What can you tell me about vintage cameras? I'm look for something from around the 1960s era. I like the way picture from that time looked and I'd like to get a camera from that era.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 511
>>2811107
Pictures from that time looked that way because of the film (which you can't get anymore) the time it's been since they were printed (can't really be faked) and the content of the photos which was all period correct 60s clothing, haircuts, cars, decor, lighting, and colors. None of which will be present in your photos.
Buying a camera from the 60s will take photos that look the same as they do from a camera released in 2006, except maybe less sharp.
>>2811108
That sucks. Thanks anon. I guess my hipster fantasy will never be fulfilled.
You need a Leica M2 and a 50mm Summilux
>I like the way picture from that time looked and I'd like to get a camera from that era.
T E S S A R
E
S
S
A
R
srs. you wont be dissapointed.
>>2811108
This
You will never take photos that look that way (other than landscape shots) because every street has been replaced with hideous strip.malls, ugly signs, ugly cars and fat people.
>>2811129
>hideous strip.malls, ugly signs, ugly cars and fat people.
its horrible. also "urban culture" like pieces of shit graffittis and dumb hair trends.
>ywn 50s americana/road trip ala eggleston and david shore
>>2811108
I don't know why you would say that about the film and "time it's been since they were printed". If you shoot the film the only difference really is the subject of the photographs which you won't be able to emulate unless you shoot very good reeanacters.
>>2811107
Vintage '60s film camera will take pretty much the same photos as a 90's autofocus SLR film camera, the only difference is the lens quality and that old cameras have less automation/metering to help you out. Camera itself doesn't generate the picture - film does. The film emulsion formulations that were used at the time are much different from those sold today, because like digital sensors, film products have evolved over the decades, with faster speeds, less grain, better color rendition and so on. Your best bet at emulating 60's aesthetics would be to take photos with whatever and add the effects in post production. Otherwise you can experiment with expired film, pushing/pulling, and producing darkroom prints, to try get that same look. And like >>2811129 said, the sceneries just aren't there anymore. Buildings look different, people look different, cars look different, the 60's is gone and will never be back unless you stage it.
Pic related, taken with 50's medium format folding camera on Kodak Portra 400 film, the only editing done is downscaling and sharpening. Might as well have been taken on my cellphone.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:05 23:56:00 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 2079
get this shit straight:
youll never ever classic kodachrome 64. yes, the chrome that saul seiter, bill eggleston and ernst haas used is fucking gone and no vsco or even expired film will get you anywhere close.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 7198 Image Height 1558 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1600 dpi Vertical Resolution 1600 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:11:29 01:43:37 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 941
>>2811140
Film from 66 years ago was different than the film you can get today, in most cases. Especially film that was famous for its unique look in the 60s.
Prints also deteriorate and fade. Super high quality archival stuff maybe not, but the things that OP is likely exposed to, certainly.
>>2811149
>better color rendition
negro, please.
>>2811153
Fine, _different_ color rendition, the point is you can't really get the same look from modern films. Which is unfortunate, I love the 60's aesthetics as much as the next guy.
>>2811157
>literally retarded
>Edit: edited for harsh language
>>2811107
Is that a Canon Demi? Half-frame cameras look really cool.
>>2811178
id marry that camera. it has given me more happiness than all my gfs combined.
>>2811161
Good point.
shoot everything at f16
Fun fact: it is said that the Coloroid color system (which is a color system akin to sRGB or Munsell) was unintentionally influenced by the aesthetics of the 1980s period during which it was designed, even though it was designed to be "objective" and "perceptually uniform." Even when you're converting raws today, you're using these color profiles that are basically just a product of someone funcking with the sliders and although we may not realize it now, they are probably influenced by today's aesthetics. So worry not OP, in 50 years the photos that you're shooting today will have the distinctive color rendition of the 2010s which some neo-hipsters will undoubtedly be trying to emulate.
>>2811107
there was an anon that had that very camera, but with yellow leatherette. looked /fa/ as fuck. are you there, anon san?
>>2812287
It might be custom replaced. I only know of the red one. Canon designed good looking cameras back then. What happened now?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 443 Image Height 332
>>2812287
>>2813973
There was multicolour FEDanon?
>>2811108
lots of cameras back then were shot from different angles depending on where the viewfinder was
most people these days shoot from their viewfinder like in OP's pic because for some reason this is the only acceptable way according to some retards
the "film look" is just bullshit
also
>less sharp
completely reliant on the camera
there are film cameras that can take photos at a higher "resolution" than most digital cameras today
Hey, i'm fairly new to photography and I've been wanting to start with SLR cameras for a while now. I found two different cameras (Canon FX 35mm and the Praktica MTL3 35mm) and i was wondering if someone could tell me which one is a better camera in general. Oh and also the Praktica comes with 2 lenses (a Helios Auto Wide Angle 1:2.8 f=35mm and a Hanimar Automatic 1:2.8 f=135mm) however the canon does not come with an extra lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D70 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 946 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 105 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2006:03:18 16:37:03 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/10.0 Exposure Program Manual Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 70.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 600 Image Height 399 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Soft Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2815302
The Canon is a better camera but the two lenses are pretty cool. What do you want to take pictures of? Which lens comes comes with the Canon?
>>2815529
not too sure yet since im only starting out. the canon comes with a FL 50mm 1:1.8 Lens
>>2815536
Put a couple of rolls through each and see which you like better.
Keep notes of conditions when you took various shots so you're not relying on memory too.
>>2813973
I don't think Canon actually designed that camera. I think they produced somebody else's design. Some versions of the Demi say Bell & Howell on it.
