1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Don't forget to change the clocks on your camera equipment!

    Dismiss Notice
  3. It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of a long-standing member, Just Dave.

    Dave Barker was a member of Talk Photography for nearly 10 years, and was a prominent member for most of those.
    A very warm, friendly and enthusiastic member, he spent the largest portion of his time on TP welcoming and helping others.

    I'm sure all visitors to this site will join us in thanking Dave for his unwavering support and being a large part of our community.
    Our thoughts are with his family and friends at such a difficult time.

    Click here to join in the discussion

    Dismiss Notice
  1. Arno1405

    Arno1405

    Messages:
    58
    Name:
    Arnaud
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  2. Mr Bump

    Mr Bump

    Messages:
    5,331
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    that is bonkers.
    wow
     
    Arno1405 likes this.
  3. minnnt

    minnnt

    Messages:
    18,039
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  4. Dave-o

    Dave-o

    Messages:
    54
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Proof that pictures don't need to be super sharp to be beautiful to look at. Thanks for sharing!
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2017 at 10:18 AM
    BBR, Hugh Jarse and Arno1405 like this.
  5. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    27,528
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Interesting but the quality seems rather poor compared to Ansel Adams's shots taken with a camera of a similar vintage.
     
  6. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    8,851
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I bet it's been sat around for years!
     
  7. StephenM

    StephenM

    Messages:
    1,926
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
  8. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    27,528
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
    ancient_mariner likes this.
  9. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg

    Messages:
    5,189
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
  10. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    27,528
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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!)
     
  11. jamesev

    jamesev

    Messages:
    111
    Name:
    Jamesev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  12. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    8,479
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Superb, thanks for sharing. There's definitely something more magical about film, especially large format. It renders so much nicer.
     
  13. ancient_mariner

    ancient_mariner

    Messages:
    6,389
    Name:
    Toni
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
    jamesev likes this.
  14. jamesev

    jamesev

    Messages:
    111
    Name:
    Jamesev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.....
     
    ancient_mariner likes this.
  15. ancient_mariner

    ancient_mariner

    Messages:
    6,389
    Name:
    Toni
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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).
     
    jamesev likes this.

Share This Page