Farktographers and Film

[Plamadude30k]

The D7000 does 1080p. I haven’t really had a good chance to use it yet. It wasn’t a really important factor in my deciding to get it-there’s plenty of other fun features.

EDIT: Just to keep this relevant to the thread, I have an old Minolta SRT 101 that I use occasionally.

[orionid]

The D90 has it, and I have used it in exactly the situation described by CauseISaidSo, but only a small handful of times.

[Curious]

thanks for the responses. my P&Ss both have it but the results are underwhelming. and short. i had a full sized VHS camera at one time and guess i got spoiled by the in camera tittling and other features. bought the panasonic because i wanted another video camera and it was on a <50% sale. i've only used it a few times so the cheap price worked out 🙂 it's small enough that i can carry it with the DSLR if i plan to shot video.

[orionid]

I lied. ish. I took video today.
You may or may not be able to see this, don’t recall what privacy setting I used.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2064998061241&comments

[Choc-Ful-A]

FWIW, I don’t think any creative artform should be constrained to specific technologies. So I don’t understand the hostility towards people that like cheap cameras or other methods that introduce odd, sometimes random, uncontrollable, unpredictable effects. I like them, but also like high quality, very accurate cameras too. But I don’t see the conflict in having and using both.

And while I find just about any artificially inflated market for a art (or products in general) absurd, if makes people happy to buy Lomography prints for too much money, it’s no skin off my nose. If I ever run into some smug SOB copping an attitude about cheap camera superiority, I’d certainly make it clear that I thought they were an ass. But I wouldn’t accept the smugness the other direction if I was using a Lomo or showing photo’s I’d take with a Lomo.

[orionid]

FWIW, I don’t think any creative artform should be constrained to specific technologies. So I don’t understand the hostility towards people that like cheap cameras or other methods that introduce odd, sometimes random, uncontrollable, unpredictable effects. I like them, but also like high quality, very accurate cameras too. But I don’t see the conflict in having and using both.

And while I find just about any artificially inflated market for a art (or products in general) absurd, if makes people happy to buy Lomography prints for too much money, it’s no skin off my nose. If I ever run into some smug SOB copping an attitude about cheap camera superiority, I’d certainly make it clear that I thought they were an ass. But I wouldn’t accept the smugness the other direction if I was using a Lomo or showing photo’s I’d take with a Lomo.

Well said.

[Curious]

FWIW, I don’t think any creative artform should be constrained to specific technologies. So I don’t understand the hostility towards people that like cheap cameras or other methods that introduce odd, sometimes random, uncontrollable, unpredictable effects. I like them, but also like high quality, very accurate cameras too. But I don’t see the conflict in having and using both.

And while I find just about any artificially inflated market for a art (or products in general) absurd, if makes people happy to buy Lomography prints for too much money, it’s no skin off my nose. If I ever run into some smug SOB copping an attitude about cheap camera superiority, I’d certainly make it clear that I thought they were an ass. But I wouldn’t accept the smugness the other direction if I was using a Lomo or showing photo’s I’d take with a Lomo.

Well said.

horse shit. if i have a D3X and one of these $10,250 lenses i am obviously superior in many ways. my photos will simply reek of “art” and be virtually priceless.

your Lomo OTOH reeks of “hipness” which we all know is absurd on it’s face.

🙂

[Choc-Ful-A]

FWIW, I don’t think any creative artform should be constrained to specific technologies. So I don’t understand the hostility towards people that like cheap cameras or other methods that introduce odd, sometimes random, uncontrollable, unpredictable effects. I like them, but also like high quality, very accurate cameras too. But I don’t see the conflict in having and using both.

And while I find just about any artificially inflated market for a art (or products in general) absurd, if makes people happy to buy Lomography prints for too much money, it’s no skin off my nose. If I ever run into some smug SOB copping an attitude about cheap camera superiority, I’d certainly make it clear that I thought they were an ass. But I wouldn’t accept the smugness the other direction if I was using a Lomo or showing photo’s I’d take with a Lomo.

Well said.

horse shit. if i have a D3X and one of these $10,250 lenses i am obviously superior in many ways. my photos will simply reek of “art” and be virtually priceless.

your Lomo OTOH reeks of “hipness” which we all know is absurd on it’s face.

🙂

Exactly! That’s why I want BOTH.

[Farktographer]

I haven’t touched a film camera in over a decade, when I was in high school. I’m scared of the quality of photos I’ll be able to take now that I’m so digital, hah. As far as lomo stuff goes, I actually like the look of a lot of their images. They can tend to be too hipster-smug about cheap cameras, but put the camera in the right hands and you have some pretty spectacular images.

[Kestrana]

I suppose my hostility to Lomography is really that I don’t think it is art, at least in many of the ways it’s used. But I also don’t think Jackson Pollack’s creations are really art either. The creative process and thinking behind them, maybe, but the actual productions, no.

[Curious]

I haven’t touched a film camera in over a decade, when I was in high school. I’m scared of the quality of photos I’ll be able to take now that I’m so digital, hah.

while the mechanics have changed is some ways and the post processing certainly has the basics are the same, control the light coming in and pesto. any film camera which has match needle metering on through full auto is very similar to today’s DSLRs.

IMO today’s cameras have replaced all the stuff you used to have to keep in your head with menus for different situations. now the software does a lot of the work if you want it to. auto bracketing is one example. another useful current tool is continuous exposure built in. far easier than buying and using a winder or motor drive. also easier than a 150 shot back – it sure is easy to go through a 36 exposure roll with a winder. trust me on this 🙂

[ennuipoet]

FWIW, I don’t think any creative artform should be constrained to specific technologies. So I don’t understand the hostility towards people that like cheap cameras or other methods that introduce odd, sometimes random, uncontrollable, unpredictable effects. I like them, but also like high quality, very accurate cameras too. But I don’t see the conflict in having and using both.

And while I find just about any artificially inflated market for a art (or products in general) absurd, if makes people happy to buy Lomography prints for too much money, it’s no skin off my nose. If I ever run into some smug SOB copping an attitude about cheap camera superiority, I’d certainly make it clear that I thought they were an ass. But I wouldn’t accept the smugness the other direction if I was using a Lomo or showing photo’s I’d take with a Lomo.

I’ve always maintained that it is the photographer, not the camera, that made the photo. I just find something so insufferably smug and cute about Lomo, even the name implies cuteness. (Lomo should be the name of a little girl’s teddy bear!) I find the smug pretentiousness of some jackass with a 5D and a $4k lens tell me how much better my shots would be if a just bought some good equipment. (Keep in mind this on the street and this person has never SEEN a photo of mine…actual event, at the dance parade this year!) I am a shoe string budget, I’ve given up a lot of things to buy camera equipment, I can only dream of having the money for that kind of gear. In the end, a good photo is a good photo if it was taken on said 5D or a crap cellphone.

The only time a photo is universally bad, is when it is taken on a Nikon

😈

[orionid]

Them right thar are fightin words.

[Curious]

in the early 80s i worked for a major downtown hotel. they were planing on doing some shooting for ads and i volunteered to bring my prosumer level minolta XD-11 in and shot some stuff alongside their hired “pro” photographer.

all went well until time to look at the contact sheets. the “pro’s” biggest complaint about mine? they weren’t 2 1/4 square. facepalm. although i know that bigger negs are better for 4 color separation, etc there wasn’t an iotas difference in our shots otherwise. told my boss he could have my film and contact sheet to do with as he pleased since it was a freebie for/from me anyway.

insecurity is a terrible thing.

[CauseISaidSo]

I find the smug pretentiousness of some jackass with a 5D and a $4k lens tell me how much better my shots would be if a just bought some good equipment. (Keep in mind this on the street and this person has never SEEN a photo of mine…actual event, at the dance parade this year!)

I’ve never run across anything like that. I think I’d probably be too stunned to be able to react immediately. What an asshole. What’d you say?

The only time a photo is universally bad, is when it is taken on a Nikon

😈

Amen, brother, preach it! 😆

[Author]

Posts