Recommend "imperfect" manual camera...?

[simon_apbsen]

I'm new to analog photography so I hope someone can help me:

 

I wish to buy a simple, used manual camera which creates "painterly textures" and has artifacts (somewhat like the Lomo cameras).

 

A manual camera which is simple to use (I am not technically inclined, unfortunately) - and which also creates less-than-perfect images.

 

I'm looking for a manual/analog camera that is not technically perfect, but can add accidental textural elements (unusual lighting, not perfect focus, strange texture etc) to the image.

 

So the sense of "chance" and "happy accidents" is important.

 

The price range for the camera can be up to 200 U.S. dollars.

 

What would you recommend..?

 

(I realise that film stock and processing are important elements as well, but first I'd like a camera that I know will manipulate the image - before I manipulate the image with film stock and processing.)

 

Thanks a lot for any help and recommendations!

[colin carron]

<p>Not easy, as even cheap film cameras in good condition usually produce photographic images of a reasonable quality. I think most 'painterly' effects that I have seen were made by introducing some damage or deliberate malfunction to the camera. You should be aware that only 35mm or 120 film are readily available so look for a camera that takes either of those. <br /> I think I would probably buy a Lomo-type camera and find out how others have created their effects and then try experimenting. Some methods I have seen used are :<br>

pinhole cameras where the lens is replaced by a small hole to give atmospheric slightly fuzzy images<br>

Tape or gel on the lens to introduce deliberate blur.<br>

Photographing through a distorting medium such as non-optical glass.<br>

Deliberate light leaks.<br>

Delibearte use of flare.<br>

Angling of the lens to get strange out of foucs effects such as produced by 'Lensbaby'<br>

Probably lots more</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Maybe film choice might yield the effects you are looking for rather than camera choice. Other photonetters may be able to follow up with suggestions for over saturated or other film/processing suggestions.

[John Seaman]

<p>The problem with the holga, lomo, lubitel and diana style cameras is that they are very expensive to buy from what I've seen, and they are basically cheap plastic things which are awkward to use and break easily. Far better to go for a nice 35mm SLR like a Pentax ME, Olympus OM10, or Canon AE1 with automatic exposure, leaving you free to concentrate on getting the effect you want by adding filters and modifiers in front of the lens, for example by smearing Vaseline or similar on a filter (not on the lens itself!). You can see the effect you will get through the viewfinder on an SLR.</p>

<p>You should be able to get a nice quality SLR for a fraction of the budget you mention. If you go for 120 film rather than 35mm, a TLR (twin lens reflex) like a Rolleicord or Minolta Autocord might be a good choice, or one of the old folding cameras like a Zeiss Ikon Nettar. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I think the problem you're going to have with any decently adjustable camera is that if it's working right, the images will be very good. You could look for one with light leaks, of course, and this would cause some issues, but they will become annoying and boring fast.</p>

<p>I would suggest you find a decent but basic adjustable camera such as a Nikon FM 10 or similar, perhaps a Minolta, and experiment with lenses. I mention Minolta because low line lenses for these are pretty abundant and cheap. I would not damage the camera itself, because it's too unpredictable, and camera damage is likely to become boringly the same. Get a decent camera for which lenses are available, with a reasonably accurate match needle meter. An old Minolta, a base model Nikon, or perhaps a Pentax K1000 or the like. Colin has suggested several good ways to get interesting results. Actual lens damage might as well, but it's hard to predict, and could be fatal, which is why you should find a camera for which cheap lenses can be had, unless you find a lens that is already damaged the way you like. You can do a google search for photography with broken lenses, and perhaps get some hints there. A famous broken-lens photographer is Sally Mann, who did a series of large format photographs with a damaged lens whose effects she liked. </p>

<p>For those less inclined to kill lenses, the Lensbaby is one possibility. Another, if you can find it, is a 100 millimeter F2 singlet made by Sima, with a T mount (universal, can be fitted to a number of different cameras by purchasing the correct adapter). A singlet lens will be fairly sharp in the center, but suffer from chromatic aberration, which becomes more radical toward the edges. Wide open it's pretty awful, better stopped down, which in this case is done with "waterhouse" stops, basically just a mask with a hole in it. This can produce rather interesting effects, especially depending on what colors are present in the subject. I have one of those Sima lenses, and it's rather fun to play with. 100 mm is good for portraiture, and this one, which focuses crudely with a slider, will focus as close as you care to go, making it also good for macros. <br>

<br />If you're really inclined to experiment here, I should mention that I once made a radical singlet lens by taking an old photographic enlarger, installing a T-mount in place of its lens, and leaving one half of its condenser in place, constituting an enormous singlet lens. Mounted in reverse on the camera, it was the approximate equivalent of a 220 millimeter lens of about F2, with a fairly sharp center and wild chromatic aberration. It required a tripod, and the fun was short-lived, but it did work. </p>

[lachaine]

<p>I've used quite a few such cameras, but one thing you have to realize is that a lot of what you might see on lomography type sites is not just the camera, but the way the photographer used it. For example, you're not going to get unusual lighting unless you choose a subject that already has it. In fact, other than a bit of distortion or vignetting (which many cheap cameras never had in the first place), much of what you see depends on use of filters, choice of film and cross-processing of it, etc. You really could do that with any camera, good or bad.</p>

<p>I recently put some pictures on my website that I took with an old Canon Sure Shot Owl 35 mm camera my wife picked up for me at a thrift shop. I think I got decent "toy camera"-like pictures with it, using ordinary store brand film I bought at the local drugstore. Now, I did nothing special when taking them, except choosing the subjects, time of day, quality of the lighting and that sort of thing. It's an autofocus camera, but you decide what the middle of the frame points at when you half-press the shutter. Plus, sometimes I decided a given subject would benefit from having the flash turned on. In addition to that, I scanned the negatives myself. The pics are straight from the scanner, not even cropped... but I did turn off everything that is automatic.</p>

<p><br />Look, it's about having some fun with it. You don't need to buy anything expensive. Just experiment. But if you really want toy camera pics right out of the box, a 35 mm Holga is a good option, or any version of the Diana.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>Random effects are seldom random.. A light leak will vary abit but it will be in the same place generally. A bad lens that can't focus will produce the same unfocused image generally. I saw the word boring used already. So the key seems to be ,as suggested; experiment. Surprise come. Try unscrewing the elements in a lens and put them in backwards... The little "accidents" are just that so celebrate the mistakes and don't try to buy imperfection. Tehre are plenty of just plain "bad" cameras out there ..they usedto be found often as toy or junk cameras.... Lomo is trying to market this... mmmHH </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>If you want a toy camera image, of course one option is indeed, just to get a toy camera. Look around thrift shops and yard sales for cheap 35 millimeter cameras, especially those that came as premiums or that were sold as imitations of good cameras. There is a whole subset of 35 millimeter fixed-focus cameras - essentially glorified box cameras - in cases made to imitate an SLR. They turn up free or nearly so often. </p>

<p>If you want real creative control, a crazy or broken lens on a better camera is still an option. Single element lenses on small box cameras get away with some of their deficiencies by being wide and slow, giving greater depth of field. A fast lens shot wide open will give you more "in your face" results. Of course some of those lenses can be used on a digital camera too. Another option is to use cheap fast film that has expired or been stored badly. I've gotten some pretty bizarre results from expired ASA800 print film, or from oddball stuff bought long expired at a dollar store. I looked in my archives and came up with one of a few pictures taken with the reversed-enlarger lens mentioned above. Curvature of field and focus softening are less obvious here than the wild chromatic aberration that occurs when it is shot wide open. The film was some more or less discounted color print film without any obvious problems of its own. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Ooops, sorry, I forgot to convert the file. </p><div></div>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Get anny 35mm SLR (I favor Olympus OM1/OM2 cameras), a manual bellows, and adapt a +6 or +10 close up lens to it. I did this way back in th 80's using Series VI close up lenses.</p>

<p>Lots of fun!</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Pinhole camera will work.</p>

[simon_apbsen]

<p>Thanks (so far :) for all your wonderfully informative answers, suggestions and recommendations.<br>

Your expertise is highly valuable - and extremely appreciated by a "newcomer" such as myself! </p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Yes, I too was thinking pinhole, or a box brownie or similar box camera. Many folks buy a beat up box camera and reverse the lens, this gives a very 'Lomo" effect.<br>

Good luck with your endeavors!</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Camera+standard lens+UVa filter+nose grease= hazy, flare, smeared image etc., different each time.</p>

<p>Holga also sells single element plastic lenses for Nikon mount and you could get a really nice Nikkormat FT with a 50mm f2 Nikon lens for a lot less than $200. Built like a tank too. </p>

[dave_g1]

<p>I'm not entirely sure what you're trying get at with your particular use of the word "textures". But there are a lot of cameras which give odd blur, vignetting, chromatic aberration, etc.<br>

One such camera I've used was the Halina 35X. Unfortunately it was also a very frustrating camera to use.<br>

<img src="https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6164/6204014473_27348bb3be_b.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

The much easier to find Spartus 35 can also give odd blur and vignetting.</p>

[anirbanbanerjee]

<p>You could try to screw-in two UV filters back-to-back after smearing vaseline on the inner surfaces of the filters. Depending upon the quantity of vaseline and filter ring thickness, you'll get some artsy effects and vignetting.</p>

<p>EDIT: Use any interchangeable lens camera.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Try some of the Lensbaby products on a "modern" camera. What you are requesting is pretty well their raison d'etre.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lensbaby is pretty good idea; I have the cheapest (the Spark) and it's basically just really fun to work with in my view. The more expensive ones have more of an effect (being f/2 lenses, while the Spark I have is a fixed f/5.6 lens), but they cost quite a bit more. I'm using it mainly on a DSLR, but it would work on my film camera just the same. The advantage is that you could use the same camera with a "normal" lens and have a camera that has predictable output as well ;-) Plus, a second hand Nikon or Canon film body doesn't need to cost all that much.<br>

Examples: <a href="/photo/17486622">here</a>, <a href="/photo/17486628">here </a>and <a href="/photo/17486629">here</a>.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>What you are confusing here is result by accident and a result due to control and experience, and a result that is the result of digital manipulation. No single camera can achieve these effects, and a lot of what can be done in-camera is due to the knowledge of what a certain filter or lens will do. Some toy cameras such as the Debonair, Diana or Holga can give you dreamy effects, but it does not happen "out of the box." You need to know what the camera is capable of before you can readily bend it to your will. I touch on that here:<br>

<a href="http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2013/10/finding-your-photographic-voice.html">http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2013/10/finding-your-photographic-voice.html</a><br>

here:<br>

<a href="http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2011/05/sima-soft-focus-lens.html">http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2011/05/sima-soft-focus-lens.html</a><br>

here:<br>

<a href="http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2009/01/argus-75-toy-or-tool.html">http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2009/01/argus-75-toy-or-tool.html</a><br>

here:<br>

<a href="http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2012/03/holga-135-pan-quick-review.html">http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2012/03/holga-135-pan-quick-review.html</a><br>

and here:<br>

<a href="http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-fair-images-from-debonair-camera.html">http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-fair-images-from-debonair-camera.html</a><br>

One can get a Brownie Hawkeye Flash camera, reverse the lens (info is online) and get some pretty interesting effects. You can also get a disposable camera, and take come sand paper to the lens and see what you get. Keep a journal of what you do so it is easier to replicate your results!</p>