Black and white photos from a Voitlander

Got ahold of a Voitlander that takes 35mm film.

Not my best work -- but okay.  :)  Sufficiently arteeestic to share.  The best ones out of the batch.

Still having fun.  :)

Suggest double-clicking to enlarge them.

 

--GG

Kookaburra in my yard - Telephoto lens

 A kookaburra in my yard.

Nature documentaries would have more engaging footage:  this is remarkable only in that it's in my yard...!!!

 

 

 --GG

Some interesting double exposures

This one is interesting:  I thought I had got pretty good at advancing the film on my box cameras and avoiding double exposures -- but, apparently not!

But, I got some interesting results.

Usually I don't post my children's photos online -- but these are sufficiently obscured.

 

 

And then this one was just kinda neat.  :) (And also a double exposure.)

 

--GG

My film photography philosophy

(Dad asked whether my B&W photos were naturally grainy due to the film speed, or whether I'd added it as a digital effect)


Some of the graininess might be (over?) enlarging the digital scan (cropping).  But, yes -- I tend to "lean into" the film-ness of shooting on film -- so I tend to do the opposite of what a digital camera would do:  "sharp and color" is digital, so I shoot on a really low-res old digital camera, or on a box camera or plastic "no-focus" lens (with limited clarity, in B&W; digital is pristine -- so I shoot with 400 ASA usually; I also like the lens flares, which "works" better on film than on digital (I think.

Also "modern" lenses have better technology than (most?) lenses from the '70s -- which are sharper than (most?) lenses from the 1940s -- which are sharper than box cameras from 1910-1930.  I'm discovering that a lot of the look is in the lens itself:  cameras (at least at my price point) from a certain decade really look like that decade....  :)

So, no -- no additions in the edit.  That's a self-imposed "zen" sort of restirctiion:  a lot of people shoot on film.... and then scan it to digital and Photoshop it to death:  I don't see the point of that.  So except for when I've messed up the exposure (or:  was limited by circumstances) and have to do a "salvage job" -- I tend to keep the framing, brightness, contrast, and etc. "as it lies".  :)

As above, I'm "leaning into" the "flim" side of things:  trying to get the right framing and exposure from the get-go -- rather than manipulating it like a lot of people would with a digital image.  ;)

Oh:  I'm learning that B&W photography is akin to wine tasting:  you can choose films with more or less grain (even at the same ASA), greater contrast, sharpness, etc. (although these characteristics are all inter-linked, of course).

At the moment I'm tending towards a type of B&W film that can be processed using "normal" color developing -- because the place that develops my film can do it in-house, rather than sending it out to another lab (so, cheaper, and faster turnaround).  "Real" B&W takes a separate set of chemicals, which "normal" (smaller) labs don't do.  That "fake B&W" film looks the same to me as the other types of B&W -- and it seems that there's more camera-to-camera (lens-to-lens) difference than "film-to-film" difference.  But, I'm still new at this -- so maybe I'm just not aware enough.

--GG

Cheap black Tolne 35mm plastic camera

This set is in color, rather than black and white.  It's a point-and-shoot, doesn't take batteries:  I used a lightmeter app on my phone, and shot if the total exposure was sufficiently close for the photos to get decently exposed.

The brand is "Tolne"; not sure if the model number is on the camera.  I bought it for I think AU$15, used.  Black and grey.  

I like the look, and want to try it with some black and white film.  Unfortunately, the film got stuck partway through the roll -- and when I pushed harder, something inside broke -- so the camera no longer measures out single-frame increments:  instead, I have to guess.  I'll live with it -- but it means that I'll have to leave extra gaps between the exposures -- which means I won't get the full benefit of the roll.

As usual:  no edits; I chose the better shots from the roll; double-click to see the pics better. :) 

--GG

Ten dollar underwater children's camera

Black and white 35mm film, as shot thorough a children's "underwater" camera ("Sunnybrite") I picked up at an op shop ("thrift store" for my American readers).

 

As usual, I picked the better ones; no edits; double-click to enlarge.  :) 

--GG

Another 35mm camera in B&W

I've been tending to shoot a lot of clouds.

 

As usual:  no edits; double-click to enlarge.

 

Not "art gallery" level -- but, I'm having fun.  :) 

--GG

Recommend the movie Get Low

Get Low.  It took me 10-15 "mediocre-to-bad" movies for me to get to this one.  ;)

A "B+" recommendation for Get Low, a non-famous movie with Robert Duvall and Sissy Spacek.

Not flashy -- but immediately engaging (to me, anyhow), with an actual story trajectory and good solid dialogue (with sprinklings of quiet wit). 

Basically, a grumpy hermit comes into town and wants to arrange a funeral service for himself -- while he's still alive -- so people can share all the stories they've heard about him over the years.  I laughed a few times (some good lines), and I teared up about three times -- so, good.

A "period piece" -- but I can't quite peg the time period (1930s?).  Rural South -- but the wooded part of the South. 

For context:  I have a bunch of DVDs that I picked up for a dollar each (my viewing habits are too erratic to borrow things from the library -- I'd have to keep returning things without watching them).

My tiered system is:

1) Got bored, never made it past the first 10 minutes

2) Not horrible -- but only watched the first 10-20 minutes, never got around to returning

3) Pretty good -- finished it off in little pieces, over a week or so

4) Watched it in 1-2 days, in segments

5) Watched it in a single sitting

5-plus) Stupidly stayed up past my bedtime to watch it.

Under the above system, this one was a "4-plus":  started watching it during breakfast, but had yardwork to do so didn't finish it immediately -- but then watched sections of it whenever I took a break, and finished it at dinnertime:  so, knocked it off in a day.

--GG

Three from a box Brownie

Not terribly exciting -- but I'm okay with them. 

The best out of the roll of eight.  

Shot with an old Kodak box Brownie.  

As usual:  no digital editing; double-click to see them better.  :) 

 

--GG

Expired 35mm color slide film with my Dad's camera

 These are the selected results with 25 year old color slide film that expired in 1998:  however, my Dad kept it in the freezer all those years, and I kept it in the freezer once I received it.

Shot on my Dad's old Minolta SR T-101 that my Dad had sent to me.

As usual, these are only the better ones.  Not "as usual" is that I had to salvage some of them through digital processing (overexposed, due to user error).

As usual -- double-click to enlarge, so you can see them better.  :)

"Bracketing" the exposure:  both turned out interesting.

I also bracketed the exposure (and changed the framing a bit) for these two -- but I chose the ones with the more pleasing colors and framing.

These next photos are the ones that were pretty over-exposed (user error) -- and when I digitally edited them it introduced some funky coloration artifacts (which I kind of like). 

--GG