Dennis Hopper Instamatic?

<p>Not sure what model instamatic the recently published Dennis Hopper photos were taken with. http://www.juxtapoz.com/photography/dennis-hopper-drugstore-camera</p>

<p>Could possibly be a 25, but whatever model it is, I'm guessing I'd have to buy expired film? Is there a project that still makes film for these cameras, or can I rig it to use 35mm?</p>

<p>"Drugstore Camera" is a bit of a misnomer. By most accounts I've read Hopper used the same Nikon SLRs he normally used. And the aspect ratio of the sample photos indicate a 35mm camera was used, not an Instamatic or 126 format.</p>

<p>The title seems to refer to Hopper's casual approach for these candid snapshots, which he had processed and printed by dropping the film off at drugstores and similar non-professional labs. Assuming the images chosen for publication represent the original prints or negatives, those photos do resemble some of my own family photos from the 1960s, when using anything other than Kodak processing tended to be inconsistent in quality and often mediocre with poor archival properties.</p>

<p>The articles referring to "disposable" and "plastic" cameras were probably written by folks who weren't around in the 1960s-early '70s and seemed to have assumed that either there were readily available pre-loaded single-use cameras then (there weren't) or that the plasticky entry level Kodak Instamatics were "disposable" (they weren't).</p>

<p>The Instamatic 126 format was square, nominally 26mm X 26mm. I have hundreds of family photos - slides and prints - from the 1960s taken with Kodak Instamatics. The prints were usually square format too, not cropped to the 3:2 or other rectangular format.</p>

<p>You could emulate the look of those particular Hopper photos by using expired film, leaving the film in a hot car to accumulate more base fog, or waiting 20 years or longer to develop the film. Then use expired paper, or heat the paper to age-fog it, print flat without any contrast filters or dodging/burning, pull the prints before they're completely developed. And maybe add some light leaks or other flaws in the process.</p>

<p>But the camera, film and process wouldn't really matter. It's the context more than the content. These are the offhand glimpses recorded by someone for whom snapping the shutter was as routine as chatting. Not every comment or photo will be a jewel, but in the context of known reference points - the era, the man himself and his work and views toward art - it seems to take on larger significance than many of our own very similar conversations and snapshots.</p>

They are really dredging the Dennis Hopper fang cabinets for this. The work he had printed and showed when he was

alive was about three quantum levels of talent and craft above this mediocre junk. I know because I saw it exhibited and

discussed it with him , just him and me for about an hour, at the old Rice Unversity Media Center in the mid-80s.

<p>Well, I was trying to be diplomatic, but, yeah. A couple of the sample photos I've seen are pretty good. Maybe three. The rest? Yikes. I have no idea what the editor was thinking.</p>

<p>I have to guess that maybe they had in mind a certain continuity in terms of the lo-fi aesthetic, intended to be taken as a whole rather than as individual elements. From that perspective it's like saying "I like this particular patch of the beach... and not this patch... and this patch again... oh, this patch is good... and I hate this cigarette butt... oh, but this abandoned flip flop is good...". Or evaluating the aesthetics of wallpaper on a square centimeter by square centimeter basis.</p>

<p>But I've gone through similar reactions recently to my own older snapshots, wondering why I took some frames, but having to admit there's a certain odd unifying aesthetic to certain entire rolls of film, even if the individual frames are nothing special, reflecting whatever frame of mind I was in at that moment.</p>

" I have no idea what the editor was thinking."

 

They were thinking "Think ow much money can we make from the gullible!"

<p>Didn't he marry into High Society.?<br>

Maybe it was Pamela Churchill's step-daughter.? The daughter of some famous Movie/Broadway producer.....something like that.?</p>

<p>Those photos were taken w/ disposable 35mm cameras judging by the picture format, not an Instamatic. I believe the article mentions they were disposable cameras. There are a couple of shots that are great, otherwise, I see why they were never published. If nothing else, the book would be a timely reminder that the times are indeed a changing, because in today's political environment you would either be arrested for dropping those nudes off at a 1 hr lab (if you can even find such a thing anymore), or the lab grunts would refuse to print them, except to bring home for themselves of course :]</p>