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

I am adding this link to a Flickr folder of Amotal pics. Most are on an M9 but some are on a Pixii A2572. The magic glow appears in the Pixii pics, too, so the lens has the magic. Some pics of boats in the dawn and at night show the lens at its best. I am sure there are other lenses which can do this kind of glow but cannot think of any offhand.

Here is the link to more Amotal pics than you may want to see: Cooke Amotal
 
Coldkennels said:
see if you can find an early folding camera with uncoated glass [...] it'll be a lot cheaper than uncoated Leica or Contax lenses!)
Click to expand...
That's absolutely true. (But: those Contax Zeiss lenses are usually much cheaper than Leitz lenses of similar age ;) - I suppose that Soviet "Jupiter" lenses will work even more imperfect but they use to be coated). My first experiments with those uncoated lenses have given interesting results.

1937 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50mm f2 uncoated wide open, Contax IIa, Fomapan R100 (Dresden Railway Station in Germany, 2022 or 2023, sunny morning/noon in late summer) :

Sonnar 50mm.jpg
 
I always liked the looks of some of Stieglitz's and early Paul Strand photographs that may fall into this category:

The Alfred Stieglitz Collection | Pictorialism

Through Alfred Stieglitz's dedicated photographic work of a half century, he tirelessly promoted photography as a fine art, gathering around him first Pictorialist and then modernist photographers.
archive.artic.edu archive.artic.edu

www.metmuseum.org

Paul Strand circa 1916 - The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Paul Strand (1890–1976) was one of the most important and influential photographers of this century. The dramatic achievements of his early career, which have not until now been studied apart from his entire oeuvre, are the focus of this book, which accompanies an exhibition at The Metropolitan...
www.metmuseum.org www.metmuseum.org

Paul Strand circa 1916​

Free PDF download from the MET:
 
Archiver said:
Agreed. The first post's images are much like what you'd see in the Lomo book. Lo-fi imperfect images probably shot with colour negative film and scanned at the usual lab or pharmacy.
Click to expand...
Exactly... and you don't want to send someone to buy expensive stuff and not get their desired effect. However, like anything in photography, it takes time and effort to get to where you want to go...if you get there at all.
 
Archiver said:
Agreed. The first post's images are much like what you'd see in the Lomo book. Lo-fi imperfect images probably shot with colour negative film and scanned at the usual lab or pharmacy.
Click to expand...
Around the turn of the century, one my local shops catering to pros had a brand-new printer (Agfa?) which they were very proud of: Rather than the typical muted colors, blown highlights, and weak shadows, it delivered results which were much closer to what I had envisioned, and I loved that.
But I suppose 2-1/2 decades later, the look that I craved has become the norm thanks to the AI neural wonders incorporated into billions of mobile devices.

Fujifilm's Instax cameras can produce some of that old-school look if you stick with purely analog models. Standard plastic lenses deliver a lower-res, more glow-y look.
 
I think we are at a fork in the road here. Are images dreamy because of content or appearance? Content can take us along the line of surreal, Dali-esque images while appearance could take us down the fork I was pursuing with the employed gear enhancing (?) the captured image to give it a dreamy look. And then there is our opportunity to combine both. Down the rabbit hole! ;o)
 
I acquired the dreamy look here out of sheer stupidity , I scanned the negs before they were completely dry.
48704798678_ba4e32b79f_c.jpg
 
boojum said:
I have a couple of ProMist filters. They do enhance the image. But my experience is that a good lens like the Amotal is the better choice. ProMist can add the misty look but they do not add the glow like a Cooke lens does. YMMV
Click to expand...
Yes, with an unlimited budget, there are a number of amazing lens choices. Nearly all of those would cost more than a few filters.
 
I did a little reverse image searching and found something cool. The second image with streaky light leaks could have been taken with the DM Paradies Underwater Single Use Camera. Here is a similar image, also from the Lomography site:

www.lomography.com

#11727220

Photo #11727220 by cfib.
www.lomography.com www.lomography.com

The slow shutter speed photo on the beach was taken with the Nikon N75 and Yongnuo YN 35mm f2 lens with Agfa Vista 200. The N75 is a consumer SLR from 2003, and the Yongnuo lens is a recent release from the Chinese brand.

www.lomography.com

Playa

Vacaciones en Pinamar
www.lomography.com www.lomography.com

Nikon N75 Review | byThom Filmbodies | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon N75 by Thom Hogan
www.filmbodies.com www.filmbodies.com

petapixel.com

Review: Yongnuo's 35mm f/2 Lens for Canon EF Packs a Punch for the Price

When it comes to the world of Nikon and Canon, there seems to be an endless selection of lenses. Recently, the Chinese company Yongnuo has announced that
petapixel.com petapixel.com

@Hayli if you can find the original photos on the Lomography website again, look at the bottom and there should be tags for the camera, lens and film.
 
The highly coveted Fujifilm Natura Black compact can also produce dreamy images, similar to what was originally posted. In this case, it's a combination of the camera, its lens, the film and the lab's processing. These images are straight lab scans.

Natura - lomo-like! by Archiver, on Flickr

Natura - Convergence by Archiver, on Flickr

Natura - old and older by Archiver, on Flickr

And here's a link to my images taken with the Natura Black.

www.flickr.com

Fujifilm Natura Black

The ultimate low light film compact. The Natura Black is unique in today's market, with a 24mm wide angle lens with superfast f1.9 aperture. Ideal for my style of night photography. Discontinued as of October 2006, you might be able to find one on eBay or YahooJapan auctions.
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Gordon Moat said:
Yes, with an unlimited budget, there are a number of amazing lens choices. Nearly all of those would cost more than a few filters.
Click to expand...

Agreed, lenses cost more than filters.

I shopped for months before I found an intersection of a good lens and a price I could afford. The problem is that quality cost money. The adage in the auto racing community is that speed costs money, how fast do you want to go? This particular lens, the Cooke Amotal, is rare. OTOH very good FSU lenses can be had for less than $200, sometimes less than $100. I have a great Jupiter 8 that cost less than $100. Its old Sonnar formula does very well with light. Careful, patient shopping is key.

If you are in a rush maybe filters are your better choice.
 
... As an old photographer friend once told me, "A finger lightly dipped in Vaseline on an filter can create an amazing lot of different looks, and you can get rid of the Vaseline with some soap and warm water." ;)

G
 
This thread has succeeded in making me nauseous. Pressuring concentration of too many bad images.
Like, what’s the appeal? 😮‍💨
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom