Looking for a certain asthetic in a medium format camera/lense

[jordan_o1]

<p>Hey guys, I've decided to ditch digital photography, and want to get back into film as there was something about it that was so much more appealing.</p>

<p>Anyways, I love MF and want to buy a camera, however there's one thing I'd like to figure out, and that's the asthetic of the camera/lense. I'm assuming hasselblad etc are all super crisp and nice, but what I want is more of a deteriorated look.</p>

<p>AKA. something exactly like this <a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2398491280_b55f6381c4_m.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2398491280_b55f6381c4_m.jpg</a><br>

I love how these types of pictures have a surreal feeling to them, and how the edges aren't crisp and clean. Yet somehow they aren't blurry, just sort of desaturated.<br>

also stuff like this is cool which is more on the +saturated side, but still remains nice looking without being blurry <a href="http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://lowresolution.com/images/70sduck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://lowresolution.com/2003/10/28/70s-duck/&usg=__cyNN2_3HrMdSPoDLaZMXLQvlLJw=&h=425&w=760&sz=135&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=1k2czlqU4SHwNM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3D70s%2Bphotography%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1">http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://lowresolution.com/images/70sduck.jpg&imgrefurl=http://lowresolution.com/2003/10/28/70s-duck/&usg=__cyNN2_3HrMdSPoDLaZMXLQvlLJw=&h=425&w=760&sz=135&hl=en&start=36&um=1&tbnid=1k2czlqU4SHwNM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3D70s%2Bphotography%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1</a><br>

(this however is obviously on a 35mm, but still just wondering what causes pictures to turn out this way, I've never seen it happen on digital cameras, film just tends to do it I presume.<br>

I'm not entirely sure if the camera/lense combination is responsible for this kind of stuff, but I'm assuming getting good cameras like hasselblads would just give you crisp perfection everytime which isn't what I'm looking for. Is the lense responsible for this, or is it the body? Or is it just a totally random thing that happens at times? In which case what camera do you think would have the highest % chance?</p>

<p>Anyways, any suggestions are welcome. I don't have much experience with film besides a class with 35mm, and I've never had pictures turn out like this.</p>

<p>Thanks guys</p>

<p> </p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>sorry, not sure how to edit.</p>

<p>But should I just buy a Holga or something? LOL<br>

I'd prefer a more reliable camera that can do this, but I also really like the Holga's leaking effect too. Plus I could always just buy a holga and another MF as I hear they're really cheap. Just use the holga for REALLY deteriorated shots</p>

[www.flickr.comphotostmcc]

<p>Any older TLR wide open will do some funky things. I had a Super Ricoh for a while, 30 or 40 USD, and very small. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmccabe/637258019/in/photostream/<br>

I also shot with a Yashica D for a few months, shot about 50 rolls through it. Runs around $100 USD. Very sharp stopped down and probably the look you are looking for wide open.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmccabe/3221352039/in/set-72157605265052404/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmccabe/3222204484/in/set-72157605265052404/<br>

But, a Holga or a Diana or something would probably do as well.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>Yeah, I'd start with a Holga. You might find some of the Nik Software Color FX to help with the cross processing effect.</p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>Awesome thanks guys.<br>

Yeah I'll start with the holga just because it's supposedly SO easy to use. So that'll just get me into MF. Plus it's so damn cheap/easy to buy I'd probably buy one anyways just for fun.<br>

I also really like that Yashica D, might look into that as a second camera. Might be nice to get one just for a toned down MF compared to how crazy a holga would be, and dang, those beach shots are awesome with the fog.</p>

<p>Only problem now is deciding between a Holga and a Diana. I read a thread with this question and it was never really conclusive as I hear they're quite a bit different. Based on what I've seen asthetically the Diana+ TOTALLY has the surreal feel to it. I just heard theyre harder to use? and break easier?</p>

 

[roseberry guitars]

<p>Some of the older MF folders like a Zeiss Ikon Nettar or Ikonta can get some interesting bokeh at the larger apertures. I find the three element Novar lenses can get closer to what I understand you to be looking for than the four element Tessar. The other thing I like about the three element lenses is that they can be very sharp stopped down to f8 or more. It's kind of like the best of two worlds.</p>

<p>There are other very good folders as well, like the Franka with the 3 element Radionar, Agfa Isolette with the three element Apotar or the Voigtlander Bessa with a three element Vaskar. I only mention the three element lenses as they are the ones that are most like the Novar. These cameras also come with a four element Tessar type lens which are hard to beat for sharpness and clarity.</p>

<p>I prefer the Zeiss Ikon brand as they seem to have been made with longer lasting materials (in the bellows especially) are easier to find in good condition and usually need less work to get back into top working condition. They tend to be less costly as well. But good ones can be found in the other brands also. You just have to look a little harder and be sure to check them out well.</p>

<p>Here's a shot of one of my trusty hiking partners taken with a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 518/16 with a Novar 75mm, f4.5 lens. I don't remember the exact f-stop but it looks like 4.5 - 5.6. You can see the surreal feel creeping in around the edges.</p>

<div></div>

[rjjackson]

<p>jordan,</p>

<p>i agree with the advice so far, an older TLR or folder would come close to this aesthetic, i think. also consider a lubitel 166: cheap, super light, and they seem to have special lenses, neither soft nor sharp.<br>

rj</p>

 

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Reading the comments left on your second image link called the '70's Duck', there is a line there which says - 'Photo taken with a Fed5 rangefinder' !</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>The Holga is the trendy choice, but there are thousands of other classic, medium format, consumer cameras out there that are basically the same thing. TLRs have been mentioned. Check out an Agfa Clik or and Ansco Pioneer. I'm a big fan of the 6x6 folders myself. A few have great lenses, but there are plenty available that are soft and distorted in the corners.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_komp]

<p>Jordan -<br>

The first image you reference looks like a "through the viewfinder" image. You can find many examples of this here:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/throughtheviewfinder/<br>

And a tutorial of how to do it here:<br>

http://www.russmorris.com/ttv/<br>

I assume with a medium format camera with a macro lens you could do the same things as these guys are doing with digital.<br>

Steve</p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>Thanks for the extra info guys. I didn't think this thread would stay active past a few comments on here as there's <em>tons</em> of threads on this forum.<br>

Maybe I should consider checking out other stuff besides a holga etc., as that "through the viewfinder" method has the neat edges I was looking for.<br>

And yes I knew that the second image I linked was a 35mm, I even looked into that camera but decided against it because I'd much rather shoot square shots. It just seemed to have the same weird feeling with the colors, which made me wonder if old cameras in general did that.</p>

<p>Thanks guys</p>

[kari v]

<p>Yes, check out other stuff. Nothing wrong with Holga really but you can get much more usable gear for peanuts and those old folders and TLRs are rather pretty themselves. Good conversation pieces and you won't be labeled as "Another Holga artsy whatever" as easily. ;)<br>

Not to mention when you stop down to f11 - f16 you may get very generally usable images.</p>

<p>MF is the way to go with this stuff. 35mm can give you distorted images but you also get worse tonal gradation, more DoF and grain and proper scanning is more difficult (if you do that).<br>

Sometimes even MF contact prints can look amazing.</p>

<p>Great shot Scot!</p>

[k5083]

Consider something like a Kodak Brownie Six-20 or Flash Brownie Six-20 if the quality of a TLR or folder turns out to be too high for you. They adapt easily to 120 film, they have 1-element fixed focus lenses that are plenty soft, and you're being ripped off if you pay more than $10 for one. The only Holga/Diana feature that they lack is poor workmanship and the resulting light leaks, which I sense may not be what you're after. Any number of low-end prewar 6x6 cameras might also do.

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Instead of allowing Holga to rip you off, why not get a shoe box and make a pinhole camera?</p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>Yeah, I know what you guys mean about the "trendy" holga thing. I don't like the stigma that I'd feel is being attached to me (ex. artsy hipster). Although I do like some shots from them.<br>

Guess the hard part is deciding on a old TLR</p>

<p>Oh, also have a quick question. How are people getting 35mm film sides in their pictures? Are they just jamming 35mm film into their MF cameras? I'm guessing they just stick it in and since the 35mm film is smaller it just overlaps it all? Do all MF cameras support this? It looks like it'd be kind of neat on the odd occasion to do a roll like that.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>A 120 format box camera should be a good choice. They came in all levels of complexity, from really just a box to cameras with guess focusing and settable shutter speeds and apertures. You tend to get results similar to Holga and Diana, but without the hipster stigma associated with them.</p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I think I've decided on a Mamiya C220 or C330. I'd probably rather the C220 but they seem impossible to find (other than the bodies), so I may have to go with the C330. Have you guys ever seen C220s around? Not sure if I just gotta be patient or if they're super hard to find now.<br>

Once I get my hands on one of them I'll just xpro the slide prints to get them to have cool colors etc., and shoot black and white when not xpro'ing. Then I think I'll be happy :D<br>

I was browsing through mamiya shots and also found this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/colusite/3323981401/in/pool-mamiyatwinlens">http://www.flickr.com/photos/colusite/3323981401/in/pool-mamiyatwinlens</a><br>

which is very close to what I'm going for. My only concern is the developer used (HC-110B). I'm not sure if the developer/film was partially responsible for this as I've noticed film/chemicals make a larger part of the overal colors etc than I previously knew about. Do most retail developers have a variety of chemicals like the HC-110B (if its important)..or do they mostly only do the E64/C41 chemicals nowadays (sorry if I got the names wrong lol).<br>

thoughts on this?<br>

Thanks guys</p>

[kari v]

<p>That's HC-110, classic all-around b&w developer. B refers to dilution. Usually you see B or H.<br /> Fuji Acros is very sharp, has little tight grain and it's perfect for long exposures.</p>

<p>B&W labs are getting rare and results vary. It's *much more* cost effective to develop your own. Very easy and you don't even need a darkroom, a changing bag works fine. For the stuff you want I highly recommend DIY.<br /> Ilford HP5+ film and HC-110 is a nice combo. Classic look when shot at box speed (ISO 400) and you can treat HP5+ as ISO 200-1600 film with good but different looking results. HP5+ is also pretty forgiving when it comes to exposure and development, you're guaranteed to get something usable unless you do something really really goofy.<br /> But if you feel uneasy jumping right in you could shoot a few rolls of Ilford XP2, it's a b&w film that can be developed in normal color process so any minilab will do. Also, it's about as forgiving as film can be and scans well.</p>

<p>E6 = slide film process.<br /> C-41 = color neg.</p>

[aeaster]

<p>Jordan, here are a couple of random thoughts from an old curmudgeon for you to consider.<br>

<br />Remember that a Holga is a toy, overpriced and trendy--but still just a cheaply-made plastic toy. You can make a crappy-looking photo with just about any good camera but it is a lot harder to make a good photo with a crappy camera. The novelty aspect of a Holga (like any other fad) wears off very fast. Buy yourself a good old TLR, whether a Yashica, a Ciro-Flex, Ikoflex, etc. Best choice would be to save up and buy a Rolleiflex even if it is two or three times older than you are. You may just keep using that old Rolleiflex for the rest of your life, and you cannot say that about too many things made since.<br>

<br />Concerning TTV; these photos can be quaint and artistic, but this technique (like HDR) is rapidly becoming another over-used cliche'. The first ones that you come across look amazing and fresh, but after seeing a few thousand TTV photos on the 'net they all begin to look alike. If being trendy and fashionable is important to you then go for it--by all means. You can be a nonconformist just like everybody else.<br>

<br />35mm film edges on the photo? That's the result of either printing or scanning the entire negative and not just the exposed portion. It really cracks me up to see this digitally done in PhotoShop where the crisp color digital image is surrounded by an Ilford HP5 or FP4 neg. Ilford only makes B&W film. And don't even get me started on what I think of those who digitally add-on a border made to resemble Polaroid 55! I wish Polaroid would have sued the company out of existance that came up with that fraud.<br>

<br />So buy whatever you want, and use whatever technique that you believe suits your style the best. I think you will eventually find your artistic niche if you keep exploring and experimenting.</p>

<p> </p>

[verivorax]

<p>I like the "through the viewfinder" idea, but the first image looks like a contact print to me. If you get a 6x6 camera which may not hold the film entirely flat, you could get edges like this.. OR, get something really cheap and rough the gate up yourself. The older and less coated the lens, the more flare and loss of contrast you'll see - so go as old as possible! Good luck!</p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>Ah that's good to hear HC-110 is a normal B&W developer. I'm basically 100% settled on the Mamiya now, because even if this asthetic doesn't work out b&w was originally what made me love diy photography (however this was when I was still in school and had access to a darkroom). If I shot color I'd definately wouldn't be bothering with it diy though as I have no clue how thats done (with a barrel or whatever I've heard).<br>

Thanks for explaining that stuff Kari, but I'm just wondering how the changing bag thing works out? I thought every step required darkness?<br>

ex. putting film in spool, then putting it in the jar where its safe to develop the film<br>

then needing a darkroom to project the image (in which case I'd need a projector :(, that's a whole other dilemma I'll have to go through deciding lol.<br>

(Also I'm not sure if the process is the same as 35mm diy)</p>

[aeaster]

<p>MF development process is exactly the same as 35mm. Only difference is the spool size.</p>

[kari v]

<p>Changing bag is sealed so you can spool the film lights on. Developing tank is light tight too so you can watch TV or something while you develop if you like. ;)<br>

<br /> For printing you do need a darkroom, enlarger and all that stuff. Luckily it's all cheap.</p>

[jordan_o1]

<p>Ah ok cool, I understand now :D I'll probably just develop the film at home then. Hopefully I can find a place that'll make prints until I get an enlarger etc. I still need to get my own place so dedicating a room to be a darkroom probably wont happen right now.<br>

<br />If anything I can cross process slide film in C41 to get the film in color, and just take it somewhere to make scans and keep pictures digitally for awhile. Is this how it works? The developed film not being negative when cross processed, requiring scans?<br>

<br />I don't want to be annoying by repeatedly asking new questions all the time, but does anyone have experience with a C220? I've read threads entitled "c220 vs c330" etc. and I'm leaning towards the C220 (1. because I like how its older, and 2. i'll save a bit of money, even though I'd like having an older camera. Having extra money for another lense is always nice).<br>

<br />However I'm just curious about the cranking of both the film <em>and</em> shutter. I'm guessing at the beginning you crank the film to max, then crank the shutter max. Then after each picture are you supposed to crank the shutter and film once or something? I don't think this would bother me but I'd like to know the process just to make sure.<br />Also, if you forgot to crank the shutter it probably wouldn't be a problem would it? Because the shutter just wouldn't click, so all you'd have to do is crank it a few times and nothing bad would happen?</p>

<p>I also read about focusing or something requiring a graph? Is this a huge hassle? Or do you just look through the viewfinder like normal and focus through there?<br>

Sorry for all the questions, I appreciate your guys' help though.<br />Also that post was pretty funny about people making "digital" polaroids LOL</p>

[kari v]

<p>I guess you know that C330 would give you faster winding, autococking shutter, brighter viewfinder and parallax indicator needle. But then again, you started this with Holga in mind so let's not get carried away with features. ;)<br>

Also, Mamiya lenses are actually very good, so you may have to work around that a bit. Cheap uv-filters and vaselin go for a long way. :D</p>

<p>C220 manual should clarify things.<br>

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/mamiya_c220/mamiya_c220.htm</p>

<p>You don't need a dedicated darkroom if your household has two bathrooms (or one bathroom and very patient other people) or something similarly suitable. I know this because I work in my bathroom... it doesn't take very long to set up.</p>