That old 1970s theater look

[kekolsta]

Hey everyone,

New to the forum -- glad to see that such a site exists -- and glad to have stumbled upon one that seems so popular, too.

Curious if anyone can help me out. This isn't a raging need by any means, but I'm curious as to how I can capture that perfect 1970s-esque black-and-white feel in my photos. I'm currently using a 6 megapixel Canon point-and-shoot camera that I bought at Target...so I realize that with my equipment, I'm very limited.

I'd be interested in purchasing a used camera, perhaps off eBay or otherwise, which allows a manual focus, shutter speed, etc. Standard film or digital are acceptable, and I'd prefer to keep the price under $200 (so older is fine, too).

If anyone has any thoughts or questions about this, please don't hesitate...I'm anxious to hear your feedback!

Thanks.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

how I can capture that perfect 1970s-esque black-and-white feel in my photos

Can you be more specific? Better yet, give us a link to an example photo?

 

[cosmoepic]

isnt it funny that while everyone wants these fancy new DSLR's so many want their pictures to look as old and grainy as possible?

 

[Katier]

isnt it funny that while everyone wants these fancy new DSLR's so many want their pictures to look as old and grainy as possible?

Indeed.. and even funnier that the closest/easiest option is a £35 SLR with high ISO BW film in it.

 

[tomhooper]

I've got an old Rebel film camera with a Canon 35-80 zoom that I'll mail USPS all for a 50$ dollar bill. PM me.

Having on 1 post, you may not be able to do the PM thing. You can also e-mail me at
[email protected]

 

[kekolsta]

This is rather similar to what I'm talking about:
History of Vanier College

 

[cosmoepic]

i know what you want, theres a program that can replicate the look of old photos

link here:Alien Skin Software: Exposure

see if that helps

 

[elemental]

Get a cheap manual 35mm SLR with a decently fast (f/2s tend to be nice and cheap) 50mm lens, some Tri-X, and some Rodinal. You won't be simulating the way people took photographs in the 1970s, you'll actually be doing it.

My entire setup to develop my own film was well under $100 (with 20 rolls of film). The camera was $21. Why fake it in Photoshop when the real thing costs less than a point and shoot from Wal-Mart?

 

[DavidElliot]

after looking at that link, it's interesting to see how some of the fashion from the 70s are being modified and seen in the streets nowadays. and i definitely agree with elemental about buying a used slr for cheap. if that's the look you want to achieve, the best way is to go film. you said yourself that you're willing to opt for a film camera. there are A LOT of affordable film slr out there in the market. just a few quick searches on ebay will show you how much equipment can be had for a bargain

 

[Eldrich]

Why fake it in Photoshop when the real thing costs less than a point and shoot from Wal-Mart?

I'm all for experimenting with the older camera and learning about cameras to take the kind of photo you want without processing, but I only want to point out that there is one reason to get a newer camera and fake it. Which is that eventually, you may want to have pictures that don't look like old time theater photos while still having the options of SLR. If kekolsta is interested in creating different effects with the printing, perhaps digital processing would eventually be the economical option. If you only will ever want the one effect, and are happy with your p&s for everything else, I'd say the older camera film option would be great.

It happens a lot when people buy guitars, they buy an amp that has a particular effect they really like the sound of, but then when they learn more, they realize, hey, I wanna sound like that too, and they end up buying the more expensive amp with more options in the end anyway.

just trying to help

 

[Katier]

I'm all for experimenting with the older camera and learning about cameras to take the kind of photo you want without processing, but I only want to point out that there is one reason to get a newer camera and fake it. Which is that eventually, you may want to have pictures that don't look like old time theater photos while still having the options of SLR. If kekolsta is interested in creating different effects with the printing, perhaps digital processing would eventually be the economical option. If you only will ever want the one effect, and are happy with your p&s for everything else, I'd say the older camera film option would be great.

It happens a lot when people buy guitars, they buy an amp that has a particular effect they really like the sound of, but then when they learn more, they realize, hey, I wanna sound like that too, and they end up buying the more expensive amp with more options in the end anyway.

just trying to help

while a lot of the 'old look' is associated with older cameras. A lot of it would be film deteriation. Put some Ilford Pan, 50 ISO BW film - or something like Fuji 100 iso superia in a film camera and the image quality will be as good as, if not probably better, than digital. Digital's big power isn't really image flexibility in terms of what the camera can produce. It's strength is ease and speed of image production.

Therefore that old camera can produce older looking images and just as easilly switch to quality images.

was produced on a 50 yeard old camera for example.

 

[Eldrich]

I agree completely. But I think the ease and speed of digitals flexibility can also translate into price. If you wanted to create many different effects with film, you'd have to purchase many different films, filters, etc, but you could definitely get great quality effects. But you can get a large range of 'reasonable' quality effects with digital with a single camera and editing software.

 

[Katier]

BTW don't get me wrong, I use both. I have everything from the afformentioned 50 yr old camera ( a MF, Yashicamat LM, Twin Lens reflex ) to a brand new Pentax K200D. I just felt the need to highlight that vintage camera doesn't mean vintage images.

Personally I think for B&W proper film still is the best choice but for colour Digital has the edge due to ease of changing colour balance. Although for ultimate quality film is still better ( 35mm film @ 100 ISO is generally said to be around 24 megapixels equivelent) for most colour work Digital is probably the best choice these days.

 

[gsgary]

BTW don't get me wrong, I use both. I have everything from the afformentioned 50 yr old camera ( a MF, Yashicamat LM, Twin Lens reflex ) to a brand new Pentax K200D. I just felt the need to highlight that vintage camera doesn't mean vintage images.

Personally I think for B&W proper film still is the best choice but for colour Digital has the edge due to ease of changing colour balance. Although for ultimate quality film is still better ( 35mm film @ 100 ISO is generally said to be around 24 megapixels equivelent) for most colour work Digital is probably the best choice these days.

Have you seen the new colour film Kodak has brought out professional Ektar 100

 

[Katier]

Have you seen the new colour film Kodak has brought out professional Ektar 100

I havn't used it but am aware of it, also the Fuji colour reversal film is reputed to be excellent. I've been using C41 for convenient processing but do have a Kodachrome I need to send off.