing slowly, thoughtfully and very deliberatively.  And when it works, that image – its honesty and its effort - sustains me for longer than a digital image.

So why not always use the Rollei? Well, the cameras we buy and choose to take out with us might need to be capable of working in that day’s assigned environments. Modern digital cameras with their incredible selectable ISO’s and auto-white balancing give unparalleled flexibility – if I’m going indoors, then outdoors, one day, that is great. To take out a Rolleiflex, though, is to accept practical constraints linked to the single lens with its 80mm field of view, and the film speed loaded in the back dictating the conditions that the next 12 frames can cope with. Sometimes I want flexibility but sometimes I just want to relax and enjoy working within constraints. If everything isn’t possible, I can cut myself some slack, and without pressure I work differently. So capability of a camera is important, but the point of this blog is to also highlight and argue that in my experience the cameras we buy and carry around have the potential to fundamentally change the creative process, our personal experiences of photography, our connection to that which is created, and so for me my desire to pick up a camera. It really is about having a different medium in which to work. So go get a film camera, and not just because Vivien Maier had one.