shortscale photography thread.

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » Wed May 09, 2012 11:44 pm

Hurb, I agree with pretty much everything you said there. Digital is great because it's relatively cost-free once you invest in a nice system. And I do enjoy the instant gratification of knowing whether or not what I just took turned out well. But, literally anyone can take a good photo with a new DSLR. I'm still relatively new to photography, and one of the things I want to focus on most is bettering my composition...creating art, rather than just taking a picture. Especially for city trips and such. I think film would encourage that far more.

And yes, vintage cameras are amazing, they're practically works of art in their own right. I wish that modern DSLRs looked like that. It's a shame that Canon had to go and completely change their lens design back in the 80s...I'd love to use my EF lenses on an old body. Someone I know is selling a Canon AE-1 Program...anyone have experience with those? I'm partial to Canon but open to anything really. FD lenses sure are cheap enough. And I think I'd much prefer an SLR, rangefinders seem a bit limited...

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 7:14 am

Rangefinders are cool they get me to concentrate on zone focusing rather than looking through the viewfinder.
I would go with something really cheap and simple to start of with. Or see what people are giving away. The simpler the camera the more of a shock to the system you will get and the less you feel in your digital comfort. When I was using the nikon f50 (looks and feels a lot like my digital nikon d70) I kept on looking at the back to check the images

I would go for a cheap box camera or perhaps a old diana type (I wouldn't buy one of the new dianas to start with, although it did spark me back into photography) they are expensive and defeat the point. you can pick up a real one for a few dollars on ebay.

I look forward to the results!!

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 7:17 am

UlricvonCatalyst wrote:I picked up an old bakelite Kodak Brownie a few weeks ago and got some Fuji Provia and Velvia slide film just in time for the summery Spring weather turning wintry again.

The thing about shooting on film (which I'll have to pay to get processed) is it makes me reluctant to waste shots, meaning it could take some time to rack up 12 exposures. The limitations of the old Brownie - mainly the parallax thing meaning close-ups are pretty much out - doesn't help.

Even so, I can't wait to see that great Fuji slide quality again (though part of me thinks I'd have been better off just buying some Velvia for my 35mm camera).

My adventures in Lomography are only just beginning, though. This week I picked up a beautiful old Kodak folding camera which uses 620 film and seems to have more adaptability to it. I can see a Lubitel being my next purchase....

Love the trl type cameras like the lubitel!

Do you have a flickr account ?

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 7:26 am

I took these on a rangefinder I did compose through the viewfinder but it was too dark for me to actually properly focus so had to rely on zone focusing.

This one I just swung the camera down in front of the dog and already had the camera set for the distance as I walked by.

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Thu May 10, 2012 10:21 am

Those are great Hurb. I've never really tried zone focusing... always worried I would end up missing shots.

My thoughts on the film vs digital subject...

- One of the things I love about film photography, and why I got into it, is getting the prints. I rarely print digital photos off, most people don't. And its a shame. You can get films developed without prints obviously, but if I'm paying for photos to be developed I usually buy prints too... It's nice to be able to just have a flick through them every now and then.

- Also I think film photography is pretty cheap. Obviously you have to pay for film and pay for prints to be developed, but the cameras are dirt cheap compared to DSLRS. You could get an Olympus OM2N in good condition, one of the nicest film SLRS made, for Â£100 on eBay. With a lens too. I think the cheapest full frame DSLR is about.. Â£800 body only? The old film cameras are built like tanks too, if you keep them in good nick they will last a long time. Also there are ways on saving money with film too. Buy in bulk, develop your own film etc. I've mentioned before that jessops give me a free roll of film when i get one developed, so I'm essentially not paying for colour film.

-Digital is great too though. Super efficient. I take wayyy more digital photos than film just because I know it doesn't matter if they're shit. I'm not spending money, I can delete them if the memory card starts getting full etc etc. Also the quality of modern digital cameras is superb. They don't have the same effect as film.. but they look great.

I usually carry my digital camera around with me, even when I'm not planning on taking photos. It's not a DSLR, it's small enough to put in my coat pocket. However if I'm going out specifically to take photos, a day out somewhere or something, then I will carry a film camera too.

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 11:52 am

DanHeron wrote:
- Also I think film photography is pretty cheap. Obviously you have to pay for film and pay for prints to be developed, but the cameras are dirt cheap compared to DSLRS. You could get an Olympus OM2N in good condition, one of the nicest film SLRS made, for Â£100 on eBay. With a lens too. I think the cheapest full frame DSLR is about.. Â£800 body only? The old film cameras are built like tanks too, if you keep them in good nick they will last a long time. Also there are ways on saving money with film too. Buy in bulk, develop your own film etc. I've mentioned before that jessops give me a free roll of film when i get one developed, so I'm essentially not paying for colour film.

this is a great point.

And a lovely lovely picture Dan. great colors.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Thu May 10, 2012 12:10 pm

It's much cheaper than digital - my Nikon F, with 3 lenses & a load of other stuff was cheaper than my secondhand mid range Canon DSLR, and thats for a sought after, classic film SLR. You can pick up a serviceable but unwanted Pentax + a load of lenses for pennies* - less than Â£30 wil get you something very usable, and lenses are cheap. Films I tend to get out of date and store them well and they are less than Â£2 at Costco to develop. I've got a film scanner to scan the negs in.

*I will be putting something of this nature on eBay soon... (shameless plug)

UlricvonCatalyst · Post by **UlricvonCatalyst** » Thu May 10, 2012 12:20 pm

DanHeron wrote:Obviously you have to pay for film and pay for prints to be developed, but the cameras are dirt cheap compared to DSLRS. You could get an Olympus OM2N in good condition, one of the nicest film SLRS made, for Â£100 on eBay. With a lens too. I think the cheapest full frame DSLR is about.. Â£800 body only?

-Digital is great too though. Super efficient. I take wayyy more digital photos than film just because I know it doesn't matter if they're shit. I'm not spending money, I can delete them if the memory card starts getting full etc etc. Also the quality of modern digital cameras is superb. They don't have the same effect as film.. but they look great.

I hadn't really thought of the price trade-off as DSLRs are still too expensive for me to want to buy one, but it's a good point. My digital camera is just a little Panasonic Lumix, but it's ideal for what I use it for (mainly eBay pics). Being able to see the results on a monitor immediately and just reshoot if the quality's too poor is one of the joys of the modern age.

The thing that really reawakened my interest in photography was the advent of a truly portable camera I tended to have with me all the time - namely a mobile phone. The main thing that swung my choice of phone last time but one was the fact that it had a Zeiss lens with 3Mp resolution. At that time, my phone was almost a better camera than my digital camera (which was on its last legs) was.

The phone's limitations - no useable zoom, so pretty much a true point-and-shoot - influenced the kinds of pictures I took with it, sparking an interest in extreme close-ups and abstraction like these:

One thing I will say, Dan: using the freebies from Jessop's is really a false economy. Treat yourself to a roll of Fuji Velvia (try and get a roll with processing included in the purchase price) and see the difference spending a few quid on the finest film stock money can buy can make.

Hurb wrote:Do you have a flickr account ?

Maybe it's just me, but I hate flickr's user-unfriendliness. Pretty much every other site allows you to easily click through albums of decent-sized images, but flickr seem to have chosen another model which just annoys the fuck out of me. I use deviantart myself; there seems to be a sort of Facebook-like side to it which I don't really get involved with, but it's pretty good for a totally free photo-hosting site.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Thu May 10, 2012 12:35 pm

UlricvonCatalyst wrote: The thing that really reawakened my interest in photography was the advent of a truly portable camera I tended to have with me all the time - namely a mobile phone. The main thing that swung my choice of phone last time but one was the fact that it had a Zeiss lens with 3Mp resolution. At that time, my phone was almost a better camera than my digital camera (which was on its last legs) was.

This is very true - it's better to have got the picture at slightly lower quality than to not have it at all. Even something like my iPhone's poor colour definition in low light has made for some pictures I really like.

gusman2x · Post by **gusman2x** » Thu May 10, 2012 1:24 pm

I recently starting shooting on instant film. It started when I was looking for a Christmas present for my wife. She's a massice Manic Street Preachers fan, and Nicky Wire is a big supporter of instant photography.

So I ended up being the one that got hooked. Camera GAS is almost as bad as guitar GAS, all be it a little less expensive.

Also inherited a LOAD of old cameras from my wifes Dad. 3 60s SLRs, couple if meduim fomats and Brownies, and a large format plat jobbie with the carper to go over your head. I'll need to get som practice in and see how all the film cameras work, but instant has been a great introduction to film photography. I think so much more about lighting now, and certinaly framing of shots as well.

I'll bang some photos up later

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 1:51 pm

Love this

I suppose I am stuck with flickr now, I couldn't be fucked with multiple uploads (one is bad enough) I think I did have a deviant art account a long time ago.

Gusman I have a polaroid camera (well my wifes) but have never bought the film as it so expensive. But I think I will at some stage.

I also love inheriting cameras! I have actually bought one and that is the 35rc that took the pictures above. great thing about film is people want shot of it normally!

I was having a think a while ago about maybe doing some sort of photo club thing where we choose a subject go out and shoot it and then compare/show in the pub ask for critique but thought as there is only really me and dan posting in here it would be of little point but if there was a few people interested might be worth a go?

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Thu May 10, 2012 2:59 pm

That photo club idea sounds good. I took part in something on flickr once. It was in the Olympus Trip 35 group and, a bit like a secret santa, everyone was given a partner and sent them a print. Pretty cool. I got a print from a guy in Berlin.

I like the idea of a theme though and seeing everones responses/interpretations.

UlricvonCatalyst · Post by **UlricvonCatalyst** » Thu May 10, 2012 4:12 pm

Cheers Hurb, that was another mobile phone one, though obviously messed around with a bit (to be honest most of them are).

I'd be up for the photo club thing too. Could it be any format or would it have to be on film?

Some people I was friends with on Facebook were doing a project called 'Photography 365' (or something like that. They had to upload a picture a day for a year, possibly with a new theme every day, but I can't honestly remember. I think one a month would suit the pace of my life better, though!

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 4:47 pm

Awesome well thats three of us so far! definitely think one a month would be nice. And I think no boundaries on gear usage. Although I would be tempted to maybe ban heavy photoshoping (obviously that is open to interpretation but like no cloning extra shit and stuff.)

Sounds like it could be fun!

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » Thu May 10, 2012 4:52 pm

I don't post here all that often but you can count me in too, especially if it's once a month. Everyone I've seen post in here lives far away from me, so if we are doing themes, it'll be interesting to see what we come up with, from different locations around the world

I almost bought a Minolta XG1 at a thrift store last night. But they wanted $35 for it, which after looking up prices online, is far too much.

As far as point and shoots go...if camera makers could invent a way to have a digital point and shoot with an optical viewfinder, I'd be all over that. I have an Olympus XZ-1, which really takes fantastic pictures for the size, but the lack of a viewfinder makes things very difficult at times. They do make an LCD viewfinder which attaches to the hot shoe, like so...

http://thedigitalstory.com/2011/04/olym ... th_vf.html

But it's still not the same. And it's far too pricey.

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Thu May 10, 2012 5:38 pm

Dillon wrote:As far as point and shoots go...if camera makers could invent a way to have a digital point and shoot with an optical viewfinder, I'd be all over that. I have an Olympus XZ-1, which really takes fantastic pictures for the size, but the lack of a viewfinder makes things very difficult at times. They do make an LCD viewfinder which attaches to the hot shoe, like so...

http://thedigitalstory.com/2011/04/olym ... th_vf.html

But it's still not the same. And it's far too pricey.

My Fuji x100 digital camera has a hybrid viewfinder. It's an optical viewfinder that can close up and become electronic with the flick of a switch. It's amazing technology. It's not a cheap camera though, but the sensor size is the same as DSLRs, so maybe not classed as a point n shoot.

There is also the fuji X10, which is like the little brother of the x100. That has an optical viewfinder. You should look at one of them, they take nice photos.

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 10, 2012 5:45 pm

This is what I have been doing today.

These were taken with my 1930 box brownie type camera. This is a very limited camera it only has one shutter speed (and a bulb mode) and one aperture (f11).
I took these with a one second exposure and pulled the 400 iso film one stop.

UlricvonCatalyst · Post by **UlricvonCatalyst** » Thu May 10, 2012 10:13 pm

I'm digging your avant-garde shots there, Hurb. I take it the first one's a double exposure?

I've been going to town with multiple exposures with my Brownie, especially as the novelty value hasn't worn off yet given I'm still on my first roll of film. I'm hoping they might make up for its natural tendency to produce under-exposed shots in less-than-bright settings (it shoots at 1/40th sec. at f11), though Velvia film's supposed to be brighter than equivalents with the same ISO rating.

You have no idea how pissed off I am the bright sunshine we had last week has given way to day after day of overcast dullness and rain.

Post by **Hurb** » Fri May 11, 2012 12:24 am

UlricvonCatalyst wrote:I'm digging your avant-garde shots there, Hurb. I take it the first one's a double exposure?

I've been going to town with multiple exposures with my Brownie, especially as the novelty value hasn't worn off yet given I'm still on my first roll of film. I'm hoping they might make up for its natural tendency to produce under-exposed shots in less-than-bright settings (it shoots at 1/40th sec. at f11), though Velvia film's supposed to be brighter than equivalents with the same ISO rating.

You have no idea how pissed off I am the bright sunshine we had last week has given way to day after day of overcast dullness and rain.

I take it you have 100 iso film? I've found with 400 iso the shitty conditions to be perfect for my box brownie(mine shoots about the same as that but with a blub mode too). You could always get it pushed 2 stops when its processed?

yep the first ones a double, I always intend on doing more doubles but either forget or concentrate so much getting the composition right in the first place I never think it would work out nice. that is the last shot on the roll (only 8!!!1 fucks sake Kodak!) and I was going to do one all the way through and kept winding on and forgetting.
Glad you dig them, I had to crop the second one a bit as I am not used to the framing of the brownie yet (I'm getting pretty good with the pinhole framing guessing what the pinhole can actually see) I tend to not like to crop at all if I can help it. But my picture frame background didn't quite make the edge

Cheers.

Post by **Hurb** » Thu May 17, 2012 10:28 pm

Digital!!

Getting some practice in for the wedding this Saturday so many buttons and techniques going round and round my head....fill flash and bounce flash with a flash that I have to use manually because it isn't compatible with my camera is a bitch!!

All processed with gimp