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

[JohnGellings]

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)

We are not. The OP showed photos of what he wants. People ran with the word dream and that could be the wrong word, but look at the original photos.

 

[Archiver]

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.

Funnily, all @Hayli has to do is buy an Olympus XA2 and some Fuji XTRA 400, Agfa Color 200 or Kodak Gold 200 and go to town. Pretty easy to get results like in the first post if you take that approach.

 

[Archiver]

We are not. The OP showed photos of what he wants. People ran with the word dream and that could be the wrong word, but look at the original photos.

This is reminiscent of a thread I started six years ago, which might bear revisiting as a tangent from the theme of the topic of lo-fi Lomo dreamy images:

Focal length that seems like memories?

Not sure if this is the right subforum, but here goes. Over in this thread here, @andrew00 makes this interesting comment regarding the Contax T3: "A P+S like the Contax T3 seemed ideal. It's small but, in it's usage, really high quality, with a great lens and a nice compact and portable...

rangefinderforum.com

 

[JohnGellings]

Funnily, all @Hayli has to do is buy an Olympus XA2 and some Fuji XTRA 400, Agfa Color 200 or Kodak Gold 200 and go to town. Pretty easy to get results like in the first post if you take that approach.

Agreed...

 

[Rikard]

I agree with others who have mentioned plastic lenses. And get a camera with the possibility to do double exposures. They are fun and hard to predict. A Holga 120 is a great medium format camera. I had one for years and every time I look at those photos I question why I have all these other cameras
Imperfections does not equal art. But imperfections tend to hide or obfuscate reality in a way which makes the brain ask questions. And that is the essence of art. Imperfections that does not raise wonder or questions are just mistakes.
I wish you the best of luck and many successful mistakes

 

[Retro-Grouch]

You’re just too old - out of touch with the zeitgeist

Let's not go there! What do you think the median age of RFF members might be? And the Zeitgeist? Mostly I just check in on occasion to see what's in fashion, so I can avoid it.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

These photos were shot with a recently acquired Camp Snap digital toy camera. It is very much like the vintage toy film cameras I own. These shots may be along the lines of what the op is looking for? The camera has no screen and no controls. The focus is fixed and the aperture is fixed. The viewfinder is terrible and basically useless. It has a shutter button for taking the photo, and that is it. It is extremely prone to flare. The color has a vintage feel to it, and this is pretty much what it looks like coming out of the camera. I did very, very minor post processing.

I live in a very rural area outside of Dallas. The first photo was shot late yesterday afternoon. The rest of the photos were shot early this morning around Lake Granbury. It will be interesting to see what the camera can do in an urban environment.

Corner of My Back Deck - Late Afternoon

 

[Gordon Moat]

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.

I wouldn’t say rush, just that’s it’s accessible. The original question was how to get those looks. If it’s just to check out an idea, filters are easy to get. Longer term, if the effect is highly desired, then lenses that create that affect can be purchased.

My rarest lens is a Holmes, Booth & Hayden’s from 1855. I’ve mounted that to a Linhof board, and it just works at portrait distance. Granted, I haven’t used it much.

 

[cjgreenberg]

Backlighting. Backlighting with a single coated lens, more so