OK, what are you guys buying yourselves for Christmas?

[Chr1]

OK. Last film camera I had was a Canon T90. It was kinda top of the range for its time. Back in the days of manual focus. That and a wee Olympus XA range finder compact. Many moons ago...

 

[pseudoid]

egadz, I read...

this is the first all-new 35 mm (half frame) film camera from a major manufacturer in ages.

...so many times that my eyes are blood shot.
I have this large wooden ammo-box that has hundreds of those Kodak, gray/black, 35mm canisters stuffed with rolls of 36-exposure negatives I ever got processed for over 30 years.
There are also eight 4" binders full of the photos. All sequentially and concurrently numbered negatives+prints.
For the young readers, those "binders full of photos" were called "albums"!

I don't want to relive those olden days so much that I am even resisting the pain&suffering of facing the eventuality of old age (theirs and mine) and sending the whole-lot to the landfill!

 

[Multicore]

egadz, I read...

...so many times that my eyes are blood shot.
I have this large wooden ammo-box that has hundreds of those Kodak, gray/black, 35mm canisters stuffed with rolls of 36-exposure negatives I ever got processed for over 30 years.
There are also eight 4" binders full of the photos. All sequentially and concurrently numbered negatives+prints.
For the young readers, those "binders full of photos" were called "albums"!

I don't want to relive those olden days so much that I am even resisting the pain&suffering of facing the eventuality of old age (theirs and mine) and sending the whole-lot to the landfill!

That's the saddest thing I read all day.

I got Maloof's Vivian Maier book before the lawsuits began. There's an amazing story. But there must be lots like it. Maybe yours could be one.

 

[pseudoid]

That's the saddest thing I read all day.

I hope those feelings of sadness are solely because of my plans to purge them from existence.

OT: Do you recall the aluminum, canisters w/the yellow tops?

To this day, they make me happy, when I see them.

 

[Chr1]

Used to enjoy b&w printing. "dodging" and "burning" etc.

Carbon Fibre/fiber.
Pretty cheapo but I just got a very nice carbon fiber front mudguard for my Triumph Street Triple R. Second hand but like new on Ebay for £50. £300 new. Going for maximum carbon fiber. Done now.

The old performance adage : "Just add lightness. "

(... and always aim to minimise unsprung weight. Hence, said mudguard.)

 

[Multicore]

OT: Do you recall the aluminum, canisters w/the yellow tops?

I don't remember seeing them before ever. Which makes me curious. Perhaps they were not common in Europe. I moved to USA in 1995.

 

[SIY]

I hope those feelings of sadness are solely because of my plans to purge them from existence.

OT: Do you recall the aluminum, canisters w/the yellow tops?
View attachment 389028
To this day, they make me happy, when I see them.

Pot storage cans. Blast from the past.

 

[pseudoid]

Pot storage cans. Blast from the past.

Exactly, but only for the A.gold or P.red, when you could find them.

 

[Killingbeans]

OT: Do you recall the aluminum, canisters w/the yellow tops?

I only remember the generic black plastic ones from the later decades.

When I was a kid, my dad gave me a bagful of them. Used them for all kinds of things, but mostly just filled them with baking soda and citric acid to make really crummy water activated "fireworks".

 

[ta240]

Apologies. But I don't get the resurgence of film photography. What are the advantages?
Or is it the same as vinyl, .....

I think there may be a bit of a similarity in at least one thing people find appealing about it. Taking a photo becomes an intentional act, much like playing a record. You are in the moment, you snap a picture and then you are back in the moment. You can't take 200 pictures on an hour long hike, you take two and you don't see them for awhile and when you do they are your two memories for that outing. And when listening to a record you don't have a million other songs one tap away.

It reminds me of the nextsongitis that I see so many people get with digital players. Twenty seconds into a song they are scrolling for their next one. At a vacation rental we had a party group show up next door and no song played for longer than 30 seconds before someone wanted to hear something else. It used to drive me crazy at work watching employees stand there scrolling through songs every few minutes to find what they wanted to listen to next.

I've gotten tired of hiking with people that stop every 20 feet to take another picture. I might as well be walking through a clearance sale with my mom. Are they really going to look at all of those pictures someday? Does anyone have the self discipline to delete all but the best 3 or 4 photos when they are done? Pseudoid may have albums of old photos but that doesn't compare to the thousands and thousands of digital ones that people have, and if you are willing to stand there doing nothing for 5 minutes they may be able to find the one picture they want to show you.

And why does it take 10 times as long to take a group photo with a phone? It used to be at a popular place it would only take pausing for half a moment to let someone snap a picture of their group posed by something. Now they are tapping and pinching and tapping some more while you stand there not wanting to walk through the shot?

Psychologically, I think, pictures had more meaning back then. A small box of photos from my parents youth was a fantastic glimpse into their childhood and the times. There were so few that each one was looked at and details noticed and remembered. The photo was taken for a reason and a limited resource was used up doing it. Not quite the same as high speed scrolling through an unfathomable number of digital pictures of every moment of their life.
"Wow, dad, that was you next to your first car?" becomes "So, mom, that was your 321st Frappuccino?"

 

[oceansize]

I think there may be a bit of a similarity in at least one thing people find appealing about it. Taking a photo becomes an intentional act, much like playing a record. You are in the moment, you snap a picture and then you are back in the moment. You can't take 200 pictures on an hour long hike, you take two and you don't see them for awhile and when you do they are your two memories for that outing. And when listening to a record you don't have a million other songs one tap away.

It reminds me of the nextsongitis that I see so many people get with digital players. Twenty seconds into a song they are scrolling for their next one. At a vacation rental we had a party group show up next door and no song played for longer than 30 seconds before someone wanted to hear something else. It used to drive me crazy at work watching employees stand there scrolling through songs every few minutes to find what they wanted to listen to next.

I've gotten tired of hiking with people that stop every 20 feet to take another picture. I might as well be walking through a clearance sale with my mom. Are they really going to look at all of those pictures someday? Does anyone have the self discipline to delete all but the best 3 or 4 photos when they are done? Pseudoid may have albums of old photos but that doesn't compare to the thousands and thousands of digital ones that people have, and if you are willing to stand there doing nothing for 5 minutes they may be able to find the one picture they want to show you.

And why does it take 10 times as long to take a group photo with a phone? It used to be at a popular place it would only take pausing for half a moment to let someone snap a picture of their group posed by something. Now they are tapping and pinching and tapping some more while you stand there not wanting to walk through the shot?

Psychologically, I think, pictures had more meaning back then. A small box of photos from my parents youth was a fantastic glimpse into their childhood and the times. There were so few that each one was looked at and details noticed and remembered. Not quite the same as high speed scrolling through an unfathomable number of digital pictures of every moment of their life.

If nothing else, shooting on film taught you to consider the photo you were taking, because you couldn't waste the film. None of this "I'll take 10, 20 or more and pick the best one once I get them to my computer".

 

[pseudoid]

And why does it take 10 times as long to take a group photo with a phone?

I am quite intrigued at how some people flip-out their phones to find the photo they want to show you.
So, I patiently wait and watch with fascination, regardless whether they are fast or slow; until they are about to show me some photo and I say "Sorry, I don't do phone photos!" That statement really messes up people that have become dependent on their phones. Saying it the first time does not readily register and has to be repeated multiple times.

All are borne naked, some are non-materialistic, others are collectors, few become hoarders, but all die naked!

 

[JeffS7444]

Apologies. But I don't get the resurgence of film photography. What are the advantages?
Or is it the same as vinyl, kinda retro/hipster/snake oil?
Mucho respect to the likes of Leica, Hasselblad, Rollei etc.
But surely the actual medium itself is kinda flawed and expensive like vinyl? Or no?

For ID photos or art reproduction, the highest level of fidelity is desirable. But when photographing as a creative activity (as opposed to a re-creation), it ain't necessarily so! Similarly, tube amplifiers may not be best for accurate sound reproduction, but for a guitar player, tube distortions may be an essential part of the sound.

 

[Petrushka]

Apologies. But I don't get the resurgence of film photography. What are the advantages?
Or is it the same as vinyl, kinda retro/hipster/snake oil?
Mucho respect to the likes of Leica, Hasselblad, Rollei etc.
But surely the actual medium itself is kinda flawed and expensive like vinyl? Or no?

I would trust an original negative in court above a digital image.

I spent years doing my own darkroom work and was so happy to switch to photoshop.

 

[JeffS7444]

But at $600 there are a lot of nice options. On Saturday my friend's teen daughter was showing off her Rollei 35 at a wedding. Very cute camera.

Yup. And I spent many pandemic lockdown days and nights refurbishing vintage film cameras. But Pentax 17 is something I haven't encountered before.

 

[Sal1950]

Apologies. But I don't get the resurgence of film photography. What are the advantages?
Or is it the same as vinyl, kinda retro/hipster/snake oil?

Honestly, all hobbies just seem to become more and more attractive to people, the more expense and inconvenience you add.

I don't want to relive those olden days so much that I am even resisting the pain&suffering of facing the eventuality of old age (theirs and mine) and sending the whole-lot to the landfill!

Now your catchin on.
I better not say too much, I'm already in big trouble just for telling folks the truth and saying identical things on another similar thread.

 

[JeffGB]

Film photography is an interesting artform. I no longer use film but I have a very old damaged 8x10 wooden field camera with a 300mm Kodak f4 lens. I used to make 8x10 contact prints as I didn't have an 8x10 enlarger. It's a very different experience. You have to use a separate light meter and match the results of it with your film processing to get a decent exposure. It's not something you go out and take a great number of shots with . I have backpacked with a 4x5 Linhof Technica, tripod, film holders, film changing bag, light meter etc, but I'm too old to carry a 55lb pack up a mountain for a special shot anymore. Since I started doing digital photography, I wouldn't go back, but it is special in some ways. If the processing is done well, a print can last more than a century and is much more a piece of art than a digital print.
A friend of mine had several original Ansel Adams prints done by Ansel himself. They were very special and still command high prices.

 

[pseudoid]

A friend of mine had several original Ansel Adams prints done by Ansel himself.

Oh, go ahead and post your favorite AnselAdams B&W << for those who are in the know or those about to be!
Perhaps Santa will see it and be kind to you, but only if you've been good all year.

 

[TLEDDY]

I could have bought some Ferraris and a crazy Hifi or a holiday home, but family comes first ..
[/QUOTE]

I do not know you, but your post brought tears to my eyes! I hope those who do know you understand what a wonderful human being you are!

Tillman in Florida

 

[Multicore]

Yup. And I spent many pandemic lockdown days and nights refurbishing vintage film cameras. But Pentax 17 is something I haven't encountered before.

An excellent marketing video.

I still don't want one for myself but if I was teaching a child or teenager keen on film it would be a good choice. My dad taught me photography. He had a Pentax SLR and I got a Zenit E (with light meter above the lens) for xmas and we did stuff together learning about fs and ss and dofs. This Pentax 17 is simpler in a number of ways without obscuring that technical stuff, which is quite clever. Half-frame and f/3.5 makes zone focus practical but you still have to focus and it has feet and meters on the under side. It has an unusual selection of auto exposure modes that allow you to teach the normal things we use manual or semi-auto control and learn what they do technically later.

So the video and the camera impress with their focus (hah!) on generational learning. In the West we are more used to products designed for gratification of the consumer.

And the video touches upon without explicitly mentioning the question of community. You will need film, development, printing and service.