I took a long break from personal writing to focus on finishing and defending my doctoral dissertation. This summer, I got a Pentax 17 as a graduation present. The Pentax 17 is a half-frame camera, meaning each 35mm frame yields two 17mm images. It also uses zone focus. For someone used to shooting with a 35mm SLR, the Pentax 17 comes with quite a learning curve. I’m used to composing my image through the camera, and being able to see exactly what I photograph. That’s impossible with the Pentax 17. Every shot is a leap of faith. On the other hand, this camera is small and light. It is nicely designed, and very aesthetic. It kind of looks like the platonic ideal of an old-school camera.

I want to take it with me everywhere. 

I took it along with us on a vacation in San Francisco. While I’m still figuring out this camera–this is only my second roll of film, using the Pentax 17–I am pretty happy with these photographs. Success with the Pentax 17 depends to a degree on the type of film one chooses to use. I didn’t like my first roll as much. I ran a roll of Tri-X 400 through the camera, and disliked the prominent grain. For this roll, I used Cinestill BwXX, rated at 200. It yielded a finer grain and more pleasing range of tonalities. 

I like what I can do with this camera. This surprises me. I thought I’d shaken off my college photography professors’ antipathy towards “the snapshot aesthetic.” In college, the men who taught me photography were formalists, disciples of f/64, Beaumont Newhall and John Szarkowski. One professor proudly announced to us that he traced his own artistic lineage, by direct descent, to Edward Weston. There was a lot of emphasis on visualization, formal interest, and creating fine prints. 

With this camera, there is less composition, less of what Ansel Adams called “pre-visualization.” I find it a less cerebral way of relating to photography. I simply pick up the camera and shoot.