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

[Dogman]

Light.

Light determines.

 

[mdarnton]

Like these or not really? These are from a Lensbaby Soft Focus lens on digital.

 

[CP93]

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. 🙂

It’s called Vaseline on a skylight filter.

 

[neal3k]

For a quick entry as you learn more, I also can suggest a Holga. I shoot a lot of my work with my stable of Holgas. Here is one I just put on Flickr yesterday using a film Holga with fresh Kodak Gold 200 film.

Sidewalk Garden - Holga by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

Or you can really go off the deep end with a 110 format; this is from a Holga micro-110 with Lomo Tiger film.

Holga Micro-110 -Truck by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

 

[Hayli]

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 ... 😀

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​

You're right, I think I'm definitely thinking about it too much and I'm happier when I just go for it instead of trying to make everything perfect.Lovely advice

 

[Hayli]

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!" 😉

"Controlled badness" LOL love it. That's what I need to master. It'll take time for sure but that's the dream.

 

[Hayli]

For a quick entry as you learn more, I also can suggest a Holga. I shoot a lot of my work with my stable of Holgas. Here is one I just put on Flickr yesterday using a film Holga with fresh Kodak Gold 200 film.

Sidewalk Garden - Holga by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

Or you can really go off the deep end with a 110 format; this is from a Holga micro-110 with Lomo Tiger film.

Holga Micro-110 -Truck by Neal Wellons, on Flickr

These are so nice. I'm gonna look up Holgas now, see what I can find. I just love how colorful and old the photos look

 

[Darthfeeble]

Dreamy light on a dreamy subject would be your most reliable source of a dreamy picture. Golden hour light, dappled light, low light with highlighted items. Soft focus lenses are another source, particularly in conjunction with the kinds of light mentioned. I'm not a portrait guy and I don't know if you would consider these "Dreamy" but this is sort of what I mean.

 

[neal3k]

These are so nice. I'm gonna look up Holgas now, see what I can find. I just love how colorful and old the photos look

I have about 15 and if you don't mind a black 120N, I would recommend a new one from one of the usual dealers. Some of the old ones don't age so well and need a little work as the shutters may stick. If they are used regularly, you should have no problem. It takes a few rolls to get really comfortable with loading them and shooting. They love bright light. On the other hand, I have not met a 120 Holga that I couldn't fix if it needed help.

If you want to try a Holga Micro-110, you will probably have to get a used one. Lomography makes all the fresh available film but they have a lot of choices. You bad shot rate will be higher with 110 as they are more of a challenge to shoot. I would recommend the 120N.

I wrote some useful tips on 35mmc. Just go there and search "Holga Tips" for my article.

 

[DownUnder]

Again writing entirely my thoughts, when my images look 'dreamy' it's usually due to blown highlights.

Photographing in Australian and Asian harsh light practically guarantees this look. I generally avoid polarizers as I dislike what they do to natural colors, and I tend to underexpose by one-third of a stop in strong light. These tricks don't always work, but they do often enough to ensure I have a usable image, after some time spent with (boring!) post-processing.

As for cameras and 'dreamy' lenses, I would (again) recommend a Contax G with a Zeiss G lens. It has its very own, unique look, rather like the Leica look but slightly different in color rendition. For me the Contax G gives stronger colors, which I (and my stock photo buyers) prefer. Not to say there is anything wrong with Leica colors, but my only experience of those are with my 1954 LTM, a hazy 50/2.0 Summicron and (usually) Fuji negative color, alas the latter now fast disappearing from the film retail scene.

As for the OP's comment about the Reddit 'film community', to me those folk mostly mean well but they inhabit a fantasy world and often know not what they preach (or usually prattle). Which may fit in well with 'dreamy'...

As always, only my thoughts.

 

[Archiver]

@Hayli The kinds of images you posted are all about the imperfections, which are the hallmarks of dreams.

- motion blur
- light leaks
- slow shutter speeds
- slightly overblown highlights
- film grain (which is substantively different from digital noise)
- open shadows with dark blacks
- softness/slightly missed focus
- low resolution/rendering in the lens

You can easily get this look with an Olympus XA2 and Fuji XTRA 400 or Kodak Gold. For example:

XA2 - Light Leak by Archiver, on Flickr

Any inexpensive or mid range camera from the 70s and early 80s will give these kinds of results, like these taken with the Pentax ME with 50mm f1.4 M:

ME - Ghosts in the Light by Archiver, on Flickr

This image has motion blur from a slow shutter speed in low light.

ME - Doggy Daze by Archiver, on Flickr

I just missed focus on the dog, and it was moving, which resulted in this image.

To see a higher grade version of the imperfect film look, have a look at Tiffany Roubert on Instagram. She shoots primarily with film, using a Leica MP and Voigtlander 35mm f2 Ultron.

Tiffany Roubert (@tiffanyroubert) • Instagram photos and videos

49K Followers, 819 Following, 56 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Tiffany Roubert (@tiffanyroubert)

www.instagram.com

Now, you don't need a Leica MP body to get this kind of look - the look is in the lens and film, and then in the processing lab and the way they handle your scans afterwards.

Bricolage108 on flickr shoots with, among other things, an Olympus XA2 loaded with Lucky Color film.

bricolage 108

Explore bricolage 108’s 998 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Digital looks sharp and perfect because that is the state of that medium. Digital cameras aim to give you the most sharp, clear image possible. To get the imperfect look, use imperfect lenses, perhaps a filter, and some clever processing. Do you currently have a digital camera, and if so, we might be able to give recommendations for how to achieve this look with what you have.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Looking again at your original post, I realized that you didn't rule out an instant film camera (though perhaps you haven't considered one). If anything is going to consistently give a dreamy look, instant film will. It's sort of baked in with those processes! Take a look at the Instax Mini Evo, a hybrid camera that records digitally and prints to Instax film. It has dozens of effects, many oriented toward the dreamy look of film used for "controlled badness", and allows live preview of your effects on the screen, before you choose to shoot. You can even shoot monochrome or color on the same pack of color film. It also gives you a digital file to save, and enables multiple prints of the same image. Dirt cheap at $200, tiny, portable, and lots of fun. I love mine!

 

[raydm6]

@Coldkennels mentioned Pinhole. I forgot about that.

You can make one - as he mentioned - or try a pinhole body cap or dedicated camera.

Also, look into zone-plate photography.
Check out Patricia Beary’s work:

Zone Plate - Patricia Beary

This gallery hosted by SmugMug; your photos look better here.

www.patriciabeary.com

I have 4-pinholes and 3-Zone-Plates on a Turret:

Kevin Finney 4x5 Pinhole/Zoneplate Field Camera by rdc154, on Flickr

A few of mine:

 

[boojum]

Out of focus, motion blur, light leaks and so on can add an effect but is it dream or nightmare? I ask because I chased this goal of dreamy images, too. I do not do film so that is removed as a variable. The sensor is a constant which can be modified in post. But the image itself? That's the rabbit hole I went down and sought dreamy images with the lens prescription. I have no Leica lenses, way too expensive. But I do have some nice Zeiss and Sonnar lenses, vintage, which are very nice for images. An old Canon 50mm f/1.8 LTM, recommended here, does nicely, especially at night. But for me the "winner, winner, chicken dinner" is the Cooke Amotal 2" f/2.0. Cooke pays their rent with the "Cooke Look" in cine lenses. They do have a special glow without sacrificing accuracy or detail. The Amotal was made for the Bell and Howell Foton which did not sell well. The lens is a dandy, a Tessar I believe. It has that glow without sacrificing detail. Here is a snap of some Rhodies from last year, one stop underexposed deliberately. There is that glow while at the same time the flower pistils are sharp. The second shot is full sun Daisies and handles the light nicely, at least it looks that way to me. The third is a red building in Grover, CO. Good old Sesame Street Grover even has his own town. I think the light is "dreamy" in all of these. But remember, I am biased, I own the lens. LOL. And, yes, you are right. The red former RR station in Grover, CO, does lean to the left as a result of prevailing winds. The flagpole to the right is straight upright.

These are SOOC JPG's, no filters, attachments or tricks. Just the Cooke Amotal and the old M9.

So I would say that the lens is a good starting point.

L1002835 by West Phalia, on Flickr

M9/Amotal by West Phalia, on Flickr

M9/Amotal by West Phalia, on Flickr​

 

[Richard G]

This was Ilford FP 4 Plus 125 ISO. Taken with a Leica II - the two slow shutter speed options 1/40s, or Zu (B). I think I had a tabletop tripod against a light pole, but no cable release for the 2s exposure.



Lightrim by Richard, on Flickr

 

[sojournerphoto]

Cross posted with the film images forum - Yashica Electro 35MC as mentioned earlier, Kodak Ultramax 400 and a bit of lightroom colour balance and contrast. Actually quite a sharp little thing, but shooting into the light can make things a bit dreamy?

 

[Gordon Moat]

A Pro Mist filter would give a dreamy look, even with a very sharp modern lens.

 

[JeffS7444]

Digital Harinezumi is a favorite designer lo-fi digital camera.

 

[DownUnder]

It’s called Vaseline on a skylight filter.

Gosh, the memories! This is so 1960s... We all did it, back then.

In 1966 I bought a Rolleiflex and discovered Softars. A few years later, Nikkormats and Nikon Soft 1 and 2. then Cokin. Never looked back.

Played with all that for a while, and eventually decided that to me, 'soft' is an attitude.

An aside now. When I had my eye cataracts removed in 2021 and 2022, all my images suddenly got so much sharper. Natural Softars...

Some truly beaut images in this thread, tho' if JeffS7444's photo (an excellent shot, BTW) is anything near 'soft', then I'll eat all my Soft filters.

 

[boojum]

A Pro Mist filter would give a dreamy look, even with a very sharp modern lens.

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