photo-breezing

fucking amazing stuff in the link which my iPad is struggling to paste here

no they're astonishing; something really unusual in the rendering of light
also the idea that this was intentionally composed in-camera is mind-expanding

http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/street-photography-hong-kong-memoir-fan-ho-341.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6sI3y5F.gif

photo-drizzling

http://i.imgur.com/ejsTtO6.jpg

https://placesjournal.org/article/swingsites-for-singles/

http://craigslistimages.tumblr.com/

criagslist mirrors guy starts a more general craigslist images blog

Feel like there was one of these already

Can it fill the void left by internethistory??

fantastic.

http://souleyes.tumblr.com/post/105986667580

Christmas office party from '66

^ Found out that was on LEns orignally (I am very far behind on my blogroll)

http://i.imgur.com/qnVk80o.jpg

I really like the balance and heft of this picture

do these men have really big coats on or is this a couple of men with very small heads or ???

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7517/15942169800_ed9800d88e_c.jpg

the one on the right in particular

Big coats, looks like a wide-angle camera lens (uncorrected too) which exagerrates features closer to the camera like their hands

that makes sense
i follow this romanian photo archive on flickr so i can look at ppl's faces and noticed that these heads are rly small!

http://dig-image.tumblr.com/post/106505312068/yuan-dongping

http://instagram.com/p/q73vLIR2OT/?modal=true

finally catching up on this thread, thanking everybody for the amazing links etc. those hong kong street shots, wow.

fao nyc-
http://amandajas.tumblr.com/post/107431536807/prattphotography-pratt-photography-lectures

also like

http://36.media.tumblr.com/da2a4a10656dfd22b4a860405e029330/tumblr_nhkyd6P91F1qm2tbjo1_1280.jpg

amanda jas

Reaaly keen to get a copy of standing trap http://www.modesvu.com/tagged/standing-trap

hey photo breezers

i think about film & digital all the time, & i take my camera everywhere, taking photos with film. over the last couple years i felt like i got less & less out of the medium-specific qualities of film - its richness & grain, its kinda hypothetical $lide-film primary colour vibrancy - & more & more out of what digital images could be like, either seeing my own blurry cellphone pictures, watching new digital films that understood light in a new way or appreciating the people i knew online who played with digital & made images that felt fresher & newer than mine, pictures which weren't so weighted down by the thing that, i forget, garry winogrand or walker evans talked about, how we know what a picture's meant to look like, which could instead really make images you'd be confronted by, rather than judging the success or mastery of, informed by established guidelines. anyway, because my otherwise adequate & appealingly-shitty cellphone camera is slow, i am kinda interested in buying a digital camera. i don't really know anything about them, & find it difficult to research, because, as a contrarian, the characteristics i want are things that are generally perceived as negatives in the digital-camera-consumer-advice world, to be able to cultivate grain & blur & to work in lo-res & to be quick & not sharp & to be open to digital error. i don't really have a specific question here but i wondered if anyone had any guidance, or had a camera they liked, or had advice about avenues i could look into; cameras that were weird or were discontinued or, by virtue of being where it was at in 2006, would adequately serve my lo-tec needs. i don't think i'm necessarily looking for the kind of perverse holga-ish complement to a more straightforwardly, technically functioning primary machine; just something that's normal & uncomplicated & adequate. film is still interesting to me, & all the time i see pictures that kind of almost just theoretically couldn't exist as digital images, to me - this sarah soquel morhaim picture, say - & i can imagine shooting black & white film & using digital for colour, keepin' the flame burnin'. but i am sort of tired of film i think; it feels narrow & digital feels open. the experience of being alive feels digital, & the amount of time i spend staring at screens seems to have re-weighted the balance of what colour feels like in the world, these very equal plains of unnuanced tone stretched before me all the time. can i play with any camera? can i attach a russian dashboard cam to a bike helmet & just wear it all the time? should i just buy coloured pencils instead? breezer assistance appreciated.

Would you be thinking of getting a digital SLR or a compact? There must be loads of compacts available second hand that would fit the bill you describe, without requiring much outlay if they're not what you wanted.

I feel ya schlump. I"ve thinking of switching to digital too, mostly because of new constraints of my daily life, been thinking about what to get

Have some old and very old digital compacts at home, worried that they might be perceive as too HOLGA ESQUE

My feelings about digital are still kinda unchanged in that I think the output is m/l the same across models - the differences are such minutiae

That it's just about finding one that you feel 'comfortable' with

Most 'professional' and pro-am digicams are so feature packed

That maybe you just default to your phone's camera, or you should buy one of those dummy, easy-use cams (which I think are rapidly dying out as most mftr's realize people are content with tehir phone cams)

hey thanks, folks.
i guess i am thinking of getting a compact, just because those big cameras always seemed so terrible, & complicated, &c, the options, although i feel like i would really miss the focus wheel of an slr so who knows.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61qWLit7dIL._SL1001_.jpg

&, re the output is m/l the same across models: this is really true, & took me a long time to notice; i think there are several-shots-a-roll where it isn't the case, if i'm taking pictures of people & at least just the kind of control i'm familiar enough to be able to exercise using an slr affects things, but most of what i take is just a kind of recording, so, anything would be fine. at the moment it makes me kinda uncomfortable to exist too much in viewfinder world; even my cellphone camera neatly files away everything i take without showing it to me, so you're still looking at the image as a viewfinder rather than a gauge of success/failure. digital can be really casual in a way i like. am looking around for something cheap & bad. i love these david hockney pictures he took as stills from a videocamera he was playing with in 1990-

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/P/P20/P20140_10.jpg

I like my digital SLR and wouldn't be without it - even if I don't carry it everywhere with me due to bulk. I bought a Fuji X10 as a kind of remedy to that, but I rarely use it. I use the camera on my phone for general snaps or "visual note taking" (mostly puppy photos, recently) and probably prefer carrying a film compact for snapshots if that's the route I'm going down.

We must be getting to the point where old digital cameras are cheap enough to pick up out of curiosity and the "lower" image quality becomes a fetishised aesthetic.

IH is back btw http://i.imgur.com/2OccVKS.jpg

The thing is, digital photography isn't just a camera, it's a camera plus a computer. I find it quite hard to get out of the mindset of "what can I do with this scene in post?", even though most of what I do in post is exactly the same (gentle S-curve, clarity, lens geometry fixes, noise reduction).

Schlump - I'd recommend getting a used DSLR from 2007-08, maybe, pre-video, pre-super high pixel counts, pre-hi-res LCDs; perhaps a Nikon that you could put a cheap, manual-focus 50mm on. It should be possible to do that for $100-$150? The problem with compacts is that you may not be able to quite as easily escape from the processor's "auto-correct" world view. I guess it's that balance between giving it up to chance (compact makes the focus/exposure decision, with unexpected results... though usually, they're entirely expected) and wresting control from the device (DSLR: de-focus, over-expose, (de-)saturate, etc).

The "camera plus a computer" thing is a great point and one I hadn't even thought to mention - maybe just seems second nature now? I always shoot in RAW and find it difficult to hand control back to the camera now, even snapshots get run through Lightroom. Sometimes feels like I'm wasting a lot of the capabilities of the camera (and probably covering over weaknesses in my technique), though.

thanks so much, michael - michaels - that's a really thoughtful post, & some kind of weird historic DSLR is maybe appropriate. a couple of nights ago i found a bunch that i thought at least looked cool but the photos i'd find tagged with the model # on flickr still had this weird digi-gloss i couldn't shake.

i'm not 1000% sure about the camera-computer dynamic thing, just kind of remembering how i use my camera. i know that if i was a printer then printing would be as much what taking photographs was about for me as the taking photographs part. you know? like the people who are invested in that plain of how the images present have this whole other responsibility & perspective. & with a camera so much of the satisfaction for me is still its weird internal processing; i don't really shoot slide film anymore but it feels kinda alchemic, the apparatus having some sort of integrity in re-scrambling together outdoor textures into the emulsion & plastic you feed it. & i don't know, i can't think any further than the camera i'd buy giving me immediately satisfying images, even if they're satisfying in different ways, like i said, flawed or weirdly glowing or whatever. it is cool thinking about this stuff, maybe i will post some cellphone snaps i like sometime.

totally feeling michaellambert's post - I love my RAW/Lightroom workflow for making my architecture photos look as good as I can try and make 'em... but then somehow even quickie snapshots become projects deferred over months in the to-do list. Maybe I should switch to "RAW+Jpeg" so I have the option of just taking what the camera gives me and not fucking around as much. Or look into presets for approximating the camera JPEG, anyway.

I gave up on RAW+jpeg, all I ended up with was loads of unused jpegs as I couldn't leave the RAW files alone.

Well, I’m not an actual photographer and don’t aspire to be one, but I started putting some effort into photography last year to make sure what I posted to Instagram didn’t suck. I had to delete a lot of crappy pictures from my account to get to a place where I was satisifed, to a degree at least, with what I had out there, but: http://shoutkey.com/pageantry

Mostly VSCO Cam + time in the woods and on location at other places, taking a bunch of photos and deleting most of them. I’d like to take more this year and maybe try out some of the other mobile photo software out there too.

(Sorry if this isn’t the right photography thread for this post btw.)

I really like VSCO Cam.

Yeah, it makes my stuff look way better.

that photo you posted yesterday was excellent

Thank you nakh!!

(Lake in my town btw.)

http://internethistory.tumblr.com/post/108858003173

ha, my gf's roommate has this

Seems like a bad time to develop some weird ganglion or bone spur on the distal inter-phalangeal joint of my right middle finger. Can barely hold a bloody camera! Obv not mentioning this to folks from whom I'm trying to get photo gigs. Ibuprofen, I guess.

http://i.imgur.com/EcqCrF2.png

IH

schlump i feel you on your reasons for sticking with what you stick with. weird historic DSLR is maybe appropriate. it doesn't feel like a weird historic dslr to me but i have a canon eos 300d, grey plastic, came out in 2003 and i bought it for $50 i think at don's photo in suburban vancouver. you can go to best buy and buy a lens that fits on it and it makes beautiful pictures but the viewscreen is really low res and doesn't show you any flaws but lets you check basic framing and isn't distracting and all controls are on dials and buttons up top and it's easy to use and it doesn't use sd or modern storage (i forget what it uses, some big chip thing) so it slows you down from taking a billion shots on a card and it has okay autofocus so i can use it like i'd use a film point&shoot.

http://barnacleisland.tumblr.com/

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7550/16282160905_5dfe0aa8a6_o.jpg

from the historic dslr

http://i.imgur.com/ZTCXmOq.jpg

it doesn't use sd or modern storage (i forget what it uses, some big chip thing)

Compact Flash. Probably more robust than SD and still used in the pro models, but sadly about twice the price of SD these days (was the other way around 8-9 years ago).

300D was my first DSLR; it was great. This is the last photo I ever took with it, on my daughter's 4th birthday. The shutter mech died minutes later.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3614/3289178910_702e20ff56.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL0MvHpieaE

Stoked

dude just straight wiping down that negative huh

damn

oh my god can these negatives please surface please

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/23/jeb-bush-releases-his-only-wedding-photo-that-wasnt-destroyed-by-a-frank-zappa-concert/

lol
imagining a kind of rauschenbergian collage