Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:26 pm
I miss taking slides. I had a mini slide projector. I captured several great shots of Yosemite all on slides. I didn't use Kodachrome very often. I preferred the Ektachrome.
The premier site for Genuine Buddy, Stella, Blur, Rattler, Roughouse and Black Cat scooters
http://www.modernbuddy.com/forum/
This was over five years ago now, but my art school's "Photo I" class started students out with black and white 35mm SLRs. I approve.Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.
I met a high school photography teacher who said they still start off with 35mm and learn processing and printing before digital. My reaction: "They teach photography in high school? Wow."TVB wrote:This was over five years ago now, but my art school's "Photo I" class started students out with black and white 35mm SLRs. I approve.Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.
Our local community college used either Pentax Spotmatic or Minolta SR101 cameras also with B&W film. But that was at least 25 years ago...TVB wrote:This was over five years ago now, but my art school's "Photo I" class started students out with black and white 35mm SLRs. I approve.Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.
I really miss doing darkroom work. I've been seriously thinking about setting up a B&W darkroom again in my house since I still have all my equipment (yes, I'm a pack rat). Just have to find a local source for the chemicals.ericalm wrote:Part of me thinks that's great. On the other hand… Good luck finding a darkroom outside of a college or school. When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building. Each department had its own photo staff that did all their own printing at one time.
Unfortunately those darkroom days are dead, but I'm happy I had the opportunity to experience that world in the darkroom. I was the onbase photographer while in the military and I remember almost living in the darkroom; that was a great experience.ericalm wrote:When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building.
Not just autofocus, but turn off aperture and shutter priority too. Full Manual man!Mulliganal wrote:Unfortunately those darkroom days are dead, but I'm happy I had the opportunity to experience that world in the darkroom. I was the onbase photographer while in the military and I remember almost living in the darkroom; that was a great experience.ericalm wrote:When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building.
I guess the schools these days could force their students to shoot manual mode with the autofocus turned off. The metadata would show if they cheated.
It depends on whether you're looking at photography as an art form, or as an element of journalism.ericalm wrote:Part of me thinks that's great. On the other hand… Good luck finding a darkroom outside of a college or school. When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building. Each department had its own photo staff that did all their own printing at one time.
So would the results.Mulliganal wrote:I guess the schools these days could force their students to shoot manual mode with the autofocus turned off. The metadata would show if they cheated.
Fuji makes film that will fit some Polaroids as well as their own Instax instant cameras. A group in Europe bought the last Polaroid factory after it closed and were supposed to resume production, but I don't know if it ever actually happened.peabody99 wrote:poloroids are the best. Not only the instant gratification, but for what ever reason the pics are more flattering. My friend has one...don't know how he finds film still, and it is just like I remember.
My wife has a degree in photography so we have several cameras laying around here. She shoots mostly digital right now but is attempting to get her darkroom up and running again. We have had several holgas but I think we only have two or three left. They are awesome cameras and ours are the modified type with tripod mounts and extended exposre modifications. She also has the old holgaroid back but I don't think they make the film for it any longer. I was a polaroid junkie for quite some time (especially SX-70) so the Holgaroid was a real blast. We also have a holga pinhole camera around here somewhere. I love toy cameras but quite honestly, film kinda feels like a pain in the butt these days to me, my wife would shoot me for saying that but it's truepcbikedude wrote:Does anyone use a toy camera like the Diana and Holga?
I find these interesting. 120 film, fix focus lens, plastic body, interesting pictures.
Crap Eric, I think I have the disease.
Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.iMoses wrote:What I love about my DSLR is that I can shoot hundreds of photos without worrying the cost of paying for developing film... what I hate about my DSLR is that I have to go through hundreds of photos I just took
With digital I see people just shoot until they get a half-decent shot with no regard to shooting conditions, f-stop, white balance or film speed. Then they wonder why so many of their shots are under/over exposed, or blurry.
Perhaps I'm being a snob, but I think folks should spend some time at least learning the basic of how a camera works, especially if they plan on documenting the life and times of their kids.
Edit, the one thing I love about digital is there is no need to change film, be it from ASA 100 to 400, or from color to B&W. Now that's cool.
So true iMoses, in photography I've heard the folks with the $4,000 camera and no knowledge of how it works are called measurebators; they buy $4,000 just to be able to say they have a $4,000 camera.iMoses wrote:I totally agree, I've seen great cell phone pictures from someone who knows what they are doing. And I've seen just bad photography come out of a $4,000+ "professional" grade one. But that is on the photographer not the equipment. That being said some folks have an eye for it.
Excellent work! I still love well done B&W photography. Hard to believe that came from a cheap point-n-shoot camera. By chance did you hack the camera's firmware using CHDK?Mulliganal wrote:I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.
http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383
Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.
Thanks babblefish, I love B&W also, so much more expression in well done B&W. No hacks to the firmware, just standard updates. I still miss that little Canon camera, I replaced it with a Lumix LX3 for those times when I don't want to lug around my D300 and its 'Beast' 28-70mm lense.babblefish wrote:Excellent work! I still love well done B&W photography. Hard to believe that came from a cheap point-n-shoot camera. By chance did you hack the camera's firmware using CHDK?Mulliganal wrote:I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.
http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383
Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.
That's a good camera, essentially the non-auto version of the 35mm I fell in love with all those years ago (ME super). But you may find it a little small to hold onto compared to a K1000.pcbikedude wrote:I was able to find a replacement camera that takes all the same lenses with the manual operation that is similar to the K1000. Enter Pentax MX.
You'll get no argument from me about the venerable OM-1 and ye olde Zuiko lenses, but I've been pretty happy with the digital Olympus cameras I've owned over the past decade (upgrading them only because the tech has been improving).CWO4GUNNER wrote:IMO in the day the best professional compact film camera ever made alone with the best lenses Olympus/Zuko. The company as it once was on the cutting edge photo technology, a thing of the past and a completely different company now.
Well yes I agree of course, Im speaking to the time period I used it while traveling as a single young man in the Navy in the South Pacific between 1974-1982. When I came back stateside and joined the Coast Guard, I got married and the cameras went in the closet and VHS video camera were the new capture moment device for growing families and events. Not until 2001 did they come out with a decent digital camera The one I picked was the first to have 6 to 12 megapixel tecnology and 12X zoom lens, video, macro and so many other features I still haven't used them all. In fact 10 years later I still use this camera today as you have seen my image postings becasue the features were as close as you could com to an SLR 10 years ago. That's a long time for a camera to hold up. Considered the predecessor to all digital SLR cameras today.TVB wrote:You'll get no argument from me about the venerable OM-1 and ye olde Zuiko lenses, but I've been pretty happy with the digital Olympus cameras I've owned over the past decade (upgrading them only because the tech has been improving).CWO4GUNNER wrote:IMO in the day the best professional compact film camera ever made alone with the best lenses Olympus/Zuko. The company as it once was on the cutting edge photo technology, a thing of the past and a completely different company now.
I'm struggling with this, too. I've solicited recommendations, read all the reviews, shopped around… and still can't decide on a digital compact.KRUSTYburger wrote:Man, this thread is bringin me back! Almost enough to get the ol' cameras out of the attic... I'm too lazy to deal with film anymore, and I've been using a $70 point-shoot (12mp Kodak Easyshare) until it broke not too long ago and I'd like to get a new one before Amerivespa.
So you folks who are digital-savvy, what's a good digital camera around 300 bucks? I was looking at a Nikon Coolpix P500 or something, but I really don't know what's out right now and what's got the best photo quality. I'd especially like to be able to take nice macro shots, shallow depth of field & stuff like that, my old camera was pretty lousy at that. Also I like the auto-panorama feature, I use that a lot. I could do it in photoshop if I needed to though...
Eric, I use a Lumix LX3 as a backup to my D300 and it's a great P&S camera; if I recall correctly it also came in first in the P&S shoot-out a while back. If you can find one perhaps it can be purchased for around $300 since they now make a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5.ericalm wrote: Current lead contenders are either a Panasonic Lumix (ZS or LX) or one of the Canons in the roughly $300 range (SD? SX? Uh… ). A photographer friend loves her Canon; great image quality and shoots in RAW, which is a big plus for me. I also need image stabilization.
Honestly, I go through this every time and still somehow wind up buying the "wrong" camera that I'm ultimately not happy with. Sigh. My current Sony CyberShot is okay, but just that.
You read my mind.Lotrat wrote:Anyone need a Kodak disk camera with dead batteries?
I call the Lumix "My Friend Paid Way Too Much for a Leica Digital."Mulliganal wrote:Eric, I use a Lumix LX3 as a backup to my D300 and it's a great P&S camera; if I recall correctly it also came in first in the P&S shoot-out a while back. If you can find one perhaps it can be purchased for around $300 since they now make a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5.ericalm wrote: Current lead contenders are either a Panasonic Lumix (ZS or LX) or one of the Canons in the roughly $300 range (SD? SX? Uh… ). A photographer friend loves her Canon; great image quality and shoots in RAW, which is a big plus for me. I also need image stabilization.
Honestly, I go through this every time and still somehow wind up buying the "wrong" camera that I'm ultimately not happy with. Sigh. My current Sony CyberShot is okay, but just that.
This is true of any skilled or artistic community. Essentially it works out that somewhere around 5% are true maestro's ... the rest, however skilled, fall somewhere below. Equipment and academic knowledge, no matter how difficult to acquire, have never been a suitable substitute for "having the chops" as we say.Mulliganal wrote:So true iMoses, in photography I've heard the folks with the $4,000 camera and no knowledge of how it works are called measurebators; they buy $4,000 just to be able to say they have a $4,000 camera.iMoses wrote:I totally agree, I've seen great cell phone pictures from someone who knows what they are doing. And I've seen just bad photography come out of a $4,000+ "professional" grade one. But that is on the photographer not the equipment. That being said some folks have an eye for it.
I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.
http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383
Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.