• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Better artistic photos with more expansive cameras and film

The reason to want any particular camera or lens or whatever is to get the thing that does what you want it do, the way you want it to do it. They're tools. They do things in a certain way. Very precise instruments can do what you want with a greater level of precision, if that's what matters to you. So, in a sense, the right thing can accomplish your work the right way - but that may or may not mean spending a ton of money for the "best" thing. If a Holga does it, then the Holga is the right thing.
 

I want to have some wide angle photographs that are rectilinearly correct so I use a SWC not a Holga.
 
there was this video that photo teacher Ann Clancy from Georgia and frequency poster here posted years ago
that showed a workshop of digital wedding and portrait shooters learning how to use their high end high contrast wicked coated modern dSlr lenses to make images that were less clinical by shooting through semi opaque obstructions like ziplock bags and other "stuff". .. to me Zeiss / Hasselblad lenses might be works of art to some, but if one wants to change how they render the world one might learn from these digital shooters, I see them both having the same sort of clinical qualities... if I can find the video I will post it. .. atm I can't find it!
 
I still have three Holgas but I've stopped using them because I can't read the frame number through the red window on the back. I think Kodak has changed the backing so the numbers are difficult to read. All my Hasselblad backs still work properly, except for the occasional light leak through the dark slide slot. But I get around that by covering the slot with black masking tape.
 

While I find that an interesting idea, I'd be more likely to want to change the way the actual print looks by doing things in the darkroom. A good negative can give you a lot of options. You can use the ziplock bag or bubble wrap or a tilted magnifying glass between the enlarger lens and the paper. You can tilt the easel or make the paper bulge upward in the middle. You can move the paper while the enlarger is projecting. All these are possible with a good negative. There's no reason the image-making should stop once the film gets exposed.

Sirius Glass said:
I want to have some wide angle photographs that are rectilinearly correct so I use a SWC not a Holga.
Click to expand...

That's just it, though. If that gives you what you want, that should be what you use. But some people want other things.
 
Sirius Glass said:
I want to have some wide angle photographs that are rectilinearly correct so I use a SWC not a Holga.
Click to expand...
And someone else wants to have some wide angle photographs that are not rectilinearly correct so he uses a Hogla not an SWC. This is the same reason some people like lenses that have character (also because a Summicron APO costs $9000).
 

Please share if you find it. That is what bothers me with digital cameras, just too "clear" and too real. And yes, I've tried using old FD lens (with both fungus + separation) on my digital and still too digital for my taste..
 
vedostuu said:
Please share if you find it. That is what bothers me with digital cameras, just too "clear" and too real. And yes, I've tried using old FD lens (with both fungus + separation) on my digital and still too digital for my taste..
Click to expand...
You do realize that digital images are all about post processing right?
 
vedostuu said:
Please share if you find it. That is what bothers me with digital cameras, just too "clear" and too real. And yes, I've tried using old FD lens (with both fungus + separation) on my digital and still too digital for my taste..
Click to expand...

I'll keep looking .. I thought it was Ann that posted it, maybe it wasn't ? it was a good video though. They were using grocery bags to shoot through and doing all sorts of interesting stuff. Its funny you call it clear and real, I find it to be too clear and UNreal. im not sure if you have tried to do this but you can take store bought gelatin (clear unflavored ) and put a dollop on a sheet of plastic or glass and then put another piece of plastic over it to flatten it and use that as a filter. you can cloud and do all sorts of stuff to that filter to degrade it and interfere with the image being projected onto the sensor ( or film if it is a fancy cam ). I've been playing with that sort of obstruction and interference for years and sometimes it helps.

John
 
Auer said:
You do realize that digital images are all about post processing right?
Click to expand...

Sure. That is where sharks jumping out of the water are added. Heck with GIMP or FauxTow$hop you do not need a negative to create an image you can cut an paste from anywhere.
 
Auer said:
You do realize that digital images are all about post processing right?
Click to expand...
If you are not printing your images but scanning them, then film scans are all about post processing too. I dare say you can spend as much time photoshopping a digital image from film as a digital image from a digital camera. It is completely up to you what you do with your images.
 
Auer said:
I almost feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Sirius Glass is like 100% predictable neural network. It wakes up on certain keywords and responds with very familiar response.

It is like basic ping to see if the world is still alive. I would probably feel more anxious if Sirius Glass wouldn't trigger on these.
 
jnantz said:
Its funny you call it clear and real, I find it to be too clear and UNreal.
Click to expand...

This is interesting question/thought! Maybe I refer to "real" to the photos we see nowadays constantly. I don't know why I called that "real". Maybe I should say up to date? modern (in a bad way)? Dunno.

I participated to a print competition last week and all the other prints were inkjets from digital and mine was salt prints. I was overwhelmed and speechless. I'm actually still, I just cannot put everything in words. I can come up with only pieces of phrases like "so many colors", "too much" or maybe "computer graphics" ..
 
Auer said:
I know right, like what idiot would think anything digital could possibly be art?












LOL
Click to expand...


Gee, I think that he may have figured it out all by himself. Ya think?
 

That happens when you compare a salt print with a color print of any kind. It is like shooting Tri-X and comparing it to Kodachome. Nothing wrong with Tri-X. Nothing wrong with Kodachome. Nothing wrong with a salt print. Nothing wrong with a digital print. Pick the one you enjoy and is best suited to the images you want to make.
 
Last edited:
And now it's just tangoed into the ol' film vs digitallllllll
 
 
VinceInMT said:
Just another step in removing evidence of the hand of the artist.
Click to expand...
maybe this is true for some, but im not really sure how an artist's evidence can ever be removed from something they created. Its not like the whole photographic experience is AI any less than someone taking a point n shoot camera and dropping the film off at a fotomat or drug store to have it processed and machine printed. I've been using digital off and on with and without film since the 90s. I've no idea how it remove me from anything I make..
but to each their own...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register