My return to the hobby after a long absence

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by richardsfault, Mar 6, 2004.

  1. I was an avid 35mm photographer with a Minolta XG-7 in my later
    college days at the University of Rochester.

    I had taken images of everything from flower closeups to my
    present-day wife during our first years of dating.

    Except for a few prints in albums, most of these were stored in boxes
    and largely forgotten. I had many B&W negatives that had never even
    been printed due to being developed my myself in a college photo
    class.

    As my life went forward into my career, children, etc, and the advent
    of the digital age. The 35mm hobby survived a few years into my adult
    life, but was gradually displaced by the compact 35mm automatic (IMHO
    glorified Instamatic) cameras, and last year, A Sony Cyber Shot
    digital camera (also in ways an Instamatic).

    The first hints of what was to come was when I began taking some
    garden pictures with the Sony camera. I brought back memories of the
    XG-7. I realizied that digital photography was a great tool, but it
    lacked the soul and intimacy of 35mm.

    The watershed event was the purchase of an HP scanner by a family
    member. It was only $100, and I wondered just how good it could be. I
    began testing it on my old photos, and was jolted back to my past as I
    began seeing images of my wife and I leap out on my monitor in JPG
    format.

    Have any of you done this and found it to be emotionally
    gut-wrenching? For a few days, it was as if I had seen the most
    intense movie imaginable, and fallen in love with a character to the
    point of not being able to think about anything else.

    There is nothing a 35mm image of a subject that has feelings for the
    photographer! I'm not talking anything dirty here, just everyday
    images. I also discovered that the format brings out the warmth and
    passion in other people as well, even strangers at times. The same is
    true for plants and animals, and even inatimate objects.

    There is no way my Sony digital camera could ever touch this.

    I will following up with a more down-to-earth posting dealing with
    techincal issues.

    If you would like to see some of these scans, visit

    http://www.richardsfault.com/Rochester81.html

    Some of my digital efforts can be seen at

    http://www.richardsfault.com/autumn.html

    http://www.richardsfault.com/gardening.html




    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
     
    richardsfault, Mar 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. richardsfault

    Mike Guest

    Why don't you bring out that old Minolta XG-7? If you no longer have one,
    check eBay. I love 35mm with my Minolta X-700.

    I agree. However some here, such as Sporado, will completely dismiss your
    nostalgia.

    I enjoyed looking at some of your pics. Seems that your college days were
    much more lively than mine!
     
    Mike, Mar 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I still have it. Nothing I own brings back more memories.

    I just used it for the first time in years at a company party.
    Flashless shooting a dimly-lit pool hall facility. I can't wait for
    our upcoming picnic in a few months.

    The initimate nature of the format became apparent again. My favorite
    technique is stay out of the way and get 200mm telephoto shots of the
    actions. Nothing like getting a good stealthy portrait of someone.

    I used these technoques in many of the mime/juggler images on my
    college page. Those types are naturals in front of the camera!

    Here is a favorite:

    http://www.richardsfault.com/Rochester81/Dandelion Day-1980-11.jpg

    Another favorite was the 28mm wide-angle. Here is a good example:

    http://www.richardsfault.com/Rochester81/Dandelion Day-1980-02.jpg




    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
     
    richardsfault, Mar 6, 2004
    #3
  4. richardsfault

    columbotrek Guest

    I also have a box full of 35mm B&W negatives from the 70s. And a larger
    box of B&W prints I made in my dark room. I laughed when I saw your
    hemp plant image. I have one of those in my box also. Now after 30
    years they are more special to me than they were when I took them.
    Shutter Bug on Dude.
     
    columbotrek, Mar 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Please scan and share!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

    Richard's fault!

    Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
     
    richardsfault, Mar 6, 2004
    #5
  6. richardsfault

    Eric Miller Guest

    Sounds like nostalgia. It tends to grip us all as we grow older.

    However, the format is 24x36mm film. It isn't "intimate," nor does this
    particular format bring out "warmth" or "passion" nor does any film or
    camera. There were people who claimed, and still do claim, that vinyl has a
    "warmth" that digital CD's lack. It's all in the ears of the listener or, in
    the case of film, the eyes of the beholder.

    Your Sony Cybershot, due to its physical limitations, won't let you stand
    back and take a 200mm telephoto shot of actions because it probably doesn't
    have the lens to do this just like no "instamatic" could do it either even
    if that "instamatic" used 35mm film.

    More importantly, your Sony Cybershot cannot travel back in time to take the
    photos of you and your college friends back in 1979 and 1980. So, no, it
    cannot ever do what 35mm film has done for you. However, if you step up to
    the digital plate and purchase a 6+mp DSLR and lenses suitable to needs, it
    will be capable of producing images that are technically, if not
    artistically, better than the scans of your prints and negatives, i.e., they
    will have less noise and will likely produce noticeably sharper prints than
    can be made from scans of your film and prints, though prints from your film
    might actually still turn out better.

    I freely admit that "better" is purely subjective. But so is "warmth," and
    "intimacy." Ultimately, film might better suit your needs, but if you are
    interested more in the final image than the tools used to achieve it, you'd
    be foolish to perfunctorily dismiss digital cameras as a means of obtaining
    digital images or prints.

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Mar 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Helge Buddenborg, Mar 7, 2004
    #7
  8. richardsfault

    Bob Hickey Guest

    "The Photographer", despite the catchy title, is a really good one too.
    Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Mar 7, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.