"Star" is asking :"How to become an analogue photographer"?

[macfred]

"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.

 

[removed account4]

Now something becomes more and more clear to me Theo - you did it with pocket 110....

with regards

PS : One of the very very exceptions of 110 format - this extrem nice Pentax110. I was interested to buy this Pentax in 1980 or 81 ? Because of the lenses and smal dimensions.
But it was a little expensive that time - later much more expensive because of iconic image and pure rarity

dont you know real photographers don't use small cameras, not even real analog photographers ...

George "as realitic ", " realism " or " realistic look " is a term that might be cause more confusion here- as we see meanwhile/ up to now.
Because this all might be questions of conceptional intentions in photography - or isn´t this true.?
If you use HDR for example it is way of composition ( it is also possible with film - by the way ) - to higher technical parameters. But at the same time it is a tool of becoming a style
of artificial looks. A tool to have " unrealistic " conception in photography.
HDR is a good example from my point to cover out - NO DIFFERENCE OF DIGITAl and FILM.

with regard

PS : IF anybody uses the term " analogue HDR " now - I´ll shot him soon

photography has nothing to do with reality. and reality is a philiosophic construct ...
to be an analog photographer just requires film and a camera .. no imagination
no reality, no conceptual imagery, no resolution just film and a camera and a shutter button ..
personally i don't think you even need film you can be a photographer just with your eyes and
a camera with no film installed

 

[trendland]

"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.

+ 1 ..... but it doesn´t matter : I like this thread because of : Something wich has a need to say is sometimes : Comprehensive topics.

with regards

PS : It is a phenomenon of 50% of all threads buy the way......

 

[trendland]

dont you know real photographers don't use small cameras, not even real analog photographers ...

.... yes but what about Theo - let him hear this !

Pentax 110 is a real nice example that 110 Poket fits just a smal format on film - and obviously it is on smal film it has its own existense authority.
Just like the MINOX System.

with regards

 

[removed account4]

.... yes but what about Theo - let him hear this !

Pentax 110 is a real nice example that 110 Poket fits just a smal format on film - and obviously it is on smal film it has its own existense authority.
Just like the MINOX System.

with regards

i used one of these cameras until recently when i sold it and the 4-5 lenses that went with it ..
all i know is i was a poser when i used it, and now im a real photographer.
it made some fantastic photographs, ( i had very little to do with it )..

 

[BradS]

"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.

maybe,, there's a reason for that...???

(hint: the original question was inane)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is digital bashing allowed in an Analog thread? Now that the subject has veered off, do we need to have the moderators move this thread?

And that is what happens when one starts tooting about resolution and digital. If you do not want that to happen, just stay away from tooting.

 

[faberryman]

And that is what happens when one starts tooting about resolution and digital. If you do not want that to happen, just stay away from tooting.

I don't believe I have ever tooted about the resolution of digital, although I do have my opinions. Have "analog" photographers become so conditioned that the mere mention of scanning provokes these sort of responses automatically? Maybe because I shoot both film and digital I am a little less sensitive to these transgressions, particularly given how rare they are..

 

[trendland]

I don't believe I have ever tooted about the resolution of digital, although I do have my opinions. Have "analog" photographers become so conditioned that the mere mention of scanning provokes these sort of responses automatically? Maybe because I shoot both film and digital I am a little less sensitive to these transgressions, particularly given how rare they are..

Faberyman - the term "analogue photograpers" makes no real sence: some find out from this thread [ most ones are knowing this - nevertheless ].
with regards ..

 

[faberryman]

Faberyman - the term "analogue photograpers" makes no real sence: some find out from this thread [ most ones are knowing this - nevertheless ].

Hence the quotation marks around the word analog in my post..

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Practice, practice, practice.

 

[trendland]

i used one of these cameras until recently when i sold it and the 4-5 lenses that went with it ..
all i know is i was a poser when i used it, and now im a real photographer.
it made some fantastic photographs, ( i had very little to do with it )..

The different lenses of Pentax 110 [in mint condition] are making such "all lenses including sets" real expensive.
Because the sellings in some years within the 80th were in absolute smal scales.
with regards

PS : These very fine Pentax lenses in combination with the 110 Reflex system are responcible for best 110 "resolution".
Last is restricted not so much from smaler format and 70th films (today 110 films are much better ) but the main conflict is caused from design of 110 casettes. (plan location of film) by the way.

 

[trendland]

Hence the quotation marks around the word analog in my post..

Ähm - yes you are right - sorry pls.....

with regards

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Now something becomes more and more clear to me Theo - you did it with pocket 110....
...

The 16x20 prints were from a 6x6cm Hasselblad.

8x10 prints were from Leica M3, Pentax SP500, and even Polaroid SX-70 (scan).

The 4x6 photos are from the 110. I like them.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

"How to become an analogue photographer"?
90 percent of the contributions to the thread don't fit the theme ... What a mess.

Oh, but they do! Clearly, the way to become an analog photographer is to sit in internet forums, discuss resolution, and bash digital.

 

[macfred]

Oh, but they do! Clearly, the way to become an analog photographer is to sit in internet forums, discuss resolution, and bash digital.

I need to give some thoughts to this new insights... Maybe my course books for film related photography are hopelesly antiquated ?

 

[George Mann]

photography has nothing to do with reality. and reality is a philiosophic construct ...
to be an analog photographer just requires film and a camera .. no imagination
no reality, no conceptual imagery, no resolution just film and a camera and a shutter button ..

That may be fine for you, but not for me! I shoot film because of its greater realism, as well as the greater conceptual and imaginative control it affords me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Relax. This is exactly what stupid threads are for. Ask something irrelevant, get an irrelevant answer.

 

[removed account4]

That may be fine for you, but not for me! I shoot film because of its greater realism, as well as the greater conceptual and imaginative control it affords me.

the things i said, conceptualism, philosophy, &c they aren't REQUIRED ... the only thing that is required is a camera, something in it and a button that is pressed
some of the best photographers used to be ATM's constants making great photographs ...

 

[tomfrh]

But how to compare ?

I'm referring to the information contained within the medium, be it details recorded by clusters of film grains, or data recorded within a digital file.

So to compare I am talking about looking at the film real closely (e.g. a powerful loupe or microscope, or via projection) ,and with digital, yes on a monitor is easiest.

 

[trendland]

I'm referring to the information contained within the medium, be it details recorded by clusters of film grains, or data recorded within a digital file.

So to compare I am talking about looking at the film real closely (e.g. a powerful loupe or microscope, or via projection) ,and with digital, yes on a monitor is easiest.

Projection of film is a real exact method - indeed. The lost of quality/resolution is coming from the lens then - but in best cases it is an absolute minimum.
So if you have no details via wall projection in bigger size - there might be
also no information of higher resolution on the film. A good method from my point.

with regards

PS : I did it in my first darkroom with PanF and Durst enlarger (wall projection). The size was around 4,5 m x 2,8 m with 35mm. In such projected dimensional pictures you definitivly can't find more and more details.
But it is perfect to compare grain structure of different films.

 

[cooltouch]

I own a couple of slide projectors, but I'm not a big fan of slide projection. Not only do I believe that projection causes slides to fade if projected too much, but I also think that the quality of the projected image is entirely dependent upon the quality of the projector's lens, which is probably much lower than the IQ of the lens used to take the photograph.

 

[trendland]

I use "Schneider - Kreuznach" with my Rollei 66 projektor - not so bad from the lens.
Rodenstock is fine (but expensive) with enlargers.

with greetings

 

[trendland]

The fade of slides during projection is a bad case with Kodachrome by the way.
Kodachrome is very stable in storage condition but don't like "light".
With E6 it is just the opposite. The fading from projection is less in comparison kodachrome. But the long time storage condition is not as good.
Agfa is very special (the original stuff)

This is a crop of Agfa Ct 18 (32 years old [during military exercise] ) the colors have a shift - but it has never been projected.
with greetings

 

[tomfrh]

I use "Schneider - Kreuznach" with my Rollei 66 projektor - not so bad from the lens.

I bought that one, but it went missing (along with with other camera stuff) when I moved house

I never even got to use it.

Never label a house moving box “camera stuff”!