Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 27, 2012 3:05:22 GMT -5
I am not sure of course, but I think, they kept the colors at least close to the originals ( never really possible if scanning and digitising anyway, I know ). Some easy color correction or changings would have made those pictures look even better, but they obviously didn't do it. But of course ... we are looking at 4x5 inch slides here  That's the high end photography, I think. That picture looks so fantastic: www.shorpy.com/node/7031 The tonality and details. I would have never thought of 1942, looking at it. But my favorites are actually those typical Kodochrome color ones: www.shorpy.com/node/3552?size=_original Brilliant stuff !!! I woud still say, that it has been one of the biggest "crimes" in the history of photography, that Kodachrome has become discontinued. BTW, Dave ... leaving this thread for a moment, you might check out the teaser of this new movie: www.barakasamsara.com/Entirely shot on 70 mm film. Film is still a breathtaking medium ... in the 40s and still today. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 26, 2012 23:35:40 GMT -5
Just found this nice collection of high quality Kodachromes from the 40s. www.shorpy.com/Large_Format_KodachromesFantastic pictures, I think. I couldn't imagine, that color photography has been possible in this quality at that time  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 22:41:57 GMT -5
Should be okay for directly shooting the sun though THAT's exactly what will happen ... hahaha ... can you believe, that it took me years to take a closer shot of Mt. Fuji ? My wife always teased me with that: It's obviously hiding from you. ;D In Japanese, it is called "ame otoko" ... the rainy man  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 22:32:00 GMT -5
I would definitely agree with that Also Bob is right. But I think, you guys understood, what I wanted to say. The fact, that an "intelligent" camera automatic can be better ( or replace ) the photographers mind, is a fairy tale. But that's what camera makers are advertising over and over again ... and people believe in that. At least a minimum of knowledge about the camera and photography and things change a lot ... regardless, what camera will be used. I also think, that most of those newer auto cameras are badly designed. Manual setting are hidden somewhere in the jungle of the menues, if provided at all. The concept ( especially of those mom and pop ones ) is different. A bunch of complicated scene modes and other useless stuff instead of providing control over simple things like ISO, shutter speed and aperture. The best mode in my opinion would be just shutter priority ( for making sure, that there is no motion blurr ), central spot focus and fixing the ISO to a still acceptable number for avoiding picture noise. Exposure metering on field and I would say, that would provide the best average results in a just P&S situation. But honestly ... how many users are getting this far ? Most get lost in their modes and menues ... if they have read their manual at all. And people actually bought those cameras because of all those fancy auto features like face or smile detection, scene modes, motion detection and whatever. If that is not doing the job for them, what are those features for then ? ( Not my thinking, but the thinking of an average P&S user ). Comparing to this, older cameras have been already designed much simpler and efficient, already providing just the settings naturally, which I suggested. The ASA is fixed with the film and if choosing a proper shutter speed ( let's say something like 1/125 sec ), everything will be fine. Being even more lucky to have a bright standard lens like 1.9 on the Canonet or some others, it covers quite a large range of situations. Also the manual focus does not force the camera into silly apertures. It can be as simple as that ... and the central spot auto focus is also not always easy to handle. Coming back to Daves point 2, the beer ... well ;D Let's say, it is even not that easy if people or objects are moving. Just a personal habbit, but I am better using a rangefinder ( even just having a few or no beer at all ) ... ot I often just guess. In "guerilla shooting" situations, when there is a lot of action, I just trust on my experience. Choosing a proper aperture, I don't need any camera automatic to know, that everything will be sharp from 1 m to infinity and just shoot. I am 100 % confident, that the success rate is higher than any fancy face- and motion detection, field focus metering or whatever. The more complicated things are, the higher are the chances of a failure. Of course, there is always the argument, that we can immediately check the picture on a digital camera and modify our settings for another shot ( that's at least an advantage to the film cameras of the mentiones "cra@p era" ) ... but still ... a shot can often not be repeated, simply because the same situation doesn't happen exactly the same again. I noticed, that I missed a lot of good pictures on an auto designed camera ( either film or digital ), while shooting quite safe with just simple settings and just a little bit knowledge and experience. I mean really just a little bit, because things are actually not that difficult. Talking to a lot of young people about photography, so many of them don't even know what shutter time and aperture is ... and even less know, what a depth of field is. They are used to blindly trust on what their camera or iPhone is providing ... and it will become even worse, I guess. The newest generation of cellphones is even able to listen and talk So the future ( or already the present ) will look like that: "Please take a picture of my GF." "Hey ... THIS is NOT my GF. You don't know my GF ?  " ;D ;D ;D |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 21:23:37 GMT -5
How about the sun itself ? I heard, there will be an interesting happening on the 5th or 6th of June, when the Venus will pass the sun. If it's a sunny day, I might give it a try, but with my old Soligor 400 mm and extenders as well. Considering the crop factor on my GH1, I am already at 35 mm equivalent 800 mm without extender and I have a 2x and 3x one. In combination, it would already make 4800 mm, which should be enough  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 6:10:58 GMT -5
BTW, all that reminds me a little bit on the "classic" 1200 mm Canon FL lens. I always wanted to have it, but couldn't afford it yet ( pricewise and spacewise ). One day, we have been shooting a TV show in a house studio and the owner has been a camera collector too. He owned this lens, showed it to me and invited me to give it a try. WOW ... bazooka sized that thing. Beautiful piece of glass however.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2012 2:56:26 GMT -5
Dave, I still have a hard time to agree with that  Modern cameras do provide extended possibilities ... but not in the "mom and pop mode". Biggest problem is the zone focus, most P&S camera are working with in auto mode. If there is at least one object or person close to the camera, the camera becomes basically forced to close the lens down for getting everything in focus. The consequences are either motion blurr or a noisy picture at any conditions apart from a sunny day. I have a good buddy, who is really the classic technology believer. He buys every new camera, selling his old one again, living in the hope, that a camera will finally be intelligent enough to take the perfect picture automatically. We always have our friendly battles about that and the last one took place during the traditional japanese "o hanami" about a month ago. Sonys newest flagship VS my old Konica EE matic. Conditions: a cloudy afternoon in a park under trees and several cans of beer. AUTO mode 2012 VS AUTO mode 1963 ... and I was actually already pretty confident, who the winner will be ;D I would judge the success rate of the Sony at about 30 percent and the one of the film camera at about 90 percent. Of course, the Sony gets better if you choose specific settings ... but that hasn't been really possible after a certain amount of beer iPhones and Pads are at least a little bit better, because of their smaller sensor. They can keep more things in focus at F:2.8, when a larger sensored camera already needs a smaller aperture ( and therefore longer shutter times or a higher ISO ). The smaller the sensor, the better the auto features work. I have a DV-1, which can realize F:2.8 on a fixed focal lens. There is really not much, that can go wrong on that one ... but it just has a tiny sensor. That's definitely true for any camera. I can get pretty decent pictures even out of my cellphone. Why ? Because I always fix the ISO to 100 and know, when to use it ... and when not anymore. Within this limitations, it has a good camera. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 23, 2012 22:13:32 GMT -5
And I need another $ 45.000 for buying a truck and employing a bunch of assistants, I guess ... hahaha ...
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 23, 2012 11:37:50 GMT -5
I think, much depends also on how we are viewing pictures. Back in the days of the "cr@p era" Wayne is talking about, people usually had 9x13 cm prints, rarely 10x15 cm as I remember. In this format, nearly every camera is producing a "recognizable picture". I am not exactly sure if this camera is falling into the mentioned category, but I think, I used an Olympus Miu for quite a while. It has been a very popular P&S camera at that time, having a lot of auto features in a compact size. The pictures have been okay for its purpose ... but if I look at them now ? Digitised on the large high resoluted screen of a computer. Well ... but on the other hand, using much older and simplier film cameras from my collection now, the quality does still look stunning.
The more becomes taken away from the photographer and replaced my some automatic, the bigger are the chances for failures. The newer technbology hasn't always been the better one in the history of photography. Of course, there are situations even for people who know how to handle a camera, when they just want to press the shutter button. For those, I now take one of those "electric eye" cameras and always stick an external but small flash in my pocket. Very simple and reliable equipment ( for parties and other snapshot scenarios ). Using the flash at 1/125 sec and f:8, you can fire almost blindly ... but the pictures do look much better than on those compact high tech wonders like the Olympus Miu or others.
The thing is always, that camera makers try to sell the ultimate intelligent camera with every new model ... and people are believing in that. The truth is, that it is much easier taking a good picture with just a little knowledge of photography.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 23, 2012 11:03:59 GMT -5
I think, getting film processed is the main problem. Buying film is the easier part. Even living in a big city like Tokyo, I order nearly all films online - mostly from overseas, www.fotoimpex.de/anglicus/index.html is a good suplier for me, because they actually do have all type of films, chemicals or whatever at a decent price and offering a good service. Film doesn't expire so soon. So, I usually order a bunch of different film types and saving the consumer tax if ordering from overseas, it's getting cheaper than buying stuff here in a local store even paying for the shipping. Getting all the stuff processed is more difficult though. But I am pretty sure, that there are online services for that too. As I remember, even in the golden age of film, the E6 process hasn't been available in local stores ( at least in Germany ). They sold slide films always with an envelope and it had to be processed somewhere in a central lab. Even more adventurous, the famous Kodachrome or 8 mm formats. As I remember, the only 8 mm film I shot as a little boy with my grandfathers super 8 mm motion picture camera needed to be send to the United States for becoming developed. It took about two months until I got it back and that must have been somewhere in the 70s. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 22, 2012 22:58:48 GMT -5
The only thing, I can say is: I am happy, that film is still around. It's everybodies own choice if he wants to use digital or film and I wouldn't even care if 99 percent are shooting on digital ... as long as I can still shoot on film Talking about Tokyo, at least the C41 process is still available in every local photo shop in the neighbourhood here. Costs between 8 and 10 dollar incl. CD and takes about one hour. E6 and B/W developing is available at the bigger shops in the bigger centers of the city. Small shops do only have color picture film for sale ( 400 and 800 ASA ), but in the bigger stores, every common film type is still available. More exotic films like B/W slide film or panchromatic B/W, I order online. So ... how small the shelves for film are, there is still a chance for shooting film if somebody wants to. I am already happy about just that. |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 22, 2012 11:17:41 GMT -5
It's not only about film, Wayne. I can't even remember, when somebody showed me a printed photograph ( I mean, on paper ) last time. The viewing and sharing of pictures is mostly digital meanwhile.
However ... I also see benefits for film in that. People can suddenly see, how good the quality of a properly scanned medium format silde film or even 35 mm actually is ... or the quality of vintage cameras. We have often seen just relatively tiny prints out of them in the past.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 22, 2012 11:05:58 GMT -5
Oh yes ... I remember that era well ... and I have also been a "victim" of it. If I look at those pictures now ... horrible ... and I am quite angry about myself for not using a "decent" camera at that time.
But it's actually not only an issue of that specific era. It continued with digital P&S cameras and cellphones up to the present time. If I look at all those pictures, posted by friends at Facebook every day, I would say, that convenience is obviously valued over quality. Those cameras are just working fine in good daylight ... but honestly, every camera does. But only very less people obviously mind to get pictures with a lot of picture noise, motion blurr or messed up colors.
It probably just started in the 80s and 90s ... or maybe even earlier ? I read an interesting article about Agfa box cameras recently. The Agfa company did a research on customers habbits shortly after WWII. In their report, they stated, that the average customer for cameras is not capable of understanding the connection between aperture and shutter time. That's why they decided still producing those quite simple box cameras still in the 50s ... with great success BTW. Interesting, isn't it.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 20, 2012 7:52:39 GMT -5
Congratulations !!! Nice camera |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 19, 2012 5:34:10 GMT -5
Fantastic, Curt. Thanks a lot !!!
|
|
That's the high end photography, I think.
" 
Modern cameras do provide extended possibilities ... but not in the "mom and pop mode".