Art & Inspiration Film Photography & Hotrods

How's this twi-lite shot I took a few years ago. I took it with a cheapo Kodak digital point and shoot.

 

It's supposed to be about having fun. If you like shooting film or like shooting digital, then just go and enjoy.
A "great shot" is all that matters along with taking pride in your work.
The final product is all that matters. How you created your "masterpiece" is interesting but all in all the photo has to stand on it's own.
There's nothing here to debate. Cameras are nothing more than hammers. Some people like wood handled hammers while others swear by a solid steel one.
Hey........go, have fun and express yourself in whatever way you'd like to.
I've been shooting motorsports since 1962 and I've had a blast doing it ever since.
Just do it......

 

I've been pretty lazy about using my film camera's lately here's some old examples.
This was shot at midnight with a very long exposure

Some more These are all medium format taken with my Mamiya RB 67




Not film but the closet Iphone fake I've done yet

 

Parking lot light actually. Probably about 5 minutes or so. I like that Dart butt that's a nice shot

 

I might be dragging along a 35mm camera or two on my next trip....have an Argus C3 and a mid 70s Minolta SLR. Both have sentimental value. I hope they still work ok.

 

Hello,
Ryan or anyone interested in complete 35mm Canon film camera AE2 system? I bought it a long time ago and never used it...just sitting in my climate controlled closet in a new Tenba padded, camera/lens backpack. I am trying to put it in the classified section for all of those camera people. Included is a Tokina 2.8 auto 300mm lens and extenders to make them 450 and 600 mm. plus other (never used) new lenses.
I still have my 66-68 Asahi Pentax 35mm slr film cameras and lenses, but I bought this new Canon set up to do different kinds of photography. I never got the chance to do that portion of my photography. The digital era started and I needed a handy camera and video all in one (grand daughter soccer and dance era)... since this thread is for camera stuff, i thought it was the right place. if not, i will delete it asap.
Thanks,
Jnaki

 

Yeah, funny it should come up. I guess it's that time of year....lots of stuff going on.

I started playing with the Argus. Turns out it's a C2, not a C3 (no hot shoe) so it's pre war. Must be from my wife's grandfather, although we got it from her dad. I'll run a roll through it and see what happens.

 

Minolta SRT-101 and 102 is what I used when I was shooting for Cycle News. Over $2000.00 in Minolta equip over the years and now I'd have a hard time finding the stuff in my house. Now, I only shoot digital.

...we now return you to regular programming.

 

A while ago.

 

Ok, how about some technical questions? I don't know the answers, but would appreciate some inputs. Gary

- First, comparing the tonal ranges of your average old b&w emulsion like Pan-X, how does it compare to the default settings of an average digital camera set for the same ASA/ISO?

- Secondly, what is the best digital editor out there that can simulate the Pan-X's range from digital images?

 

Nice photos. Keep learning............
You should become a better photographer and find a deeper appreciation from working with film. Especially in the beginning. Are you doing your own dark room work too?
We used to shoot b/w infrared film for special effects. It's very atmospheric... There's a scene in The Wild One where Brando and Mary Murphy riding his cycle at night are rolling down some barren highway under a canopy of trees... all done on infrared b/w film.........worth a look see...
I shoot digital nearly every day for work and it's so much easier than before. No trips to the 1 hour photo shop. Not doing art but just boring real estate stuff.
Part of your education would include studying the b/w photos of Walker Evans. Especially his 1930's and 1940's work with the FSA (Farm Securities Administration) documenting rural and urban life in depression era America. They are a strong influence for me.
And of course check out the master Weegee (Arthur Fellig) who took things to another reality.............

 

It used to be that film guys were film guys because of dynamic range. These days, however, digital has caught up. For the most part a good film has 13 stops of dynamic range. These days, most good digital cameras have 14 stops.

Ryan,
Being an old fart, dynamic range is a term I've never used in relation to film. Black & White-wise, we oldsters spoke in zones and density. Film wise, and for practical purposes using roll film under a variety of lighting conditions, of the 10 zones described in most old manuals (White, Gassan, Adams) there are only about 6 useful, working zones of density (exposure) from the shadows with detail to the highlights with some detail. Exposing for the shadows, and developing to normal densities / times was the easiest way to manage a lot of film shot under a wide range of lighting conditions. You just corrected for the contrast when printing. That's how I approached it, anyway. Making a good negative in the camera was far more important to the end result than any other technical aspect to me. If either too thin (underexposed) or bulletproof (way overexposed), it was junk in the enlarger.
Although these zones were not necessarily equal / linear on the old Gamma curve and I've probably oversimplified the problem, I've always assumed that digital images gave you much more to work with. IE, they are not as contrasty and gave a more linear / flatter / wider range of tones (zones). But this isn't evidently so? Gary

PS One of the reasons I really like digital imagery is that I always hated the grain in high speed films. A grainy photo of almost anything has it's limits, eh? You only need to see one or two. Like pix of kittens stuck in trees, they get cliche' fast.

 

Hello,
One of the cool things to do during the hectic 66-68 LA rock scene was to go to concerts. This is still going on today all over So Cal. There were so many concerts at various places, it was hard to see them all. But, the notables were Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Buffalo Springfield, Spirit, Jefferson Airplane, and of course the Doors, with Jim Morrison. We saw all or most in this time period. We saw the Doors at the Kaleidoscope /Aquarius Theater in 1968. It was an outstanding concert. Here is a photo I took from the balcony using only the concert lighting and the balcony metal railing for a tripod. A fast 135 mm on an Asahi Pentax SLR. (they were labeled Honeywell in the USA) This was the best shot I could get as it was very crowded and hot. Somehow, it turned out surreal.

Thanks,

Jnaki

 

Hello,

Experimenting with your camera back in the day was interesting, even though the developing the color slides was expensive. By doing these experiments, you get to know your camera and what settings work best for whatever you are trying to do at the moment. Some of the others mentioned messing around in the darkroom…no, not that kind, but experimenting with time exposures, shadow filters, hand movements creating vintage effects, etc. All of these techniques should be in the repertoire of any photographer.

We used to roll our own b/w 35mm film in our dark rooms and also outside in the bright sun using light tight bags. This way you got to know your stainless steel containers/reels and film before you started the location shooting. A 35mm SLR camera for b/w and one for color was a must. But in order to get those super clear color shots for magazine cover shot evaluations, center spreads and single page shots, a larger film camera was definitely a must.

As clear as a 35mm slide or negative was, it was still a small image. The larger you made the photo, the more likely you were going to have more grain and focusing problems. But a larger format camera, 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ or the big guns, 4 x 5 would make unbelievable clear color shots for these proposals. But who has a 4x5 to carry around?

There have been mentioned those 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ twin lens reflex cameras all the way up to those super expensive Mamiya 645 and Hassleblad cameras. Those allowed clear negatives/slides for those color shots required by the mags. Most editors would accept the 35mm color slides, but preferred the larger format if any consideration of the subject for a spread was involved.

I loved taking photos with my old 1967 Asahi Pentax 35mm SLR camera and my twin lens 2 ¼x2 ¼ Mamiya with a pistol grip handle. Sitting in the back of an El Camino with my wife driving was how I got those crystal clear action shots using the crank on the larger Mamiya 2 ¼ twin. If I was able to purchase a “larger” format camera, my next step was to get one of those Pentax 6x7 SLR ones that looked like a blown up 35mm SLR. 2-1/4 x 2-3/4 (6x7 SLR) made a perfect 8 x 10 final photo and also fit the format of the magazines in the centerspread easily. But, they cost an arm and a leg…

The digital world creates an easier way to shoot and develop, but you must have the camera basics first and know composition as well as your subject. Yrmv

Jnaki
I used to shoot for the car/ bike magazines as a contributing editor/photographer, but I was really a backyard photographer with a good eye for angles, composition and people. I did those photo shoots just to be able to buy more photo equipment and meet interesting people. I still shot family stuff and developed most of my own, but the car fanatics and motorcycle owner/riders…what a combo.

 

While it may be open to debate, I think that automotive writers and photographers that started out using type writers and film cameras and then moved on to the digital process, are better for it. As an example, in the early sixties, I had to submit stories that were double spaced and sent via snail mail at least three weeks before the deadline. An real copy editor would mark it up and send it back for corrections. It didn't take very many rewrites and completely re-typing the material before I honed my outlining skills before actually typing the story. Cut and paste on a lap top is easy to spot as there isn't a natural flow to the material. Same for photos. Setting up a car feature and really thinking it through before snapping the shutter pays off. I see some of the guys today banging out 200 plus shots with a digital and taking more time than necessary just to find the right shot. I guarantee you that if they had to actually pay for the film and processing for those 200 shots that they would rethink their methods!

For the record, I got paid for my photos so I must be a pro photographer! On the other hand, I see many amateurs that can shoot stuff that is 10 times better than I ever shot!

 

Interesting you should mention typewriters...I found a working portable typewriter in my collection, gonna take it on the trip, also, WWII era Royal Arrow. And I'll probably just take the Argus camera, my brother might take something interesting as well, he was talking about 120 film

 

Hello,

During the 35mm SLR film camera days, there was always the chance that something like this photo would pop up at the end of the spool of film. Whether it was color or b/w. Once this technique was accidently found, more experimental ways to get creative started. Take a photo, rewind the film one shot (a lot of guessing as to how much to rewind) and take another one, preferrably one that goes along with the first shot in the roll. Sometimes, it comes out well and other times it was a mistake with the images blurred. This was getting creative with the 35mm SLR cameras and not the tricky stuff in the darkroom. The location shoots offered many ways to combine shots to get a double/triple exposure shot. Sometimes, movie cameras did the same in the editing process. Cut, edit, paste, combine short clips to get a longer movie creates accidental wonderful collection of unscheduled photos.

Digital cameras allow tons of shots for one location, sooner or later, a good one will pop up in the group, but what happened to the composition of the photo aspect of being a photographer? These digital cameras are great and allow so much access to preserving our current history that techniques sometimes go out the window. But phone cameras still do not reign over the 35mm slr style digital cameras with their more powerful system, speed and better lenses. They are just handy for the moment shot. These days, it seems like nothing goes by without someone taking a photo to record something, whether it is worthwhile or not.

One good thing for small digital cameras, they don’t take up a lot of space and you don’t have to have one slung over your shoulder and neck. Try dual 35mm full size cameras slung over your neck and shoulders for a 30 day European trip…yea then, but yuck, today…
Jnaki
bakersfield 1960

lions 1959

 

1968 35mm asahi pentax slr 1.4 50mm lens
jnaki

 

I need to go back and look over the posts here, but I forgot about this thread.

Here's some photos from a hot rod road trip I took with my wife this summer:

 

Loving the texture on the back of that Mustang!!

 

Here's a couple more of the 1964 Mustang (See, it's HAMB friendly!)

 

I have boxes and boxes of old pictures from my 35mm days. I really need to get them scanned.
Here are a few that I did scan. I used to like to try taking pictures in low light without a flash when I first got my camera . It was hit or miss, especially without a light meter.




And of course you didn't know what you had until you went and plunked down your hard earned cash to the developer, unlike digital where you can just keep looking at what you just shot to see if you have one you like. I don't know how many times I would thumb through my pictures at the photo store thinking "that ones trash, that ones trash" etc. etc.
Here are a couple I took at different settings trying to get an interesting shot. Niether one came out very well. Not having a tripod didn't help either!

 

^^ Wow that's cool. The guy who owns the place I get my film developed at in Baltimore made his living taking panoramic (including 360*) shots.

 

Wow. Super nice lens! I always loved 120 / 220 but hated the fact I had to buy film instead of loading my own. Gary

 

Thanks for starting this thread. I love photography! I would say that I'm just an amateur enthusiast. Going out and taking pictures is my drug of choice. Since i'm in the auto business, cars and automotive related objects are some of my favorite subjects. I used a bunch of cheaper film cameras in my youth and then right before my son was born I got a Canon AE1. I took thousands of pictures with that camera. Right now I'm loving the Digital age though. It's so much cheaper and easier And quicker!

 

Hello,
I used to roll my own 120 b/w film into my spun aluminum cans with stainless steel reels inside. I used a black changing bag on the road or in my darkroom at home. I used to own a plastic developing reel can, but it broke when I dropped it. So, the spun aluminum cans worked quite well. I also use a smaller size spun aluminum cans for my 35mm reels or used two stainless 35mm reels inside of the 120 can.

I did lose some of the 120 film when I cut the film reel, but the photo quality made up for that minimal loss. It was unbelievable that the quality was so much better than 35mm, but that large twin lens Mamiya with a handle was not for everyday shooting, just posed shoots. I did get some great action shots using the handle and cranking fast, though.

But, for ease of shooting anything, anywhere, the 35mm's were the ultimate. I still have my black, Asahi Pentax Spotmatic set up from 1964.

Jnaki

 

Lets see some more of that El Camino Ryan.