Hacker News Reader

Comment by MarcelOlsz | Hacker News Reader

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.

View on HN

I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there it definitely registers as “camera” far more than a phone. Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on special occasions — trips, hikes, etc. It’s not worth all that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.

Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?

I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option.

I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate investment of time and money for a small number of photos.

Curious how 4x5's inconvenience is "proportional" while 35mm's is "hugely disproportionate". I'm not familiar with the specifics of these formats, but you seem to be arbitrarily drawing the line for where the added friction is still serving the "magic" I believe is very real if not fragile. I think you recognize the value of photography isn't solely in the product. I'm curious what you personally find in 4x5 that saves you from these younger artist's silliness.

It takes about 10 minutes to take a single 4x5 photo, and you have to carry around a tripod and a fairly bulky camera to do it. So the time and effort invested in taking the photo is similar to the time and effort required to develop and scan the negative.

In contrast, a 35mm camera is very convenient and you can expose an entire 30 frame roll of film in a few minutes. But getting high quality scans of all those frames requires either a lot of time or a lot of money. (Consumer flatbeds give poor results for 35mm, so your best bet is putting the negative on a light table and using a digital camera and macro lens. But that’s a physically fiddly process, the ‘scan’ needs manual spotting for dust, and if you’re shooting color negatives you also have to do some work to get the colors right.)

Back in the day, most users of 35mm cameras were satisfied with waiting a week to get a set of prints with absolutely no creative control over the printing process, but that’s not what most people want now.

That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.

It's what some people see as the point now. Back when film was the only option, the cost and time per frame were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your last three remaining frames; it was just annoying.

I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some people might take better or more meaningful photos using old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting or valuable.

The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on their best work and total volume of work springs to mind. I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick the winners later.

What you are describing isn't photography.

[ citation needed ]

I found our childhood film camera last year and I took it to a couple trips. price of scanners/getting your film scanned and needing to buy 10eur film rolls for like 20 photos turned me off. I still haven't scanned my first and only roll I shot last year.

I bought a Gralab timer and hooked it up to an old shitty enlarger in my tiny dark wine cellar, along with a red bulb. A few chemicals and tools and you're golden. The only thing that screws me is having to cut up film and spool it but I can get more frames out of it that way since I use mini spy cameras. Yes the film being expensive isn't great but it also makes you choose your shots carefully. Get a cheap darkroom film changing tent and start there.

I have a top of the line Sony Alpha (7CR) with a large zoom lens (24-70GM or 70-200GM) and I carry it almost everywhere, every day. It is absolutely worth the hassle to get day to day stuff.

As they say in the audio world, “there ain't no replacement for displacement.” I love gigazoom lenses. For focal lengths under 100mm, I can use my phone. My SLR is my personal spy satellite.

Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing.

YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.

As someone who only occasionally takes photos of mature, or empty streets (I just find them more aesthetically pleasing, especially if they're empty at night, nothing to do with the topic of discussion), I have no dog in this fight whatsoever,

May I ask where you are taking out your camera to experience these results? By "where," I mean both what part of the world/culture you are in and the specific location(s) (e.g. weddings, streets, public transit, work, at a friend's whom you know well, at an acquaintance's).. you get the point.

>YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.

Has to be a digital.

Really? I do this often and have never had any issues.

Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?

Because that's what public space is? We've always held that principle, and I don't think 'reach' should affect that. If someone takes this to the extreme (i.e. follows you around in public, taking thousands of pictures and uploading them in real time) they can be charged with stalking, harassment, or a similar offence.

To turn it on its head, if you cannot take photographs of people in public without their permission, then we basically lose the ability to take any photos of public space.

Man you would hate flickr. Also, never said anything about that. I don't have any social media, so the photos die with me and my friends. It's a nice break from modern technology to spend hours on an analog process. If you're in a public place you're probably getting photographed so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Because we in the global west generally have the right to photograph anything we can see in public, save for pathological places like Germany or France. You don’t own your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You don’t have any say in what I do with my (legally obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.

? "Model Release"

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/...

Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion on the internet?

Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture showing other people and show it to a third person?

Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed commercial use is not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com