john_s
Well-known
When I was young, the state railway authority, Victorian Railways, also managed some tourist sites, such as at Mount Buffalo National Park. In the carriages of the suburban trains, there were framed sepia toned large prints of those places, in order to encourage the city folk to travel to them. Each carriage had different prints. They were obviously from large format negatives (maybe even plates) and I admired them. The detail was amazing compared to the run of the mill Instamatic prints that everyone produced.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Add to that list anything taken by a "pro" around 1900 and you'll be amazed by the sheer quality. The army, navy and steam loco builders excelled at very high quality photo's then and later. And just look at the photo's taken in colour for the Tzar then in Russia.
Regards, David
PS And search for pictures taken by the Cosmos Symbol to demonstrate à la Bert H what can be done by a competent photographer...
Regards, David
PS And search for pictures taken by the Cosmos Symbol to demonstrate à la Bert H what can be done by a competent photographer...
580/Q
200 frames a day
Me, a good 35 or so years ago, with three identical bodies on the desk in the hotel room. Usually one always with Tri-X and two bodies with Kodachrome 25 (or maybe 64, can't remember), but not that day. I was given a bunch of colour print film that I can't remember right now but I decided to try it out in one of the bodies.
So three bodies, three emulsion types.
Loaded one with the colour print film, tore off the box label to put it in the holder on the camera back and was about to do so when the phone rings. Put the label down and distractedly loaded the second body with Tri-X while arguing with someone on the phone. Tore off the label and the phone rings again - same person, argument redux - and then there was a knock at the door. Looked up at the weather out the window and thought, 125 and f8 as I opened the window. Somewhere in there I loaded the third body with KC (25 or 64 - I still don't remember..) and went to the door and opened it. At that point (remember pressurized buildings?) the labels spun and whirled in the winds of chance and despite being subject to the whorls and eddies remained on the desk. Then my guest distracted me for an hour or so.
It was time to go to work. She had a new Walkman pro that replaced her Nagra for certain field work and she was rhapsodizing about the reduction in back pain when she noticed the consternation on my face as I regarded the labels that were most definitely not where I remember leaving them, sort of, maybe, while I had been phone-fighting.
Cue "Amusing misconception about film camera": "I'm pretty...sure...I put the Kodachrome in .... that one.... ah... $__t... Hrmnn.....
-----------
Epilogue
Resolved it by taking a lens off two of the bodies, selecting bulb and looking at the emulsion. There's a moral there that I learned (probably for the fourth time) about completion of process and routine. Only lost two frames.
But, in fairness, I was distracted. In my desire to impress, I never made that same mistake again. Well, nearly never. I married her twice, we divorced twice, we're still good friends and she still teases me about it. The film thing, that is....
So three bodies, three emulsion types.
Loaded one with the colour print film, tore off the box label to put it in the holder on the camera back and was about to do so when the phone rings. Put the label down and distractedly loaded the second body with Tri-X while arguing with someone on the phone. Tore off the label and the phone rings again - same person, argument redux - and then there was a knock at the door. Looked up at the weather out the window and thought, 125 and f8 as I opened the window. Somewhere in there I loaded the third body with KC (25 or 64 - I still don't remember..) and went to the door and opened it. At that point (remember pressurized buildings?) the labels spun and whirled in the winds of chance and despite being subject to the whorls and eddies remained on the desk. Then my guest distracted me for an hour or so.
It was time to go to work. She had a new Walkman pro that replaced her Nagra for certain field work and she was rhapsodizing about the reduction in back pain when she noticed the consternation on my face as I regarded the labels that were most definitely not where I remember leaving them, sort of, maybe, while I had been phone-fighting.
Cue "Amusing misconception about film camera": "I'm pretty...sure...I put the Kodachrome in .... that one.... ah... $__t... Hrmnn.....
-----------
Epilogue
Resolved it by taking a lens off two of the bodies, selecting bulb and looking at the emulsion. There's a moral there that I learned (probably for the fourth time) about completion of process and routine. Only lost two frames.
But, in fairness, I was distracted. In my desire to impress, I never made that same mistake again. Well, nearly never. I married her twice, we divorced twice, we're still good friends and she still teases me about it. The film thing, that is....
580/Q
200 frames a day
There is a lot here. Not to use generalizations (too heavily) but in my experience, women - and some men - are more interested in people and behavior rather than things (objects).
A subset of that anecdotal observation is that the men and women that are more interested in people than objects tend to make better journalists or, at least, observers and commentators on human behavior. Gear-heads, regardless of gender, are gear-heads. But most people aren't one or the other. They are a mix of both.
Film is a rubric for a larger process that involves an interesting aspect of human behavior, both in front of and behind the lens. The same can be said for digital, and the argument might be made that with the democratization of photography via digital and especially with camera phones, there are more opportunities to become consumed with photographs rather than the means by which they are made. One is simply less shrouded in arcane process and technical skill.
The choice of one or the other is interesting only to the person making the choice and, perhaps, a critic of their work. Either way, the photographer is subject to the medium, a prisoner of its constraints, and forced to work with (not necessarily within) its capabilities.
I have had rational people, when I've offered them a ride in a small aeroplane, say things along the lines of, "They fly despite the science that says they shouldn't, right?" And that takes me down the "well that's actually a bumblebee myth (they fly for the same aerodynamic reasons anything else flies)".... So, film cameras? No biggee. Just don't try to explain reciprocity.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I think we ought to start a new thread about all the dumb things old film shooters say when they get their first digital camera.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
I keep asking the same dumb question, from my first Konica-Minolta in 2005 to the D700 to the X-Pro: when I’m generally setting up all my preferences and change a setting from the default, why not have it highlighted in some way so that I know it’s something I’ve changed? Better yet, why can’t I have all my changes reflected in a single Your Settings menu that could be copied to an SD card? The reason this would be useful is that if I have to do a reset or I lose my settings for some reason, I could restore them quickly.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
This is evidence that you are suffering from a serious misconception, specifically, that the engineers who design cameras are actually also real-world photographers. Hahahahahaha!!!!!
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
My bet is that anthropologists and sociologists could prove this.
It seems a part of human nature deriving from tens of thousands of years ago when humans congregated in small villages and were very primitive. The men had two main tasks: provide food by hunting together and provide security from other potentially invasive, pillaging, tribes or villages. The women had the equally important task of providing a cohesive social structure in the village, ensuring harmony, raising children, preparing meals, and also possibly farming - valuable and difficult tasks.
If we were to read discussion forums of that time, I’m sure we would see postings from men discussing the merits of one arrowhead shape or spear point from another, types of metal, and possibly ways of capturing the decisive hunting moment. Women would not post or participate in these gear forums but would instead discuss people-related matters such as which young men seemed to be the best providers, which had skills in solving survival issues, which men were most respected among other men, and so on. Not much has changed.
Malcolm M
Well-known
It wouldn't be publishable. I'm on my third, and my language gets worse and worse.