what do you see like: 2012

I can't remember the name of our old photo thread.

The X100 went to New Year's Eve. I was drunk by the time I pulled it out and had the exposure compensation dialed in at -1 so the exposures kinda got blown. Oops.
Shot a roll with my Rolleiflex that might have some decent stuff on it.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6617473169_f4f4711dee_z.jpg
What's going on here by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7169/6617460843_d622e56d3a_z.jpg
An interesting point, but I disagree... by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6617456427_af0d46bd57_z.jpg
You've got to be kidding me. by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7154/6617448535_1d56750549_z.jpg
Sonia and Pat by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

first scan I've been happy with (boring photo but I knew it was properly exposed and sharp enough) - TMax 100 (2002-3ish) scanned on the Plustek 7600i w/ Vuescan. Psyched to get something going (at least for small prints and online display), since I've got 75 rolls of B&W film to work through over the next few months.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7148/6623281961_1b17febbe1_z.jpg
Plustek 7600i, TMax 100 by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

oh that's nice, milo. not boring.
somehow really sad to be back at ILP, feel like it can never be as good as the out of control freight train that was the sandbox photography thread was.

i am getting a bunch of rolls of film processed tomorrow, maybe inspired by the talk of backlogues in the sandbox. some of it is from 2010, which is a long time ago now. also picking some up, & i have a hand-me-down scanner with which to scan any visible & worthwhile prints, i'm p psyched.

was

That's right, back in the ILP ghetto!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6614640625_e506dd18df_z.jpg

That Sandbox thread was somethin' else...

Street performer in the chill evening air of Covent Garden, a few hours ago:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6623643949_8f777f85f4_z.jpg

can we make the ILP board slogan (/gothic text on crest scroll) either FUCK THE MIDTONES, via the bookmaking youtube, or mute shrines, per something dayo said? both haunt me. also welcome other suggestions.

mute shrines

hey ILP i just remembered an amusing flickr story & i figure you guys are the choir for me to preach it at, it is also sorta-relevant to the 'are you favouriting a photo or its contents' thing we discussed a little in the sandbox, re: pictures of girls on flickr. my friend took a photo of me, once, on the street, and it ended up on her flickr. it is a good photo. & i was perusing her photos some while later & saw that two people had added it to their favourites, one a guy i sorta know, & the other person a stranger, someone i never knew who had been so beguiled by my representation that they had declared it their favourite thing. i was so thrilled by this adoration, so clicked through to the guy's profile, & found this long, modern-photographer tract in the bio about how he FOUND BEAUTY IN THINGS OTHERS WOULD NOT FIND BEAUTIFUL, DEVASTATED RUINS, DEAD BIRDS, &c&c&c.

it really took the shine off the compliment.

haha I think everybody on flickr will happily explain how they just kinda see things a little bit differently, and find beauty in unexpected places! an entire social media platform full of photographer savants: who knew??

heh, truthbomb! though I suspect many assume that attitude as mental insurance against criticism.

technically my last shot of 2011:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6634175545_348e262775_z.jpg

technically not linked?

let's try that again!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7033/6634175545_f7e9cb3c5e_z.jpg

oh nice!

I scanned a roll or two of kodachrome - even more saturation applied in post

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae232/daggerlee/3c2d8804.jpg

millsner: very don't look now, v good
dayo: that's awesome, somehow i think of you as a guy from 1890 who just obviously wouldn't have been able to take a colour photo. what camera's it w?

millsner, that's a great, great shot
damn I wish I had shot some Kodachrome when I had the chance

the leica, of course! schlump I bought an om-1 and just sent it away to get repaired. I was inspired by you and eskenazi. it's black.

I'm kind of stunned by how well these kodachrome scans clean up in aperture, just a little saturation + s-curve and there's so much color, and this is just from my shitty v500.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae232/daggerlee/aff479cf.jpg

well, that looked better in aperture. could be more red! oh well

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6656293705_552ed71daa_b.jpg
Summer's Over by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

oh I missed this thread so much during ILX downtime. yaaaay!

for some reason I've never had a great time scanning kodachrome but those look great!

This one is from late last year, but for some reason i quite like it, it also make me feel a little sad :(
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6619272095_51721f0c56_z.jpg

what do you see like: 2012

What i want to see like: 2012

That's beautiful. Wistful, rather than sad, imo.

we're off to a good beginning this year!

not goodwin, that almost looks as though it's composed of layered tracing paper. lovely.

the leica, of course! schlump I bought an om-1 and just sent it away to get repaired. I was inspired by you and eskenazi. it's black.

aw! this is so exciting to me. did i ever tell that story about jane bown, & how devastated i was to find out that she used an om-1, rescinding my ability to blame my tools for my poor photos

http://www.andrewward.com/Photos/jane_bown/jane_bown_samuel_beckett_london.jpg

when i was a little younger i had a kinda love-hate relationship with it, because it has a much smaller kind of 'remove' or 'rendering process', to me, compared to when i see something taken by a pentax that looks otherly & framed & cinematic. om-1s are very real. i'm actually slightly mournfully considering swapping mine out for another, having seen a couple in shop windows etc, recently; it's probably eaten three of the last ten films i've shot, which is obviously partly user error but is partly it jamming at twenty four frames or having trouble spooling the tail of the film & so not even shooting (fwiw i'd recommend taking a couple of shots while you're staring at the roll, watching it feed into the spiral); from what i understand they do have a slight rep for this. what were you getting it sent away for ..?

really like your kodachrome shots; they have a very full spectrum of colour, like the darkness of the blacks in the lobby shot. i just got some weird kodak slide film back, i'll scan something & maybe post here soon.

did i ever tell that story about jane bown, & how devastated i was to find out that she used an om-1, rescinding my ability to blame my tools for my poor photos

haha otm. that said, I do slightly blame my lovely Canon and heavy-ass lenses for the fact that I'm not taking as many pictures as I used to -- it's just much too much faff to lug around London all the time. That's one of the reasons I'm pretty excited about the new Fuji.

i think taking a photo of beckett will do the "otherly & framed & cinematic" for you.

ha yeah i guess so. he's got a giacometti face.

about having the appropriate/convenient gear to use, i think there's another funny equipment paradox, the same way that there is with analogue/digital, in which some people find the perceived limits of analogue actually useful & conducive to getting along with your camera - i feel like having p much restricted myself to a camera i can hang on my shoulder & slightly batter into things (i scraped it against a cobbled stone wall yesterday, high-five), carry around under a bag strap without noticing, &c, is really useful, & what i forgo in having a variety or quality of lenses i make up for in having my camera with me all the time. this is obv my perspective & i can see the compelling better-actual-photos argument against it, but i feel like having a camera there whenever you're outside is the point, for me, & i would be bummed to be restricted by cumbersome equipment. i guess this a good argument for small cameras in general.

I bet everyone pretty much agrees: the best camera is the one you have with you, be it point-and-shoot or cell phone or whatever. The worst camera is the one sitting at home.

yes. & kinda as an extension of that, i am sitting next to a yashica i never use, but the familiarity i have with my om-1 so trumps the added potential of anything new. i know this makes me sound set in my ways. but i don't even have to look at it, sometimes, & alla that old shit is designed so harmoniously to fit well with the way your brain and hands work.

out of curiosity, does anyone have a little kinda pocket camera, stuff like those contax that i have no idea of the model # of or way to describe? i've seen a lot of like really nice photographs by ppl like sofia coppola, & a couple of friends of mine, they're somehow really disruptive to my idea of a slr/medium format hierarchy, & really intriguing to me. i guess i am thinking analogue here.

"point and shoot" "contax t3" <- glossary of terms that are beyond me

I've got an Olympus XA2 (the zone focus one) and a Rollei 35 (guess focus). Are those the kinds of things you're thinking of?
Perfect for the always-carry-with-you aspect.

https://sites.google.com/site/analogcompactcameras/famous-point-n-shoot-users

right, yeah i guess, rollei i sorta think of as something different but yeah i just mean something where you're just clicking, p much, maybe w/flash

There's really no reason that a giant top of the line Nikon 35mm SLR would take a picture that's technically any better than a compact rangefinder or something like the Rollei, really. I mean they're both just opening a door to shine some light on a piece of 35mm film for a portion of time, no matter how big or small the container around it is. Only difference I can figure would be the lens.

xpost

I use an Olympus Stylus too. That's point-and-shoot autoexposure, built in flash etc. For going to bars or the beach or whatever. Does just fine.
And that old picture of Death Valley of mine upthread is from a bottom of the line Olympus Trip from my high school days:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6463613999_f8a573e3d0_m.jpg

Unlike digital cameras where a more expensive piece of equipment gets you a larger sensor (basically like switching film formats), the cheapest and most expensive film cameras all use the same size "sensor." And you get to switch it out at will.

Like you could shoot full frame by buying a 5D ii, or just using the Olympus Trip.

yep. i eventually found that really reassuring - i know we had quite a lens-y discussion on a previous ILP thread, & gear is really only a small priority for me, certainly dwarfed by a) film & b) the thing i am taking a photo of. i think i had an example of a guy who'd tried out taking different shots of a bookcase to demonstrate differences in grain who, to me, seemed to be clinically insane.

i should prob get a point & shoot sometime, maybe just to have a camera with a flash. i like not necessarily having compartmentalised what-camera-works-best, though; when i used to play with a digital i would use it for like 'throwaway' stuff - goofy things i saw - & i like it better using a camera for anything you see that seems appropriate. just talking day-to-day roaming, not that there aren't appropriate & instrumental choices.

xp ah!, more evidence in the pro- column then

Yup it's a clue that you only ever hear guys talking about their lenses when taking pictures of, like, brick walls, and not when talking about, like, great photographs.

looool otm

schlump the om-1 wasn't fully winding all the time on one wind, needed to take two sometimes. I sent it to www.zuiko.com but dunno if that's an option for you, you split time between the pond is that right?

I used to carry around a XA2 for color 'graphs, it was okay but it was kind of annoying because exposure was auto w/ no compensation (funny, you figure out why manufacturers include these settings in maybe your 10th year as a photographer.) I switched it for a rollei 35, more inconvenient but has more manual functionality.

I know terry richardson uses some yashica point and shoot (probably because of some kind of affected hipster 'oh I couldn't be bothered to learn how to actually use it, this works perfectly okay' faux naivete) or something

have thought about getting one of the mythical contax or fuji point and shoots but really, they're not that much smaller

leica cl's perhaps the best compromise

I think if I see an Olympus Mju for $5 I'll grab one. They look awesome and are small:

http://www.thecamerasite.net/02_Rangefinders/Images/Olympus-mju-II.jpg

XA always seems to underexpose a bit, but you can trick it with the ASA selector.

This is what I see like in 2012, btw (other photos I've been putting up lately are all from the past):

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7167/6661317289_f2797a2b18_z.jpg

ooh, that's a good one!

Thanks! It's all that winter light.

gonna come back to the post above but just wanna register upon reading that the idea of you wrapping up an object in an envelope & writing a url on the front is blowing my mind, it feels like the future and the past all at once

Yup it's a clue that you only ever hear guys talking about their lenses when taking pictures of, like, brick walls, and not when talking about, like, great photographs.

I don't have a P&S, but I've had a Canonet QL17 forever, a Kodak Retinette (scale-focus 35mm) I found in my great-grandmother's stuff from Canada, and I just bought a Hexar AF off Craigslist.

The AF is interesting - it's big (pretty much the same size and weight as my X100), but freakishly quiet (even w/o turning on silent mode) and the fixed lens is basically a copy of a previous-generation Leica 35mm Summicron.

thanks guys, but it is basically impossible to take a photo in west texas that is not good imo

important things: SKY, DIRT

i am thinking about getting a water tower tattoo btw

I struggle a bit with judging how horizontal a horizon is too. Nice work on those, have downloaded that app to try it out. Has anyone else used VSCOcam? I quite like it, "film emulator" type thing from the people who do the VSCO Film plugins for Lightroom, etc.

These were all taken with VSCOcam.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8059/8247575759_d4efb82f5a.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8070/8241821135_3971058da0.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8488/8186112434_e8ef397b17.jpg

great framing on the 2nd one down

yes

schlump, photo #2 above really does it for me too. the shadows are really nice, and combined with the sort of wavy sheets, give a real nice sense of *depth* to what at first might seem to be sort of a flattened geometric picture.

hey thank you! a flattened geometric picture would actually be okay to me. all of those pictures i posted look really weird & different large (which, to provide an unsolicited directors commentary for them, you can see by changing the /s700/ in the urls to /s0/), which i think is only a thing for me when it's sunny & i'm not shooting wide open. it's interesting.

also i was wondering: i got a new phone a while ago, so have been kinda enjoying outsourcing some of my goofier/more colourful shooting to the camera on it, but i'm so into occasionally recording stuff, too. do any of you use video in a similar way to stills? it's becoming really interesting to me, like this new thing to play with & think about. i'll maybe post a thing itt at some point.

get the KitCam app, it does time-lapse:

http://vimeo.com/55320383

oh wow, neat

flattened geometric picture not meant to sound like a negative... just that it was interesting to see that it wasn't what it first appeared to me.
top one is really good for shadow-created depth too.

ha, aw that wasn't me being wounded, i know what you mean. flattened geometrics are neat. i am still trying to diversify away from shooting so much discarded or rusting junk though.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8276943940_cf0d430483.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8076/8267829621_7e179e7bd3.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8200/8265308255_ca01a4b3be.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8339/8263531192_d8196914ce.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8497/8254838605_7fb4a38612.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8486/8250371091_583d5918e3.jpg

i'm all up on yr IHKH, so these weren't new to me, but they're so nice. i used to see your photos & think i could tell which were point & shoot & which from an slr - maybe because some had the datestamp, i don't know - but it's harder now, there's a kind of looseness to them. i just got some photos back from a couple of months back, with this shot where i'd walked by a car in front of a car park in front of a building, & tried to shoot it, two of the cars different shades of red & the building built of pale red brick. it felt so much subtler than what i usually shoot, just about tone and echoes. it didn't come out particularly well, it isn't striking, but it felt smart, like a move in the right direction. those ^ photos are simpler & bolder than some, i think, like they're very neutral & strong & umm non-partisan, if i can extend the semantics of democratic photography to encompass other political actions.

the shoes remind me of one of my fav stephen shore shots (kinda at the other end of the spectrum, busier, more particular), i can't remember if i posted it here before

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TqS_FNdUGjA/TlJpbPq724I/AAAAAAAACSQ/j47bUpff_K4/s1600/SS-599.jpg

yeah that picture is amazing. it's a shame that clothes, furniture, and curtains are rarely so colorfully patterned any more!
I think I've been well-served recently by slowing way down and editing more severely. almost to the point of taking a break on uploading pictures.
it is hard for me to be loose, but I'm trying!
also it's sort of weird that I don't really know if I've been taking good pictures lately or not. and won't know for some time. the scanner is packed away.

kinda a good thing i think? i have overdone praising the ~serendipitous magic of arhythmic film processing~ on here before but it can be good to buffer seeing what you shot; a lot of the time i am seeing stuff i can't really remember shooting, so i'm less tangled up in being bummed out that it didn't pan out, or too tethered to its context. i am always going to have a ton of film sitting waiting for me to get it together.

i'm going to pick up my scanner this afternoon, which means getting into a bunch of (those curled) negatives i got back. so psyched. can we change the ilp slogan to hanging out at the textile warehouse? i feel like this is where we should be shooting our best work

"a lot of the time i am seeing stuff i can't really remember shooting, so i'm less tangled up in being bummed out that it didn't pan out"

^^^ this, totally. The #1 thing I miss about film, even though it's the direct result of what makes me happiest about digital, the increased workflow.

oh I'm thinking it'll be really good for me to slow down my reviewing process, definitely.
a little breathing space and all that.

it's a shame that clothes, furniture, and curtains are rarely so colorfully patterned any more!
so so so so so true

i am sure there are some migraine-inducingly upholstered parts of the country where we can prove this wrong

I certainly hope so.

hey ilp
remember a while ago, everyone posted some photos they had taken on aeroplanes, it was fun & infectious, it drew upon a well of photographs drawn from an impulse common to camera carrying aeroplane passengers, it was both fun to do & so enjoyable to look at. earlier i was looking through somebody's photos & there was a really good shot of something that had a word on it. the word really popped. it was vague enough not to make the photo this literal thing, but meaningful enough to mean you were meeting the aesthetics half way. it was an influence on how you looked at it. even just the way the word was written. i think about words in photos a lot because they are simultaneously kinda easy meat, sometimes - they can do a lot of the heavy lifting, maybe, like if you take a photo of some kind of distressed-looking industrial marking that carries a lot of weight & has a certain authoritative aura, or maybe if you shoot a brand logo or something - but they can also be really abstract, in a bunch of ways, in isolating something from context or repurposing the language or letters. i remember reading david shrigley talk about how strange it was to think that a part of his day for any reason involved the phrase Why am I being asked for my password?, once he had zeroed in on it. i thought maybe some people could post some photos that have words in them. i am not totally just setting myself up to be leap in with my own awesome contributions under the guise of a democratic survey, like "did you ever meet anyone famous?" "uhh well i-" "WELL YES ONCE I MET BONO", eager to pounce. but i thought it might be a unifying subcategory of photos. is anyone in?

sorry if i am turning ilp into the last page from the weekend magazine in the guardian, i promise i will keep the themes abstruse & resistant to poetry

is it okay to post dog pictures here?

it is the internet, go right ahead

Words are good. Let's do some words.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2349/2423362629_6927865b3f.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3209/2409068302_be3a69f5bb.jpg

"Please". You can tell I live in the UK.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3452/3402836688_3c011d676d_z.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4134/4784159004_e7f6232732_z.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4042/4660475067_1a3d4db5a4_z.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4121/4917891970_21d83df1a7_z.jpg

damnit middle two in the wrong order. not that it would be any more grammatical.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8191/8098581162_459dd59dc6.jpg

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/25/41089839_721e19348f.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5125/5302086490_3dc66ae837_z.jpg

that jacket is so bomb

http://i.imgur.com/IO1Gd.png
http://i.imgur.com/mfJFg.png

first roll w/ my first SLR:

http://i.imgur.com/SmGZJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CRn0J.jpg

ended up with a nikkor 28mm-105mm lens that has a macro mode-- very very different from what i've been doing for the last 3.5 years, but that's kind of the point-- the rest of the roll is blurred/out of focus/overexposed lol

also have a 50mm prime f/1.4 coming in the mail this week.

ha i guess even those two are blurred/out of focus, but i like them anyway

they're lovely. so soft. that's w/400CN, right? doing things that are different in a way that makes you fuck up a lot is really good i think. i am pretty into the distortion of my phone camera right now.

rad words phots btw! i love that anything was ever industrially branded with FECALS

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3265/5872070283_b9bd93fcd2_z.jpg

One from a while back.

I wonder how many of us make a loose New Years resolution to take more shots, I am still a newbie pretty much but I've just gotten a couple of lenses for my Rebel (cheapo 50mm 1.8 Canon and an EF 85mm 1.8) and am looking at a Tokina Wide Angle lens. So this is my resolution, just opened a Flickr account and am also going to try to overcome my street shyness (this is hard, I live in London.)

I was up on the roof of my workplace testing my new 50.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/8300112430_fb6b8999fa.jpg
IMG_1787 by nwrhns, on Flickr

I decided pretty much on a whim last Jan 1st to do a 366 project for that reason ("take more shots"), as all i was really doing was photographing bands. I've stuck at it, but not sure I've really improved all that much from it. Less than a week to go now, so that's good!

just playin with new camera, nbd dog pictures

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8212/8292787250_a58c992344_z.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8080/8292783294_ceeb1de847_c.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8497/8328420964_11a7b9e5a0.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8078/8292451986_846358543c.jpg

last one is like, ok put the f**king camera down already

and some words too

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8359/8328397122_3dcbc833cc_c.jpg

i love love love that pic of the dog with the window frame in focus

me too :-)

just thinkin baout things

first roll on a new camera, apologies for posting again so soon:

http://i.imgur.com/Kffqe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3kxzu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/o4uIV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xP7LK.jpg

oops wrong thread

my Winogrand tribute:

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

god damn it can we lock this thread