Photography
Related: About this forumSo I'm back to shooting 35mm for lo-fi fun (rant, no pix)
Pushing Portra 3 stops, playing with cross-processed Provia (Velvia's too good to waste), trying ten-year expired stuff, so forth and so on. Posts will be coming once I get my Nikkormat and scanner workflow dialed in.
So anyway, the kids these days just buy cheap plastic cameras with cheap film and process it cheaply, then look for the few usable pictures and call them "art". I thought about doing that too, since the outlay should be fairly cheap, then I looked at what Lomography is making these days. $389 for a crap 35mm camera??!?!?! With a half day hunting on EBay I could score a Nikon F4 with two or three lenses for that price, maybe $50 more, and it would be like an F1 car vs. a Fiero with a Ferrari bodykit.
Or for about $250-300, I can get an FM2 and a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5...a guy named Steve McCurry used that setup. You might recognize a photo he once took with it.
yonder
(9,664 posts)I wish you luck on finding the film and process that works.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)I know the camera doesn't really matter, but if you have the setup and know how to use it, you can reliably make "retro"/grungy/trashy 80s-punk-in-the-Village-at-night shots a lot easier than spending $400 on deliberately shitty hardware and taking your chances.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I kinda regret selling my 105/2.5 AIS. I think if I were to have only one lens with that camera it would probably be a 55/2.8 or a 85/1.4, unless all you want to do is portrait, then the 105/2.5 is a great choice.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)The first autoexposure Nikon ever, mine is about 50 years old and it still works perfectly (after a CLA) - they simply do not make them like they used to.
I prefer the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 I have, it's one of the best lenses ever made, but I can't really get lo-res results out of it...I'm finding the gen 2 46-85/3.5 is great. It's not outright awful like the gen 1, but it's still lovely soft with a nice vignette at 3.5 and max zoom. The PC and tele glass is so-so for lo-res, but they're all of limited use.
I forgot how much fun this is, I kinda want to start doing C-41 and E-6 at home.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Even with the F3 I never used autoexposure much.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)I still shoot digital in AP...for me it's just easier, I use DoF preview if I'm worried about it, then just let the camera set the shutter. Hell, I usually set to center-weighted for the added control, I can use exposure lock - but TTL metering is just SO MUCH easier than using a separate meter. If I ever go medium/large I'm sure I'll think different but for 35mm I can't imagine it.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,106 posts)made.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)AFAIK it was the direct progenitor of the FM2 - mine is 50+ years old and still meters and shoots perfectly. Plus I can beat a man to death with it
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Lots of good memories, but digital is so much more convenient.
Nikons are certainly a good place to go for film SLRs.
If you want another good story from Steve McCurry, check out the one of Kodak giving him the official last roll of Kodachrome to shoot any way he wanted.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)When my grandfather finally quit shooting he gave it to me, along with the very nice set of lenses. It's been gathering dust for years, but I finally got around to having it cleaned/lubed/adjusted after I got a really nice scanner to digitize all the family photos (thousands and thousands, yeesh) and realized I could do pretty much all the film workflow in-house. I'll get around to doing B&W again one of these days, once I have a little space for a developing setup. Who knows, maybe even home color work!
I love the story of the last 'chrome roll. I wish I had had the chance to play with it more myself..