What causes photos to look almost "dreamy", is it the camera, lens, film stock?

Hayli

Hayli

Member
Local time
2:31 PM
Joined
Aug 9, 2024
Messages
21
Back with another question, I found that this site is much more helpful that the film community on reddit so I might as well hang out here.

I'm currently looking to purchase a film camera but can't get it quite narrowed down yet. One of my favorite things about film is how photos often have some sort of dream-like quality to them. I can only achieve this on digital with a diffusion filter and a lot of editing. I like film because you get that magical result without altering it at all. I like that somewhat shite look that sometimes happens with film. It just looks so effortless and artsy in my opinion. The super sharp, crystal clear images I get from digital look "professional" but nothing artistic about them. The bokeh, super dark blacks, etc.. Just not a fan of it for personal use.

I wanted to figure this out before purchasing anything. Is it the lens that causes this? The type of camera or just the type of film you use? I shot on a Canon Sureshot Owl before and most photos had a "gummy" look to them, not really what I'm looking for.

I'll attach some examples photos to the thread if I can figure out how.. These were all found under various cameras on the Lomography site. I just love everything about them.1000080619.jpg1216x806x2.jpg1216x811x2.jpg1216x809x2.jpg1216x809x2 (1).jpg1232x1840x2.jpg
 
Last edited:
These examples are a mix of all sorts of different issues/styles:
  • The city skyline looks like cheap C41 film that's been underexposed and had the levels severely corrected in post-processing.
  • The one with the big swoops across it looks like a particularly unusual light leak to me.
  • The red person on the beach is a long exposure coupled with cheap (and probably expired) colour negative film.
  • The one way sign just looks like generic cheap C41 film, otherwise correctly exposed and processed.
  • The Arc de Triomphe was probably taken with a plastic-lensed camera. That's my guess, anyway.
The Tokyo one is the only one I can't really nail down, but my guess would be expired film and 1980s compact camera.

As a general rule, I think the lens is more important than anything else, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree. You can use expired film as a sort of visual "cheap trick", but the results can vary so wildly that you could shoot for days and never quite get the look you want. It's better to choose one or two quality films you can trust and figure out how to manipulate them from there (whether that be with how you shoot it, or in the development, scanning, or printing stages) - and one of the best "manipulations" is to change the lens in front of it.

For instance, if you want lower overall contrast and more character in the out of focus areas, try an early uncoated lens. But if you want a more dreamy, etherial aesthetic, try a pinhole camera (or a pinhole "lens" - you can make them out of body caps).
 
Those look very much like the sort of prints which were once the norm from (analog?) pharmacy or discount-store processors. That, combined with ISO 400- or 800 color print film. Old school averaging-type exposure and no fancy curve manipulation ought to be a good start.

Suspect your camera is fine, but depending on how you are scanning or printing, something may be "autocorrecting" in ways that don't please you.
 
Last edited:
Research “Leica Glow” - (this opens up a whole can of worms) - but don’t limit yourself to Leitz glass.

Leica Glow ? whats that?

Some one please enlighten me =)
rangefinderforum.com rangefinderforum.com

Alternative Gear & Lenses - Photography - FM Forums

Explore Alternative Gear & Lenses photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.
www.fredmiranda.com

The Leica "Glow"....any pics!

Obviously, the newer APO, Asph may be lacking in this respect......which of the M mount lenses have it? Any other brands have it? Pics wanted!
rangefinderforum.com rangefinderforum.com
 
I have a 1932 50mm lens uncoated and haze on the back of the front element. It reminds me a little of my original iPhone, the 3GS: every shot has its own little bit of magic. I’ve used it on digital and not quite the same magic. Years ago I bought a most wonderful book, Mastering Atmosphere and Mood in Watercolour by Joseph Zbukvic. Years later I met him in the street, but I didn’t know it at the time. One of his aphorisms: “Indicate, don’t state.” This subtlety film offers more easily than digital.



Nickel Elmar 50 3.5 on Leica II Ektar 100 by Richard, on Flickr
 
I would say the lighting, lens characteristics, color palette of the film, development in that order.

Look at the photography of David Hamilton. Focus on the technical stuff not the subject matter which are of pubescent young girls most of which are probably only legal in Japan. :)
 
Coldkennels said:
These examples are a mix of all sorts of different issues/styles:
  • The city skyline looks like cheap C41 film that's been underexposed and had the levels severely corrected in post-processing.
  • The one with the big swoops across it looks like a particularly unusual light leak to me.
  • The red person on the beach is a long exposure coupled with cheap (and probably expired) colour negative film.
  • The one way sign just looks like generic cheap C41 film, otherwise correctly exposed and processed.
  • The Arc de Triomphe was probably taken with a plastic-lensed camera. That's my guess, anyway.
The Tokyo one is the only one I can't really nail down, but my guess would be expired film and 1980s compact camera.

As a general rule, I think the lens is more important than anything else, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree. You can use expired film as a sort of visual "cheap trick", but the results can vary so wildly that you could shoot for days and never quite get the look you want. It's better to choose one or two quality films you can trust and figure out how to manipulate them from there (whether that be with how you shoot it, or in the development, scanning, or printing stages) - and one of the best "manipulations" is to change the lens in front of it.

For instance, if you want lower overall contrast and more character in the out of focus areas, try an early uncoated lens. But if you want a more dreamy, etherial aesthetic, try a pinhole camera (or a pinhole "lens" - you can make them out of body caps).
Click to expand...
I don't know how you can guess all that but that's awesome 😂😂 I wish I was that knowledgeable, only time and practice will teach me though. I hadn't heard of uncoated lenses until this thread, I'm gonna look into that now and see what I can find. I worry about finding a lens that would fit on whatever camera I get, I feel like I would totally buy one thinking confidently that it would fit on the camera, only to have it not be the same at all LOL
 
I've never owned one, but a soft focus lens can produce dreamy images, usually for portraits; it could be used for scenery, street shooting. I agree with above comments regarding lighting, lens choice, film choice and processing.
 
Richard G said:
I have a 1932 50mm lens uncoated and haze on the back of the front element. It reminds me a little of my original iPhone, the 3GS: every shot has its own little bit of magic. I’ve used it on digital and not quite the same magic. Years ago I bought a most wonderful book, Mastering Atmosphere and Mood in Watercolour by Joseph Zbukvic. Years later I met him in the street, but I didn’t know it at the time. One of his aphorisms: “Indicate, don’t state.” This subtlety film offers more easily than digital.


Nickel Elmar 50 3.5 on Leica II Ektar 100 by Richard, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Awesome photo. It has that exact sort of atmosphere I'm talking about. I don't like the bright whites and super dark blacks that come with digital and that's what I want to avoid with film as well. Look at the soft white on the roof. Gorgeous
 
Hayli said:
I don't know how you can guess all that but that's awesome 😂😂
Click to expand...
Simple: I hung out in the same circles as a bunch of "lomographers" years ago. A lot of what they do relies on a couple of recognisable tricks; the problem with a lot of it is consistency (or lack thereof) coupled with (in a lot of cases) a lack of understanding that a significant amount of what they wanted to recreate relied on lab scanning software or photoshop, and not some idea of "analogue purity" created in a marketing department in Austria.

As for choosing a camera: don't overthink it too much to begin with. You could do a lot with a basic European medium format folding camera or TLR from anywhere between the 1930s and 1950s if it's in good shape. When I was a poor student, I used a Lubitel 2 that cost me £10 for years. Was the viewfinder awful? Yes. Are the controls a nightmare? Yes. But the lens on that thing had a look, and I loved it.

(EDIT: I've just seen your last comment re. low contrast. I think I'm right: see if you can find an early folding camera with uncoated glass. Just make sure the bellows aren't full of holes and the shutter works, and then run some C41 film through. I think you'll love the photos it can produce - and it'll be a lot cheaper than uncoated Leica or Contax lenses!)

That said, camera choice should be more about you, how you like to work, and the stuff you like to shoot more than anything, though. Personally, I've never used an autofocus autoexposure compact camera I haven't wanted to throw at a wall within five minutes, but I know a lot of people who'd disagree with me on that one (and who would also want to throw said Lubitel off the nearest cliff rather than use it).
 
Hayli said:
Back with another question, I found that this site is much more helpful that the film community on reddit so I might as well hang out here.

I'm currently looking to purchase a film camera but can't get it quite narrowed down yet. One of my favorite things about film is how photos often have some sort of dream-like quality to them. I can only achieve this on digital with a diffusion filter and a lot of editing. I like film because you get that magical result without altering it at all. I like that somewhat shite look that sometimes happens with film. It just looks so effortless and artsy in my opinion. The super sharp, crystal clear images I get from digital look "professional" but nothing artistic about them. The bokeh, super dark blacks, etc.. Just not a fan of it for personal use.

I wanted to figure this out before purchasing anything. Is it the lens that causes this? The type of camera or just the type of film you use? I shot on a Canon Sureshot Owl before and most photos had a "gummy" look to them, not really what I'm looking for.

I'll attach some examples photos to the thread if I can figure out how.. These were all found under various cameras on the Lomography site. I just love everything about them. ... {snip}
Click to expand...

Lots of lovely photos!

Pick up a film camera, any film camera you happen to like when you handle it, and start shooting. That's how you'll "figure it out" rather than trying to analyze and specify what it is, what you want, too much. Film and digital capture are simply two entirely different photographic recording mediums and "see" differently, and every camera and lens combination "sees" differently with either of them as well.

Photography can be very exacting and specific, but that's a tiny sub-fraction of its entirety. Far more of it is imprecise, ambiguous, mysterious ... a fertile ground for exploration and discovery. Getting "results I like" is why I have a closet full of cameras and lenses to "play" with ... many bought cheap as dirt because no one wanted them any more ... and all capable of extraordinary and beautiful things if I can open my mind and eye to what they see and how I can use it to best advantage.

Go for it, launch yourself on a new adventure without trying to first convince yourself you understand it all ... :D

G


Empty - Santa Clara 2023
Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + Summicron-M 50mm f/2, Green filter

"The secret is the empty mind, the outstretched hand, the open heart. All else is practice." — Zen master​
 
Your question is difficult to answer. You might get this sort of results from a camera/lens/film/development combination and the next film you expose is different due to different light. If anything, results with a digital camera are going to be more consistent but not necessary what you like.
Looking at the pictures you posted I'll guess that they are taken with expired C41 film and some p&s camera with a triplet/tessar lens.
 
I was going to say, “Now you’ve done it”!

As you can see, lots of knowledge and many views here:) Godfrey makes a very good point about the spectrum of photography being from the exacting through to the mysterious. Most of us probably enjoy a range within that spectrum.

The point about lab scans holds up too - the scanner and operator interpret the negs in their own way and that’s before you get to work of course. Having a camera you enjoy using and so make the most of is important. If you like low contrast then old lenses are lower contrast and you will get more flare - can be fun or a pain depending.

Get something, shoot some film and see what you get.

Look around here at what people are making:)
 
John mentioned toy cameras and I agree. I have a collection of them and they can easily produce images like the ones you posted. You might also consider a Holga camera. Also, I have shot with Holga lenses mounted on digital cameras for years. Once, I received a Holga lens that I thought was way too sharp, so I took a bit of sand paper to the lens and fixed that problem. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Last weekend we went to a festival and I took an old film slr and a 50mm lens (Nikon FM2T and Zeiss ZF 1.4/50). I didn't know what I would get, which was part of the fun and I've only just got lab scans back and have started sorting. So here are three pictures, which are as I received them apart from being resized down for the forum. I think these were all shot on Kodak Ultramax 400 film. It's not a 'dreamy' combo, but might help.

000005-2.jpg
000006-2.jpg

000045-5.jpg
 
I prefer cameras that give me a precise view on the light that falls in (SLR or EVF) You can learn quickly the angles and apertures in which the lens gives you pleasant flares and dreamy effects. This method has the advantage for me that I can change quickly to a flare-free rendering.
And of course think of the Saul Leiter technique of shooting through foggy, wet and frozen (and dirty) glass.
 
Last edited:
Camera, lens, film stock? Yes, yes, and yes. But mostly luck, or bad luck, depending on one's taste. The camera itself is a box, and doesn't matter much unless it's got a fixed lens. The lens? It can be sharp at small apertures, "dreamy" wide open. Experiment, and experiment some more! Film? Fast film is more grainy, the colors often depart more from "reality", therefore more "dreamy". Again, experiment! Bad photos are easy. Controlled badness toward creative ends is far mor difficult than you'd think. Learn the craft, then learn how to mess with it. To quote the immortal RuPaul, "I've got one thing to say. You better work!" ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom