I see so much talent here: people can make, draw, do cool Flash stuff...
I find the only sort of thing related to art that i enjoy is taking photos. Crappy, normal, basic photos. And then i like to scan them and go at them with Photoshop to try and make them look like they were taken 50 years earlier. I don't know why.....i like the way old photographs look. I'm thinking of getting a really cheap old camera so i can just take scratchy photos without having to manipulate them on my comp.
So i guess i'm a 'dabbler' ..i appreciate photography and art but i can't consider myself someone who seriously does it.
I imagine there must be other people whom feel this way.
But back to the photography thing....can anyone recommend a good type of "old" camera? I often see my friends talk about the "argoflex" camera.....not sure if it's expensive or not but apparently they love the effects the camera gives.
i disagree; you have more talent than just a "dabbler". you have a good eye for balance and color. i remember when you posted your digital collages before (or maybe i just saw them on your website), and i thought they were really nice. do you still have any of them?
Thanks.... i have them still up on my site, i don't recall if i ever posted them here (i admit i don't give the art forum as much attention as TLF and IOD). Well i guess dabbler wasn't the right word, i guess i mean basically that while i enjoy doing it, i could never do it professionally or competitively because of either the pressure or the lack of creativity or both.
My thoughts are this. If you are going to buy the film, get them developed (about $10.00 per 36 roll so far - unless you develop your own). I would stick to digital, then go ahead and use your digital darkroom (you can make a Photoshop action so your photos have a consistant look - you probably knew that already though). You can easily upsample a good digital camera to make some decent 8x10's (either printed out with your own printer, or taking it somewhere to be done at about $3.00). You have instant gratification with a lot less cost.
Just my opinion, either way you can always check www.photo.net . There might be info on old cameras, etc.
To be honest, it's not that hard. One of my uncles, is a photographer, quite a good one and he also has a successful commercial photo developing studio. I worked with him one summer and learned a lot about developing(though not nearly all). He had this one rather cool machine, called the CIBA machine. It was some sort over glorified photocopier so far as I could tell, but it was used a lot for making reproductions of the sort of old photos you are talking about making yours look like. I spent hours working with that thing, adjusting levels to make the reproductions come out just right.
If you're talking about black and white film and developing it yourself, I say go for it. B&W developing is, well pretty damned easy.
I took photography in high school. I drove the instructor nuts because I already knew everything he was trying to teach, he refused to allow me answer his questions.
"Yes, Eric, I know you know, I'm trying to find out if the rest of the class knows."
"Who cares what they know?"
"I do, that's my job."
"Eh, sucks to be you."