Anyone like analogue photos?

[Dude111]

They are just so much smoother and more natural looking in my opinion.......

I would love getting a GOOD analogue camara (Polaroid (Probably INSTANT would be the best as I reckon there is nowhere to develop it now (Unless ya had your own dark room I suppose)))

[admars]

my kids enjoy sitting with my mum and looking at old family photos in a photo album.

I've used photobox to make photo album books from digital photos as it's nice to have and hold, and easier to flick through them.

I think it wa 7 day shop were still selling film, but it was very expensive, as you say, I don't think you can just take it to the high street now and choose who has the best deal to get it developed, or send it off to one of those companies which returned your photos weeks later with a "free" film

My mum had a Polaroid, didn't use it much as cartridges were so expensive, was saved for special occasions, on holiday abroad where she wanted to be 100% she had that photo of that special moment

'Polaroid' and 'good' should never be used in the same sentence. Polaroids were a novelty purely for the instant results, and you can get that at a fraction of the cost from the cheapest mobile phone now, with better picture quality.

[Taf]

I still have my 35mm camera (Konica FS-1) and all the lenses and filters that I loved to use. A full set of darkroom kit for B+W and colour. But it's all been sat unused for 20 years. I have several digital cameras too, but rarely take any photos.

[heero_yuy]

I used to be a keen photographer with my 35mm Nikon FT2 and a selection of lenses including my favorite 28-100 F3.5 zoom. Great all occasions lens.

Like Taf I've not done any film photography for years.

All my photographs in the albums were scanned into the PC at 4800dpi a few years ago. I bought an A4 flatbed scanner (HP Scanjet 5p) specifically for the project. Something like 4,000 pictures. Cross catalogued and accessible in seconds.

[Mr K]

What's wrong with a pinhole camera? You can keep your megapixels.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Mr K

What's wrong with a pinhole camera?

The picture comes out the wrong way up. Rather like they do on iPhones.

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Chris

'Polaroid' and 'good' should never be used in the same sentence. Polaroids were a novelty purely for the instant results, and you can get that at a fraction of the cost from the cheapest mobile phone now, with better picture quality.

But I think analogue photos are more natural looking... Digital has harsher colours and to me doesnt look as nice..... I would rather see a beautiful analogue picture than the same image digitalised..

[Taf]

I was thinking about this recently.

Years ago, on a photo developing course, we were asked to print an image from a single colour negative onto several brands of colour photo paper.

All came out differently, and the reason was "gamut".

Different papers react differently across the spectrum they are being asked to recreate. One might have brighter reds, another duller greens, and some don't react to some colours at all (especially fluorescent tones).

The same thing happens between a digital photo and monitors and printers. So if you are trying to print something with, for example, a specific blue used in a company logo, you might hit snags. Even your camera sensor has its own gamut, so you can get tied in knots unless you have expertise in colour balancing and/or the pantone system.

Originally Posted by Chris

'Polaroid' and 'good' should never be used in the same sentence. Polaroids were a novelty purely for the instant results, and you can get that at a fraction of the cost from the cheapest mobile phone now, with better picture quality.

Not many mobiles can print a photo, that was the main advantage of polaroid.

Originally Posted by Paul

Not many mobiles can print a photo, that was the main advantage of polaroid.

No, but almost all of them have a screen comparable in size to a Polaroid print (and plenty are larger), and a much higher resolution.

[Dude111]

But they dont look at natural looking Mate...I have seen some digital prints and they have a very rough look.. (Maybe its how they were done)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Dude111

But they dont look at natural looking Mate...I have seen some digital prints and they have a very rough look.. (Maybe its how they were done)

But you can change that if you have something like Photoshop (and others). Load the raw image in and adjust it to how you want it. You can soften it, harden it adjust low-mid-high lighted areas etc.

When you had a camera you bought a film, took your pictures and the took the film to a store to develop and print them.

Forgetting Polorids , which as Chris says were a novelty. you take your film in ( or send it off ) to be developed and printed. The machine that did it is set at "one for all". It didn't care if one frame was over or under exposed it just developed all frames the same and printed them.

I have in the past taken over and underexposed negatives, scanned them and produced high quality prints from them thanks to the digital platform. The people I did it for were over the moon as in quite a few cases they were of family gone. It was not a business but a hobby and friends asked if I could do it. Maximum charge:- buy me a pint next time you see me.

[Dude111]

That interesting mate,thank you for that

[Halcyon]

The thing I hate is HDR images that seem way too sharpened.
A bit of blurryness can be a good thing.