that is bonkers.
Proof that pictures don't need to be super sharp to be beautiful to look at. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting but the quality seems rather poor compared to Ansel Adams's shots taken with a camera of a similar vintage.
I bet it's been sat around for years!
It appears to be being used hand held, rather than on a tripod. I'd hazzard a guess that that also means that the lens is being used wide open with limited depth of field. Some of the photos appeared to show vignetting, again more likely if the lens (I wonder what it is?) isn't stopped down. They do seem similar to Jacques-Henri Lartigue's Le Grand Prix A.C.F of 1912.
Thank You, Stephen! When I first saw the thread title, I was 1/2 expecting to see the sloping wheel "zooming" shots by Lartigue but couldn't remember his name!
Reading the text of the article, it seems that the photographer can be bothered to measure the physical size of the aperture and judges the shutter speeds to be "slow and kinda slow" rather than bothering to find out what either parameter actually is. It's an interesting article but more of a 1st year student experiment than something deserving this kind of exposure IMO.
From my experience shutter speed becomes more theoretical the older the camera gets even if you used a tester odds are it wouldn't be the same two shots in a row especially out of the lab.
Would be well within 25% or so I would think though and the apertures would be constant so would be well within film's latitude (neg, not slide!)
It's great that people are still using these as you can try to replicate old school with digital and post but it just never has that authenticity. However I suspect this is more of a talking point which gets the recognition.
Superb, thanks for sharing. There's definitely something more magical about film, especially large format. It renders so much nicer.
Mixed feelings about these. Some are good, some just seem poor photographs with little merit to them other than that they were taken with an old camera. It's not about whether they are sharp or blurred, whether vignetted etc, but composition and exposure (printing exposure, since this is B&W film) doesn't always look good.
They reminded me of what happens when we do intentional camera movement shots - most are best suited to the bin, while occasionally there will be the odd gem. *Some* of these have that beckoning for the bin look to them, while some are great.
For me it's akin to owning and driving something like a Bugatti T13 on a best time hill climb event. It might be worth just shy of a million and be 92 years old and made in an era when car building was an engineering exercise rather than an economic one but actually is outperformed by a 2nd hand Citroen Saxo VTS. The nostalgia is great but achieving an end result.....
Quite. It's the doing that's fun, but probably best not to actually look at the results. However as I said, some images were great - just need a little less awe about the camera and a little more photographic sensibility (and I have trouble telling a good shot from a bad one too).
But this is all about the camera? Otherwise he'd be using a 1dx2! The results are just a point of interest really!
Thats weird, it shows Arno1405 as the author when it was me??
I disagree; based on the main caption which is 'Joshua Paul has spent four years using a camera from 1913 to take stunning pics'. As has been mentioned I don't think they are a stunning output. However I would say, and this doesn't seem to be the focus of the article tag line. The technique that he has honed and going back to pre in camera metering, auto timed shutter and all the other things modern DSLRs take the burden from the photographer that are still with Joshua in this project is admirable and stunning.
I guess what I meant is the camera itself is central to the exercise being undertaken.
I went to the local tip with my dad when I was about 14 and found a Kodak Junior from 1904, it was well battered and the shutter didn't work. Being nosey, I took my dad's micro screwdrivers and took it apart only to find a spring had obviously come lose, once reattached, hey presto the shutter worked
So then I bought a 110 B&W film and shot the full roll of our house on a sunny day - it had two indicated shutter speeds 1/25th and 1/50th and 4 apertures (1,2,3 & 4) as I recall. When the prints came back from the lab they all looked exactly the same; which I took to mean the auto lab had managed to easily adjust the prints to be 'nice' regardless of the settings used
And that's what I see here in the F1 story - I doubt the tog is doing anything more than 'sunny' = 1/50 and No:4, 'dull' = 1/25th & No:1 - the film's latitude and the lab is doing the rest
Some are nice, but its a fun (if a little pointless) exercise for me. So what that the camera is 104 years old, its all just glass a hole, a shutter and film, it being 104 probably makes it easier to use than some modern ones with all that metering & focusing stuff to do
Apparently it's one of these: http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C299.html
TBH it doesn't look especially challenging to use - not much worse than a Lubitel TLR or even my Bronica ETR, other than (presumably) having to change film backs for each shot.
At least we now know who your alias here is.
There was another thread in OOF (IIRC) on the same subject and his was started before yours so although yours was in the correct place rather than OOF, his was older so his is the first post in the merged threads (at least I'm pretty sure that's what happened!)
I personally didn't see it as pointless, well maybe the end product in comparison to todays DSLR, but I guess it refocuses (excuse the pun) the photographer back to the fundamentals of photography