Registered: Aug 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 3598

I see so much talent here: people can make, draw, do cool Flash stuff...
I find the only sort of thing related to art that i enjoy is taking photos. Crappy, normal, basic photos. And then i like to scan them and go at them with Photoshop to try and make them look like they were taken 50 years earlier. I don't know why.....i like the way old photographs look. I'm thinking of getting a really cheap old camera so i can just take scratchy photos without having to manipulate them on my comp.

So i guess i'm a 'dabbler' ..i appreciate photography and art but i can't consider myself someone who seriously does it.

I imagine there must be other people whom feel this way.
But back to the photography thing....can anyone recommend a good type of "old" camera? I often see my friends talk about the "argoflex" camera.....not sure if it's expensive or not but apparently they love the effects the camera gives.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7148

i disagree; you have more talent than just a "dabbler". you have a good eye for balance and color. i remember when you posted your digital collages before (or maybe i just saw them on your website), and i thought they were really nice. do you still have any of them?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 3598

Thanks.... i have them still up on my site, i don't recall if i ever posted them here (i admit i don't give the art forum as much attention as TLF and IOD). Well i guess dabbler wasn't the right word, i guess i mean basically that while i enjoy doing it, i could never do it professionally or competitively because of either the pressure or the lack of creativity or both.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Posts: 2109

My thoughts are this. If you are going to buy the film, get them developed (about $10.00 per 36 roll so far - unless you develop your own). I would stick to digital, then go ahead and use your digital darkroom (you can make a Photoshop action so your photos have a consistant look - you probably knew that already though). You can easily upsample a good digital camera to make some decent 8x10's (either printed out with your own printer, or taking it somewhere to be done at about $3.00). You have instant gratification with a lot less cost.

Just my opinion, either way you can always check www.photo.net . There might be info on old cameras, etc.

CAL :cool2:

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 3598

Thanks! While developing my own film sounds like A LOT of fun, i would probably fuck it up. I've had no type of photography/related area training in my life.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: library
Posts: 19584

To be honest, it's not that hard. One of my uncles, is a photographer, quite a good one and he also has a successful commercial photo developing studio. I worked with him one summer and learned a lot about developing(though not nearly all). He had this one rather cool machine, called the CIBA machine. It was some sort over glorified photocopier so far as I could tell, but it was used a lot for making reproductions of the sort of old photos you are talking about making yours look like. I spent hours working with that thing, adjusting levels to make the reproductions come out just right.

If you're talking about black and white film and developing it yourself, I say go for it. B&W developing is, well pretty damned easy.

I took photography in high school. I drove the instructor nuts because I already knew everything he was trying to teach, he refused to allow me answer his questions.
"Yes, Eric, I know you know, I'm trying to find out if the rest of the class knows."
"Who cares what they know?"
"I do, that's my job."
"Eh, sucks to be you."

-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged