• Lomography - Film cameras aint' so bad after all
    124 replies, posted
Film cameras were once the norm. Now they're hipster. I'm not sure I follow that train of thought. I own a cathode-ray TV. Does this make me a hipster?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;25522182]Film cameras were once the norm. Now they're hipster. I'm not sure I follow that train of thought. I own a cathode-ray TV. Does this make me a hipster?[/QUOTE] it just makes u poor
I own a Pentax K1000, I love doing shots like these. I have always preferred film to digital, film is a chemical process so it doesn't rely on pixels, so I always found that film gave my shots a more natural look. Of course I own many digital cameras though. I wish I could upload some of my shots but I don't have a scanner...
get a real SLR you cheap fuck. these are hipster cameras.
i have a pentax me super SLR, really taught me the joy of film, i love it. I wish I could try the multiple exposures thing but i have to wind on
[QUOTE=Barnhouse;25517233]check dis out its well cool [url]http://microsites.lomography.com/spinner-360/techniques[/url][/QUOTE] Need one of these now. No I'm not a hipster.
[QUOTE=Mac2468;25534034]Need one of these now. No I'm not a hipster.[/QUOTE] soon u are well nah, that looks good but expensive
I have my mom's old SLR, haven't gotten around to putting the film in though.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;25467874]How were film cameras even "so bad" in the first place? I love film.[/QUOTE] They aren't. They have better quality than any other digital camera to this day. But it takes a lot of work to handle one well and get good photos. And most people, like most of the examples shown in the OP, just use them to be "cool" and "unique", aka hipsters. Just using film camera for the sake of it being a film camera is at least to me, drop dead retarded. But using it because you like film and the difficulty it involves and whatnot is cool.
[QUOTE=dgg;25536930]They aren't. They have better quality than any other digital camera to this day. But it takes a lot of work to handle one well and get good photos. And most people, like most of the examples shown in the OP, just use them to be "cool" and "unique", aka hipsters. Just using film camera for the sake of it being a film camera is at least to me, drop dead retarded. But using it because you like film and the difficulty it involves and whatnot is cool.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't say they have "better quality", scanning a frame results in worse quality almost always than a top-notch DSLR. And isn't shooting film since you like it and it's harder, shooting it for the sake of it being a film camera?
[QUOTE=dgg;25536930]They aren't. They have better quality than any other digital camera to this day. But it takes a lot of work to handle one well and get good photos. And most people, like most of the examples shown in the OP, just use them to be "cool" and "unique", aka hipsters. Just using film camera for the sake of it being a film camera is at least to me, drop dead retarded. But using it because you like film and the difficulty it involves and whatnot is cool.[/QUOTE] I like the idea of film because a lot of pictures will never turn out the same twice, and they always have that nice warm vibe to them that reminds me of my old holidays.
C-41 represent
[QUOTE=evilking1;25536995]Wouldn't say they have "better quality", scanning a frame results in worse quality almost always than a top-notch DSLR. And isn't shooting film since you like it and it's harder, shooting it for the sake of it being a film camera?[/QUOTE] They have better quality. You're not close to the quality the film cameras have with digital cameras. Digital images' resolution are way below the resolution you would get if you scanned a big film. Film doesn't work with pixels, it works straight out on DPI (Dots Per Inch), it's just light captured in a film, so there is no harsh line between "This square has that colour and this next square has this colour". So yes, the quality in film is in every way much better than digital images. And with resolution I of course don't just mean "Lol it's 590320 megapixels so it's good", I also drag along the quality with it.
The amount of smug in this thread is unbelievable. Just because hipsters do something doesn't mean you'll magically become one if you do it yourself. Film photography is nice and very rewarding if you develop your own techniques and styles, and you never quite know how your photos will turn out until you get them developed or develop them yourself. It's much more intimate than simply snapping a picture with a DSLR and seeing it on your LCD right away. Also, It doesn't matter what film or camera you use, nor does it matter why. Get the fuck over yourselves (not talking about everybody in this thread).
iirc in a test done between two photos one on an top end DSLR and a top end 35mm camera, the DSLR came out top when they scaled them up to the side of a building. But yeah, people shoot movie on film because it looks better than can be scaled up on the big screen with perfect clarity.
[QUOTE=dgg;25537840]They have better quality. You're not close to the quality the film cameras have. Digital resolutions are way below the resolution you would get if you scanned a big film. Film doesn't work with pixels, it works straight out on DPI (Dots Per Inch), it's just light captured in a film, so there is no harsh line between "This square has that colour and this next square has this colour". So yes, the quality in film is in every way much better than digital images.[/QUOTE] there still is the film grain, even the best film (and that is ISO 50, ISO 400 would be more of an joke when it comes to grain..) doesn't go for much more than 20mpx in 35mm. and quality of the picture is quite debatable if you can't take the picture with a film camera since you loaded a roll of ISO50 and you are fucked anywhere but the 12am sunshine
As a media student, this hurts to read
[QUOTE=evilking1;25537961]there still is the film grain, even the best film (and that is ISO 50, ISO 400 would be more of an joke when it comes to grain..) doesn't go for much more than 20mpx in 35mm. and quality of the picture is quite debatable if you can't take the picture with a film camera since you loaded a roll of ISO50 and you are fucked anywhere but the 12am sunshine[/QUOTE] Film grain is classy though. Great for dark and emotional pieces. As for your ISO 50 argument, all I can say is bulb. You're fucked for photos with people maybe, but you can still do still life perfectly fine.
[QUOTE=dgg;25538186]Film grain is classy though. Great for dark and emotional pieces. As for your ISO 50 argument, all I can say is bulb. You're fucked for photos with people maybe, but you can still do still life perfectly fine.[/QUOTE] It sure is classy sometimes, but you can't take it out, only photoshop it in. Bulb is good, if you like blurry shit when there is wind or water moving. Not so bad with water, but otherwise not so good. Still life rarely is still. Not to mention having to use tripod always.
Canon FTb from the 70's. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Canon_FTb.jpg/300px-Canon_FTb.jpg[/img] I love this camera. Here are some photos I took. I had about three rolls of film, but the place I was getting them developed had a problem and killed all of my film. :saddowns: [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/5087593083_07fae6a800.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5087592523_6a094b6e71.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/5087591929_312f9e48bd.jpg[/img]
Personally, I dont like lomography. I dont know... In my opinion is just something taking advantage of a photography "aberration" originated from the wide angle lenses, and a "LOOK AT THIS! ITS A CIRCLE PHOTO AND ITS SO COOL..." reaction. Ill allways prefer a well taken photo to this kind of pictures.
Creative photographers should not concern themselves with pricey equipment and techniques which create true-to-life photographs, Topic10. That's not what it's about.
but not also about the competition of getting the most cutest and hipster camera out there if creative doesn't mean hipster that is. taking random shots with people having the same stupid poses doesn't make it creative imho. you don't need an army of paint-buckets and brushes to make a good painting, but sticking with a ballpoint pen usually makes the painting/drawing "The Drawing that was made with the ballpoint pen" instead of focusing to the drawing itself. [editline]21st October 2010[/editline] [img]http://kuvaton.com/k/EhV.jpg[/img] if this was shot with lomo I'd be [I]so[/I] creative
Lomo is not random people posing, it's pictures of [b]unique[/b] events. I never ask people to pose for a lomo pic, I just take one when they are not exepting it.
[QUOTE=redback3;25538141]As a media student, this hurts to read[/QUOTE] so media students get headaces from reading treads about people claiming lomography is a hipster thing or not. strange course, guy
[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;25547532]Lomo is not random people posing, it's pictures of [b]unique[/b] events. I never ask people to pose for a lomo pic, I just take one when they are not exepting it.[/QUOTE] oh so random shots with people looking randomly stupid I see
[QUOTE=evilking1;25548030]oh so random shots with people looking randomly stupid I see[/QUOTE] So in your opinion,[ "Taking people in poses is stupid" ] and[ "Taking shots of people looking random is stupid"] Huh?
people in random stupid poses and randomly looking stupid [editline]21st October 2010[/editline] word "stupid" is the common nominator [editline]21st October 2010[/editline] and maybe generic snapshot
[QUOTE=evilking1;25538694]Bulb is good, if you like blurry shit when there is wind or water moving. Not so bad with water, but otherwise not so good. Still life rarely is still. Not to mention having to use tripod always.[/QUOTE] Still life is quite often still. Trees ain't still, people ain't still, but buildings and landscapes are. I don't see why you wouldn't want to carry with you a tripod anywhere you go when you take with your camera in the first place.
I loved those pictures :buddy:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.