• 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

Which film camera would let me take these kind of photos

tobykeller

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 7, 2021
Messages
3
Location
Paris
Format
Medium Format
Hello,

I'm very sorry if this question sounds stupid as I don't have much knowledge in this matter. I was looking at Philip di Corcias stunning images and I was wondering which film camera would give me grain-free, sharp, a bit glowy images like these :












Thank you in advance!
 
PLDC has used a variety of cameras. What I think you overlook is his expertise with lighting, both in a technical sense and a more intuitive one, honed though decades of experience. More than the cameras, that's what I think you should focus on and learn more about.
 
This is not a "which camera" issue, its a "how did he light this" issue.
 
The lens choice and film stock has more influence on the picture than the camera itself. The camera has very little influence on the qualities of a final picture.
 
Film photography basically breaks down to 50% photographer 30% film materials, lighting etc, 20% lens and 10% camera.

So any camera you can mount a good lens and load similar look film will do. The rest requires a hell of a lot of understanding and work.
 
I agree that what you're probably responding to in these pictures is the lighting and (IMO) the balance of artificial lighting between main subject and background, which is distinctive and requires specific control. Especially when, as in several of these pictures, the background is behind glass. I recommend reading some resources on lighting. One that is freely available and has a lot of in-depth content is the Strobist blog. The Strobist has a particular set of techniques, which are not necessarily what PLOC is doing, but you can start looking through the blog for examples of pictures you like and then see how they were set up.
 
What you are seeing is the product of careful planning and lighting. While he doesn't discuss cameras, diCorcia discusses the making of some of his works:
 
Gregory Crewdson he did a lot of massive lighting, a lot outdoors, 8x10 film. I can't imagine trying to do what Crewdson was doing on film 20+ years ago without Polaroid, 20 assistants, etc. The scale of his work is stunning.
di Corcia's work is amazing. Planning has got to be key. Even with all the digital technology, still comes down to being able manage light and having the stamina to get it done.
 
Nothing to do with film and format at all. Those are vibrant, some are sexy, would be even with mobile phone
Bimbo is a bimbo, booze buddies are no matter which format, media is in use.

Third one looks like digital exposure with decent camera, BTW.
 
What he said... and
mehguy said:
The lens choice and film stock has more influence on the picture than the camera itself. The camera has very little influence on the qualities of a final picture.
Click to expand...
what he said.

Also, if black&white film that you develop for yourself, then you have some control via your choice of chemicals and process.
 
As the other have mentioned, he has a very high level of skill with lighting, and lighting is the name of the game. When you look at a Rembrandt or a Vermeer or a Caravaggio, you are seeing the way forms are sculpted with light. He's very good at this. If you want to learn, get a decent d!g!tal camera and use it like a Polaroid. When you get what you like, shoot it on film. You'll learn quickly.
 
Any pro film camera. It's the lighting and use of colour that makes the photographs. It takes skill not buying gear.
 
any camerawill do.
 

+1
The word photography comes from Greek origin, "drawing with light"

In cinematography, the director of photography is sometimes called lighting cameraman ("the person who designs and supervises the lighting of scenes to be filmed")
 
awty said:
Film photography basically breaks down to 50% photographer 30% film materials, lighting etc, 20% lens and 10% camera.
Click to expand...

Does this intentionally total 110% ?
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Nothing to do with film and format at all. Those are vibrant, some are sexy, would be even with mobile phone
Bimbo is a bimbo, booze buddies are no matter which format, media is in use.
Click to expand...


Err... Bimbo?

PLDC has the ability to make his pictures look very casual, but they are not casually made. He had great training and worked hard at his craft. I would like to know what film he used.
 
Arthurwg said:
Err... Bimbo?

PLDC has the ability to make his pictures look very casual, but they are not casually made. He had great training and worked hard at his craft. I would like to know what film he used.
Click to expand...

Bimbo means someone who has no money in Japanese. In Canada it once was a TV show birthday clown...
 
I’m 99.99% sure it’s a Minolta X-9.
 
NB23 said:
I’m 99.99% sure it’s a Minolta X-9.
Click to expand...
.01% says no. He shoots with strobes and sets his lighting with Polaroids (or at least used to when it was readily available and relatively instant). For his "Hustlers" series, he shot with a Linhof 6x9. The series he did with a remote camera and strobe set on scaffolding in Times Square was probably 35mm, but I don't think the Minolta X-9 is motorized.
 
I think the example photos look digital. There isn't any "film" vibe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register