3 ms·

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes

Can't you just not care and power through? Someones always going to be miffed regardless. I keep a Rollei A110 on me at all times and a tiny Minox EC that takes me hours to refill. When I bring it out people love it. It's a throwback that people very much appreciate. I can see people getting miffed at a big digital camera though.

mikepurvis 1y ago
I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there it definitely registers as “camera” far more than a phone. Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on special occasions — trips, hikes, etc. It’s not worth all that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?
  - asimovDev 1y ago
    I found our childhood film camera last year and I took it to a couple trips. price of scanners/getting your film scanned and needing to buy 10eur film rolls for like 20 photos turned me off. I still haven't scanned my first and only roll I shot last year.
    - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
      I bought a Gralab timer and hooked it up to an old shitty enlarger in my tiny dark wine cellar, along with a red bulb. A few chemicals and tools and you're golden. The only thing that screws me is having to cut up film and spool it but I can get more frames out of it that way since I use mini spy cameras. Yes the film being expensive isn't great but it also makes you choose your shots carefully. Get a cheap darkroom film changing tent and start there.
  - foldr 1y ago
    I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate investment of time and money for a small number of photos.
    - etrautmann 1y ago
      That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.
      - foldr 1y ago
        It's what some people see as the point now. Back when film was the only option, the cost and time per frame were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your last three remaining frames; it was just annoying. I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some people might take better or more meaningful photos using old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting or valuable.
      - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
        The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on their best work and total volume of work springs to mind. I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick the winners later.
        peteforde 1y ago
        What you are describing isn't photography.
- sneak 1y ago
  I have a top of the line Sony Alpha (7CR) with a large zoom lens (24-70GM or 70-200GM) and I carry it almost everywhere, every day. It is absolutely worth the hassle to get day to day stuff.
  - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
    As they say in the audio world, “there ain't no replacement for displacement.” I love gigazoom lenses. For focal lengths under 100mm, I can use my phone. My SLR is my personal spy satellite.
Tepix 1y ago
Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  Man you would hate flickr. Also, never said anything about that. I don't have any social media, so the photos die with me and my friends. It's a nice break from modern technology to spend hours on an analog process. If you're in a public place you're probably getting photographed so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
- tasuki 1y ago
  Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion on the internet? Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture showing other people and show it to a third person?
  - igouy 1y ago
    Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed commercial use is not.
- oneeyedpigeon 1y ago
  Because that's what public space is? We've always held that principle, and I don't think 'reach' should affect that. If someone takes this to the extreme (i.e. follows you around in public, taking thousands of pictures and uploading them in real time) they can be charged with stalking, harassment, or a similar offence. To turn it on its head, if you cannot take photographs of people in public without their permission, then we basically lose the ability to take any photos of public space.
- sneak 1y ago
  Because we in the global west generally have the right to photograph anything we can see in public, save for pathological places like Germany or France. You don’t own your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You don’t have any say in what I do with my (legally obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.
barrell 1y ago
Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing. YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.
- etrautmann 1y ago
  Really? I do this often and have never had any issues.
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  >YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it. Has to be a digital.
- Defenestresque 1y ago
  As someone who only occasionally takes photos of mature, or empty streets (I just find them more aesthetically pleasing, especially if they're empty at night, nothing to do with the topic of discussion), I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, May I ask where you are taking out your camera to experience these results? By "where," I mean both what part of the world/culture you are in and the specific location(s) (e.g. weddings, streets, public transit, work, at a friend's whom you know well, at an acquaintance's).. you get the point.

mikepurvis 1y ago

I have an entry level Sony Alpha that I picked up for a vacation earlier this year. With the portrait lens on there it definitely registers as “camera” far more than a phone. Between that factor and the hassle of having to manually go through and upload the photos afterward, I only take it on special occasions — trips, hikes, etc. It’s not worth all that hassle for trying to get day to day stuff.

MarcelOlsz 1y ago
Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?
- asimovDev 1y ago
  I found our childhood film camera last year and I took it to a couple trips. price of scanners/getting your film scanned and needing to buy 10eur film rolls for like 20 photos turned me off. I still haven't scanned my first and only roll I shot last year.
  - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
    I bought a Gralab timer and hooked it up to an old shitty enlarger in my tiny dark wine cellar, along with a red bulb. A few chemicals and tools and you're golden. The only thing that screws me is having to cut up film and spool it but I can get more frames out of it that way since I use mini spy cameras. Yes the film being expensive isn't great but it also makes you choose your shots carefully. Get a cheap darkroom film changing tent and start there.
- foldr 1y ago
  I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion. But for 35mm and medium format, there's a hugely disproportionate investment of time and money for a small number of photos.
  - etrautmann 1y ago
    That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.
    - foldr 1y ago
      It's what some people see as the point now. Back when film was the only option, the cost and time per frame were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your last three remaining frames; it was just annoying. I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some people might take better or more meaningful photos using old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting or valuable.
    - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
      The parable of the pottery classes that were graded on their best work and total volume of work springs to mind. I never would've bothered with photography if I didn't have the ability to be shameless with burst mode and pick the winners later.
      - peteforde 1y ago
        What you are describing isn't photography.
sneak 1y ago
I have a top of the line Sony Alpha (7CR) with a large zoom lens (24-70GM or 70-200GM) and I carry it almost everywhere, every day. It is absolutely worth the hassle to get day to day stuff.
- BeFlatXIII 1y ago
  As they say in the audio world, “there ain't no replacement for displacement.” I love gigazoom lenses. For focal lengths under 100mm, I can use my phone. My SLR is my personal spy satellite.

Tepix 1y ago

Why do you think anyone is entitled to upload photographs showing other people to the internet where they are completely out of control of what happens next?

MarcelOlsz 1y ago
Man you would hate flickr. Also, never said anything about that. I don't have any social media, so the photos die with me and my friends. It's a nice break from modern technology to spend hours on an analog process. If you're in a public place you're probably getting photographed so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
tasuki 1y ago
Let me flip that on you: Why not? How do you decide what people are entitled to? Am I entitled to have an opinion on the internet? Where lies the line? Would it be ok to paint a picture showing other people and show it to a third person?
- igouy 1y ago
  Non-commercial use is sometimes accepted when unlicensed commercial use is not.
oneeyedpigeon 1y ago
Because that's what public space is? We've always held that principle, and I don't think 'reach' should affect that. If someone takes this to the extreme (i.e. follows you around in public, taking thousands of pictures and uploading them in real time) they can be charged with stalking, harassment, or a similar offence. To turn it on its head, if you cannot take photographs of people in public without their permission, then we basically lose the ability to take any photos of public space.
sneak 1y ago
Because we in the global west generally have the right to photograph anything we can see in public, save for pathological places like Germany or France. You don’t own your image. If you go into public and I take a photograph of you, I hold the copyright on that image, not you. You don’t have any say in what I do with my (legally obtained) image taken in public, nor should you.

barrell 1y ago

Can’t I just not care that I’m making other people uncomfortable and power through? I think for obvious reasons that takes away a lot of the enjoyment, both of photography and socializing. YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it.

etrautmann 1y ago
Really? I do this often and have never had any issues.
MarcelOlsz 1y ago
>YMMV, but every time I’ve brought out a camera in the last 5-10 years it has just made people uncomfortable, so I stopped taking it out, and eventually stopped bringing it. Has to be a digital.
Defenestresque 1y ago
As someone who only occasionally takes photos of mature, or empty streets (I just find them more aesthetically pleasing, especially if they're empty at night, nothing to do with the topic of discussion), I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, May I ask where you are taking out your camera to experience these results? By "where," I mean both what part of the world/culture you are in and the specific location(s) (e.g. weddings, streets, public transit, work, at a friend's whom you know well, at an acquaintance's).. you get the point.