real retro gallery

[mysteryscribe]

Suggestion here: You can move this anywhere you like.

There are spaces for landscape, wedding photos general galeries and a couple of more, but if you want to show real retro, not digi sepia, but real retro shots, on real film, using vintage equipment there is no place for you. Sure start your own thread in the specialty gallery and get buried on page nine.

The reason there is more than one galery, I think, is so that the people who view them come at it with a different set of parameters. Most people have no concept of what retro is all about, so they are unimpressed with photographs that are more about the subject and the photographer's eye, than the 'wow mom' techniques. True retro is so much more than sepia filters, though they get used a lot. It's taking the time to make sure the picture is worth shooting, even test shots. If you go to all that trouble to make just one image, you want it to be done well. Retro photographers don't shoot a hundred minutely different shots to pick just the right one. They THINK so that one is all it takes. Okay sometimes they are over exposed Terri, but I'll take an over exposed retro shot over a dozen plastic digital crap things. I'll also take a wooden dining room chair over a fiberglass sling back thing as well.

Now I'm getting mean so let me stop. I have looked in google, there is not one purely retro forums around. I'm not sure, maybe there aren't enough retro photographers around yet. There will be one day, it might be too early yet but there will be trust me.

By the way I said to someone on a thread that he must not have shot retro, if he couldn't undertand that a retro photographer had an almost impossible time with moving animals. His replay, "I have shot an SLR" that's why us old guys will band together one day and take back the world. Wonder where I can get one of those vest things, slightly used of course in keeping with the retro philosopy.

In the words of that great other great philosopher Kevin Costner, "Build it they will come."

 

[terri]

Okay sometimes they are over exposed Terri, but I'll take an over exposed retro shot over a dozen plastic digital crap things.

Okay, that was good.

We're on the same team, bro. :thumbup: We have several vintage camera enthusiasts on board here, actually. And we want them here! :hail:

We've kind of been using the "alternative forum" as a catch-all for special photographic processes, so keep posting here for now. I agree it would be wonderful to see that enhanced. Stick around.

 

[mysteryscribe]

If you do it, make sure the word gets out, because like I said I couldn't find anything on google for a forum about retro. I know there are lots and lots of retro photographers out there with no where to go. I sure would like to see somethings here. Lots of places will let you discuss equipment and ask question mixed in with their other stuff I think. I just couldn't find anywhere with a retro gallery as such.

 

['Daniel']

From what you're saying it sounds like you want people who consider their shots more and don't just shoot loads and check on there LCD screen after.

I think that this would be a good gallery to have where people put qhat they think are their best pieces and not just put stuff there becasue they feel like putting something up as alot do with some of their work. however you also seem to want "vintage" as well. Does this mean only film? Only old cameras? I think that limiting it to film is unfair. There is the same methodology eexcecuted in both film and digital of blast out a thousand shots and just take one./ however its not a prerequisite of using digital. I think "Consideration and Concept" would be a good forum. Limiting it to film is wrong I think.

Of course then there is the factor of should people put the concept of the photo down in words when they post. The discussion in another thread suggests this is a bad thing (consensus not everyone). So then if people don't How can you argue if a shot was considrered and conceptualized?

 

[terri]

Well for now, consider the Alternative Techniques forum at TPF your "retro gallery". All kinds of interesting images get posted in here from a variety of cameras, including those shot with classic Polaroids.

In the meantime, help support our efforts at expanding the site! If you know more *retro* photographers, send them here. As previously mentioned, we have a lot of classic camera enthusiasts who discuss them here. It would be a lot of fun to see more and more images from those who use them being posted!

 

['Daniel']

what I was trying to say is that i'm confused of the or maybe just your definition of the term "retro photographer"

It seemed to be about not being trigger happy and taking your time, considering a shot before you take it.

am I right with that, is there anything you would add?

Maybe a subsection in alternative ptechniques? As I'd say it's a rather minority technique. most people do take alot of shots. alot more than they will use or like. I am a fan of the one shot in the camera type of shooting where you go out with one fram and make it count.

 

[ThomThomsk]

There are spaces for landscape, wedding photos general galeries and a couple of more, but if you want to show real retro, not digi sepia, but real retro shots, on real film, using vintage equipment there is no place for you.

APUG (whose members are sometimes known as ape huggers). 11,000 film users, mostly medium format and larger. Great place:

www.apug.org

The only trouble is that the galleries are for subscribers only, which I think means parting with some cash. I paid something anyway just to support the site, which deserves to do well because it is an amazing community.

By the way terri, I like your statue of Liberty shot in the alternative processes gallery over there.

Thomsk (who isn't Thomsk on APUG)

 

[mysteryscribe]

There is a question in the reply that I'm not sure anyone can answer. What is the definition of retro photography. Or even a retro photo. The term is most likely missused when applied to retro looking. But then the retro beetle had nothing to do with the original beetle either. So what really is retro and if you can't define it how can you create a gallery for it. Interesting thought, I have to admit it never crossed my mind. When I went retro, I began learning about camera construction and using old old cameras. To me that and the almost non use of photoshop had a lot to do with it.

Most of us no longer actually go into a darkroom, so does that mean we aren't really making retro images. I process my own film, does that mean I am half assed retro. So where do you draw the line. I use a digital darkroom, thats how i think of the many edit programs that do lots of stuff I never use. I try to keep it down to what I could do in a darkroom. I can crop... I can burn... I can dodge... I can hand color... I can burn out things IE clone. I would probably do better to just airbrush... Hey thats a thought I think I will from now on. Cloning always bothered me. I can take off dust spots in a darkroom. With all this there are so many more things the techies can do that I can't.

My son in law is a real techie and knows his nikon d200 inside and out. But half the people in his portraits are off balance and look as though they were in the process of falling on their ass. I'm sorry but that is true. I'm sure there are thousands of photographers who understand composition and balance who also understand the techie stuff. But thousands more don't bother with the composition of the shot cause they gonna fix that bad mutha in da shop. Right.

So are there are some serious photographers who find that the general gallery is a little too general, and the critique is a little to in your face maybe. I don't have a clue as to what is going on in anyone elses thinking.

I simply meant a place where vintage camera users could post images. Vintage cameras force you to consider what you are doing, but the down side is you aren't going to be shooting wildlife shots with them. Not the real vintage stuff. I can't imagine trying to shoot a deer with a polaroid 110. You might could throw it and kill him, but you aren't going to get everything set up in time unless he is on drugs.

Retro has it's good and bad points but it's mostly for guys like me who don't have to produce two hundred images from a wedding. I used to do that with an slr so I don't see an slr as being retro. Somebody should set up a time of manufacture or a type to classify what is and isnt a retro camera. Classics we have, just plain old average retro I don't know of one.

Now that I've written a hundred words or something I have to confess, I'm just rambling. I have no earthly idea what I'm talking about.

I have to admit that I have posted a lot of images from a digital point and shoot camera camera here. Not sure what that means but it is true. I would just like to have a place to post ones that are more than that. I know before you say it, I should post them in the same place and just let it happen. Or better still stop bitchin and just enjoy the site.... Okay fine.

 

[terri]

I simply meant a place where vintage camera users could post images.

That is exactly what I thought you were saying, Charlie. Although we have a lot of vintage camera enthusiasts here, not sure we have enough who routinely are shooting them (due to some of the limitations you just described) to warrant its own gallery space here.

BUT - if you want to post them in a forum where people come to see some (for lack of a better term) unusual or different kinds of imagery, I still think this is the best place for those images.

And, as an aside, APUG members are indeed very passionate about film/analog photography. Their devotion to the craft is refreshing in this currently pixel-mad world. :thumbup:



P.S. I've updated the forum title and description so there shouldn't be as much confusion about posting images here. Have at it!

 

[mysteryscribe]

this is a generation of photographers that is going to be like none other. Kids who start out with digital cameras and never find a need to learn anything about the craft. It's like my painter friend used to say, if you shoot a wedding and allow everyone there to bring out their camera, someone will shoot a better pic than you. However, one picture does not a wedding photographer make. Same is going to be true with digital. If you shoot five hundred images and one or two will be very good. The problem is going to be to figure out how to do it again.

None the less we can't all have a teacher who painted nude now can we?