Rolleiflex Aesthetics

[Eddie Vaughan]

I own three Rolleiflex TLRs, and am being pressured to agree that these are quite enough. Because I always find it difficult to decide which one to load and use, and cannot really see any difference between the results from each of them, I have to admit privately that one might have been enough. I am not completely happy with that thought, though. It would be like admitting that one Manet painting is enough.

This is not really a bad comparison. I have come gradually to understand that the aesthetics of Rolleiflex TLR cameras attract me more than their technical capabilities. (Some people buy Land Rovers for the same reason.) Naturally, I have never used the look of a Rolleiflex as a justification for buying one, since I know it would be much more difficult to explain that to my wife than it would, say, the superior edge resolution of a 2.8 Planar lens. Nevertheless, I know in my heart that if the Rolleiflex TLR looked like a Mamiya TLR then I would not have been nearly as attracted to it, even if it was clearly superior to the Mamiya on all objective performance measures. For me, there is simply nothing like the magical look or feel of a Rolleiflex TLR, or the way people with plastic digital cameras look at each other in a wild surmise when I prepare to take a photograph. I suspect many collectors (even conceivably Mamiya TLR collectors) feel the same about the things they collect. This leaves me wondering why I spend so much time reading old Rollei technical manuals, or following Rollei Club discussions about the merits of one lens or shutter versus another. I do the same with Land Rover manuals and reviews. The problems is, there is no straightforsward way of discussing and comparing camera aesthetics. Therfore, my next posting will probably be about flash synchronization.

Eddie Vaughan

[DPurdy]

I agree with you Eddie in that there is something about the beauty of the camera itself that compels me to use mine and have it sitting around my work space all the time instead of being put in it's bag and put in the closet.
It is difficult to separate the love of the image quality it can produce from the love of the camera itself. I own two though of course I only need one. Even though the image quality is exactly the same from either of them, they are completely different to me in my attachment to them. One being the 2.8F with the Xenotar and the other a 2.8FX with the Planar. I should sell one because I am so poverty stricken but I can never decide which I love more and that decision or lack of decision is tied up in my love of the aesthetics of the cameras themselves.
Dennis

[JanBoettcher]

Sometimes it is good to know, what is driving you (and your actions ;-)

[Eddie Vaughan]

I remember someone, possibly Freud or Schopenhauer, writing that we frequently employ rationalization rather than reason when justifying our decisions, beliefs or actions. The gist of it ran that we seldom desire things because we have found good reasons for having them, rather we more commonly set out to find good reasons for having the things we desire. I am no less susceptible to this than anybody else, so spend a lot of time accumulating information that I might usefully quote if I ever need to justify buying another expensive Rolleiflex. My reasons always sound very plausible. My wife's do, too, when she explains to me why she has had to spend a lot of money on new shoes. We understand each other perfectly!

Eddie Vaughan

[Noeyedear]

Keep it down lads, if we start having to justify cameras on ability and technical capabilities, I will be clogging up Ebay with cameras.
Some people have a rational way of justifying shoes and handbags, apply the same reasoning to cameras and let that be the end of it.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com

[2 1/4]

Very interesting topic. I like having to work for my photographs and I like classics, the Rolleiflex scores on both points. Holding one makes me a kindred spirit with the history of photography and the numerous great photographers that relied on the Rollei to capture their visions. The aethetics of the camera are secondary to me.

[Eddie Vaughan]

I like classic cameras too, especially the Rolleiflex TLR. Every time I handle one I reflect on its simplicity and purity of design, which was a revolutionary modern design when introduced in 1929, and also think of the many photographers who became famous for photographs they had taken with a Rolleiflex TLR. I feel privileged to handle and use one, and even imagine myself preserving that great history when I take yet another photograph of my wife or my dog. The results are often ordinary, but this does not matter. I just love to handle the camera.

The point I was trying to make when I began on this topic is that owners of Rolleiflex TLR cameras are often devoted to them in ways that cannot wholly be explained in rational-technical terms. There is something seldom touched on discussions of Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and I have described it as Rolleiflex aesthetics. Many admirers of the Rolleiflex TLR do not value it solely as a photographic tool, which means that technical specifications and performance might not be principally important to them. Technical specifications and performance are talked about a lot because these happen to be the easiest things to discuss, but one senses that there is something left over. Most photographers would concede that there have been some remarkable recent developments in camera technology, yet I doubt if readers of this forum are waiting eagerly to exchage their 1960s Rolleiflex TLRs for cameras that are much more technically advanced. I am with them. I also suspect that much of the tedious film vs digital debate conceals an unspoken devotion to old cameras among those who argue that film is better.

I have to explain to my uncomprehending friends that the Rolleiflex TLR has a lot in common with Art Deco: both are loved for their simplicity, their clean uncluttered lines, and their timeless elegance. Technical considerations and practicalities are not necessarily important.


Eddie Vaughan [/i]