Xbone Stormsurgezz
i had like a 2 year old disposable camera left at university to use before i moved out... spent them over graduation week. why do people still not use these things often? they're so cheap and the pictures (imo) have so much more personality and warmth to them than the entry-level 'average' consumer digital cameras, that just kick out such plain photos with no 'character' to them at all (if that makes sense). i'm definitely going to be buying a few more of these... for 10 bucks you can't really go wrong.
tate britain
party in belgravia
art?
my last photo of university, leaving vibes
picnic in virginia waters and windsor great park... acres of sculpted edwardian piffery
highlight of grad week
... the white dots are something fucked up with my scanner, i guess dust inside the actual light-thing. i don't know. i forgot to ask for a digital CD copy also upon development. i'm pretty happy with the photos though, for such a no-thought-point-and-click experience. colours and everything look so much nicer than they do on a standard digital camera!
tate britain
party in belgravia
art?
my last photo of university, leaving vibes
picnic in virginia waters and windsor great park... acres of sculpted edwardian piffery
highlight of grad week
... the white dots are something fucked up with my scanner, i guess dust inside the actual light-thing. i don't know. i forgot to ask for a digital CD copy also upon development. i'm pretty happy with the photos though, for such a no-thought-point-and-click experience. colours and everything look so much nicer than they do on a standard digital camera!
Last edited by Uzique (2011-08-02 20:13:45)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
it just makes me uncomfortable that some guy is staring at the pictures I took thinking about how fucked up I am for taking pictures of stuff like thatUzique wrote:
i had like a 2 year old disposable camera left at university to use before i moved out... spent them over graduation week. why do people still not use these things often? they're so cheap and the pictures (imo) have so much more personality and warmth to them than the entry-level 'average' consumer digital cameras, that just kick out such plain photos with no 'character' to them at all (if that makes sense). i'm definitely going to be buying a few more of these... for 10 bucks you can't really go wrong.
tate britain
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 8121_n.jpg
party in belgravia
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 5000_n.jpg
art?
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 9295_n.jpg
my last photo of university, leaving vibes
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 9800_n.jpg
picnic in virginia waters and windsor great park... acres of sculpted edwardian piffery
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 3617_n.jpg
highlight of grad week
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 6705_n.jpg
... the white dots are something fucked up with my scanner, i guess dust inside the actual light-thing. i don't know. i forgot to ask for a digital CD copy also upon development. i'm pretty happy with the photos though, for such a no-thought-point-and-click experience. colours and everything look so much nicer than they do on a standard digital camera!
hahaha yeah i guess i never thought about that part of it. i don't think i'd ever do a porno shoot with a disposable though, so that's okay. i think the only time i would possibly be a little bit weirded out is if i had kids and sent like innocent topless toddler pics in etc. for me though, having literally never owned a camera, they're pretty decent i think. i have never seen the attraction in owning one of those sub-DSLR cameras that literally just take the most unflattering, bland images.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i thought the white was a noise filter..
i enjoy the care free focus
when i used to get a cd copy made the lab would put low res pics on the cd instead of nice, high quality
i enjoy the care free focus
when i used to get a cd copy made the lab would put low res pics on the cd instead of nice, high quality
some of the disposables came out awful because of lighting and the total lack of any focus... but i think that adds to the joy of it. like the joy of any film photography, there's a bit of a thrill in finding a good lottery-winning shot. if i had the money, means and interest to get an old film camera i probably would... my friend has been taking photos with his for about a year now (incl. an iceland trip) and the shots are just phenomenal.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I had an experience like that in a photography class I took in high school. Most of the shoots were stupid tasks to master elements of composition (framing, using the whole frame), but we did have our own darkroom and enlargers to use (and I shared my enlarger with a stoner who failed so I basically had it for as long as I wanted). During our final projects I was in downtown Chicago and took some of my favorite pictures ever. It was cold as balls and I only stopped taking pictures because my hands couldn't manipulate the camera anymore, but that was definitely a worthwhile experience. The ones I've taken since then with a digital camera all seemed too "easy" since I can't afford a DSLR and don't really have control over each shot.
I saw a show once where the photographer set down his super expensive camera and picked up a cheap 35mm and took the shots that ultimately made the cover of the magazine he was shooting for. It was inspiring because it just showed me that it isn't about having a fancy camera.Uzique wrote:
some of the disposables came out awful because of lighting and the total lack of any focus... but i think that adds to the joy of it. like the joy of any film photography, there's a bit of a thrill in finding a good lottery-winning shot. if i had the money, means and interest to get an old film camera i probably would... my friend has been taking photos with his for about a year now (incl. an iceland trip) and the shots are just phenomenal.
...
That is what I have said for years. An awesome photographer can get consistent awesome shots with a cheap (or nowadays even with a phone) camera.tuckergustav wrote:
I saw a show once where the photographer set down his super expensive camera and picked up a cheap 35mm and took the shots that ultimately made the cover of the magazine he was shooting for. It was inspiring because it just showed me that it isn't about having a fancy camera.
But a shitty photographer has to get really lucky to just get one great shot, even with thousands of dollars invested into equipment.
I consider myself a decent photographer with a decent camera... *shrug*
very nice, Uzique!
the reason i did buy the 7D was for the framerate - this camera rips off 8 frames a second, making it easier to capture bracketed exposures.
the three cameras above all have Aperture, Shutter speed, and ISO. the difference is, shooting with digital has made it easier to learn, because the feedback is nearly instant. i envy those who learned the way to expose a shot with a film camera, because those lessons stick. my next camera won't be a full-framed sensor digital camera, it will be a film camera.
DesertFox- wrote:
since I can't afford a DSLR and don't really have control over each shot.
my first camera wasn't the 7D i own now.tuckergustav wrote:
It was inspiring because it just showed me that it isn't about having a fancy camera.
the reason i did buy the 7D was for the framerate - this camera rips off 8 frames a second, making it easier to capture bracketed exposures.
the three cameras above all have Aperture, Shutter speed, and ISO. the difference is, shooting with digital has made it easier to learn, because the feedback is nearly instant. i envy those who learned the way to expose a shot with a film camera, because those lessons stick. my next camera won't be a full-framed sensor digital camera, it will be a film camera.
I agree. I learned on film and it was all I shot for years, but I would like to add one point:13urnzz wrote:
the three cameras above all have Aperture, Shutter speed, and ISO. the difference is, shooting with digital has made it easier to learn, because the feedback is nearly instant. i envy those who learned the way to expose a shot with a film camera, because those lessons stick. my next camera won't be a full-framed sensor digital camera, it will be a film camera.
Digital is cheaper to learn. With film, I personally can't afford to take a bazillion shots of something and then pick out which one I like the best to showcase. Film and development can get expensive. So you learn timing and patience better, in my opinion, with film. However, that will come in time. I have learned a lot of artistic perspective from being able to take 200 shots from every possible vantage point and then comparing what shot/angle/setting really gave me what effect.
I particularly love digital in low light non-flash situations. It is wonderful to take a shot, instantly see it is too dark, and then make an adjustment right then, as opposed to shooting a roll of film, getting it developed and then realizing all your awesome shots now suck, because everything came out too dark or something.
No it's not. Especially with amazing programs like Lightroom out there now. For me composition is absolutely the most important element of photography.tuckergustav wrote:
It was inspiring because it just showed me that it isn't about having a fancy camera.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
@HitnRun: Are you on Flickr?
I dont agree about the colors being nicer, but they have a... home-y quality to them. Its not necessarily better. The files from digitals are almost meant to be processed at least a little, just like with film
This one is kinda cool, I like the effect that the bad lens gave it; its almost like its freelensedUzique wrote:
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- … 3617_n.jpg
I dont agree about the colors being nicer, but they have a... home-y quality to them. Its not necessarily better. The files from digitals are almost meant to be processed at least a little, just like with film
yeah... the home-y quality is definitely the best part for me. i don't think any of those photos have any merit as photos-qua-photos, but they just seem to have more personality than another generic digital camera phnto album that seems to do nothing except condense a day out into a series of flat snaps.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah, I agree. If I wanted something point-and-click to take pictures of random events/daily life, I'd go with film (despite the massive hipster image it seems to have, oh well).
Slightly on topic, I fucking hate those iPhone filter things that are all over facebook now. I mean, honestly.
Slightly on topic, I fucking hate those iPhone filter things that are all over facebook now. I mean, honestly.
the apps? some can produce some decent quality pictures. most are awful. i've only ever taken one that i thought was half-decent and it was of a wall with a good sun-streak in my gf's old dorm room, haha. and i lost it when my iphone broke. so i think that says just about everything about those iphone snaps...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
taken with an iphone
Impressive
lots of grain!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
