[HN Gopher] In Japan, digicams are the new film
___________________________________________________________________
In Japan, digicams are the new film
Author : ingve
Score : 47 points
Date : 2022-01-16 11:19 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (casualphotophile.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (casualphotophile.com)
| [deleted]
| codazoda wrote:
| I got some of my favorite photos from a $20 digital camera. I had
| spent thousands on various early cameras and decided to go to the
| lowest quality tool in order to improve other aspects of my
| photography, such as lighting and composition. It's low cost also
| let me put the camera in positions I wouldn't let my expensive
| cameras near (mud, water, traffic, etc).
|
| When the camera stopped working, I hard wired an external battery
| pack on it, but it was never the same with the modifications.
|
| Unfortunately, I had the photos stored on the Photo Bucket
| service and they decided to dump old photos of free users. Yeah,
| I know better, but I didn't realize how important the images
| would become.
| joeraut wrote:
| Archive: https://archive.is/WJLKT
| l33tbro wrote:
| I'm considering getting a decent camera, or even going back to my
| old Iphone honestly. The images it took were so much more
| photorealistic than my current Iphone. It's like modern Iphones
| oversaturate everything and add trashy these unrealistic colors
| to things like the sky. I've tried to capture beautiful sunsets,
| but even by adjusting exposure I still cannot nail what was once
| so easy to get.
|
| I even wonder sometimes if is using some kind of algo adding
| colors based on what it thinks things should look like? Don't
| know enough about this stuff.
| grishka wrote:
| Because a tiny sensor could only do so much due to those pesky
| laws of physics, the latest trend in mobile camera tech is so-
| called "computational photography", where they use a shitload
| of algorithms and AI to enhance your pictures. And I think they
| do segment them somewhat to apply these "enhancements"
| selectively?
|
| Anyway, no idea about iOS, but many Android phones are capable
| of capturing raw pictures that you could then process however
| you wish in Lightroom or whatever else you prefer.
| sporklpony wrote:
| I believe there are apps on the app store that do this sort
| of thing, Halide[1] comes to mind as something I've read
| about, but I've never used it.
|
| [1]: https://halide.cam/
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Nikon CoolPix 950 FTW. I have at least 4 of them. Just wishing I
| could fine more Harrison Duraline 630m IR filters.
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| Phone cameras are really good in daylight and getting better in
| low light, but there's one thing they'll never have and that's a
| decent flash. It doesn't matter whether Xenon flashtube or LED,
| to get real flash you need a real flash capacitor, and that's
| just not a priority in a slim smartphone.
|
| Bonus if your old-school digicam also has a front element over
| half an inch in diameter and zooms to 10x. That still gives a
| satisfying "real camera" feel. I have a Panasonic ZS3 that I
| still use quite a bit for vacation snaps, and one of these days I
| hope to (inexpensively) snap up a Canon G series.
| colanderman wrote:
| More importantly: a cell phone's flash can never be
| significantly off-axis or diffuse. Flat and/or hard lighting is
| often worse than no lighting.
|
| I bet you could get an off-camera flash to trigger off a cell
| phone's flash though.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Couldn't you rig up a mirror to point the flash at the
| ceiling?
| woodruffw wrote:
| This is the main reason I bring a film point-and-shoot to
| parties and social events: people look _way_ better with a
| "real" flash than they do with a phone flash. That and the
| dynamic range of film are still unsurpassed by just about
| anything in phone form.
| agd wrote:
| As a (very) amateur photographer, this doesn't make sense to
| me. Flashes indoors always look terrible in my experience,
| and modern smartphones are great in low light.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Modern smartphones perform very admirably in low light, but
| with some undesirable (IMO) tradeoffs: you get all kinds of
| weird artifacts from extrapolation, and the overall image
| frequently looks muddy compared to a low-light capture on a
| DSLR or mirrorless camera (which tend to look noisy
| instead). I do, however, regularly make those tradeoffs
| when I don't want to bug people with a flash or haul a full
| camera body to a show, though!
|
| I think my use of flash indoors amounts to an aesthetic
| preference: I like the way skin tones come out on the
| combination of a ludicrous P&S flash and a "cheap" color
| stock like Gold 200. The tradeoff is glare and red-eye,
| both of which can be compensated for during compensation or
| with editing after the fact.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| You can get very good results by turning the flash power
| down a few notches and pointing it at the ceiling.
|
| For built-flashes that can't be aimed I usually hold a
| white sheet of paper just in front of it.
| hellomyguys wrote:
| The flash of P&S Film cameras have their own look that
| people like and are often associated with a "party
| aesthetic."
| aidenn0 wrote:
| If the ceilings are white and not too high, aim the flash
| to bounce off of the ceiling; that looks _way_ better.
| perardi wrote:
| This probably doesn't classify as a "digicam"--too much film
| camera styling, expensive, and has interchangeable lenses.
|
| But since I'm apparently old enough to have digital camera
| nostalgia, I always did want an Epson R-D1.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epson_R-D1
| ayngg wrote:
| I have noticed that there has been a kind of resurgence in
| older digital cameras that used ccd sensors and different
| sensor filters compared to contemporary models. A lot of people
| feel like new cameras now are almost clinical in how they take
| pictures and because of that they lack personality that older,
| quirkier cameras had, a similar argument to why some vintage
| glass is desirable despite being technically inferior to what
| you can get now.
| eropple wrote:
| I have heard those complaints from a few--though not a lot of
| --people, but coming more from a video background that has
| always struck me as not really understanding how color works,
| either up front with aesthetic setting or on the back end
| with color grading.
|
| And if you don't want to get into grading, Fuji loads up
| their cameras with film stock analogues that can give you all
| the quirk you ever wanted.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| I've heard that argument from people before. I love that the
| stock images from my nikon z5 are fairly clinical. its the
| best starting point for when I load them up into dx0 photolab
| and start adjusting all the variables/adding film
| simulations.
|
| What I love is that I can get a nice SHARP, low distortion
| rendering. You can't fix that in post.
| CarVac wrote:
| I find the color rendering of my 5D and 1Ds3 (2005 and 2007
| designs) to be slightly, but noticeably, different from new
| cameras.
|
| One quantitative difference is that there's less green
| sensitivity in the blue raw channel than modern sensors,
| which hurts their noise performance in warm lighting
| conditions.
|
| I'm not sure exactly how that affects color rendering in
| terms of metamerism, but it is visible in my experience.
| kunai wrote:
| There's definitely a difference in the way CMOS and CCD
| sensors render colors. CMOS does not do well with highlights.
| C-41 process negative film is still the gold standard as far
| as dynamic range goes, but CCDs and non-Bayer CMOS sensors
| like the Foveon come far closer than modern Bayer CMOS
| sensors. They also tend to look warmer than modern CMOS
| images, especially older Sony sensors from the late 2000s.
| Comparing the RAW output from one of my older Sony Alpha
| DSLRs vs a Canon 6D from a few years ago it's definitely
| noticeable.
| okasaki wrote:
| How do you compare the RAW data? If you're just loading up
| images in your editor then the editor is probably applying
| a camera specific profile that modifies colors and curve
| among other things. Color rendering depends on the lens too
| somewhat IIRC.
| giobox wrote:
| Perhaps you caught this news story, but Epson very recently
| found 30 brand new unsold R-D1s and planned to distribute them
| somehow. Could be your chance! I suspect these are pretty
| collectable now, especially having used the Leica M mount.
|
| One of the strangest things on that camera is it has a physical
| analogue gauge to display how much free space the memory card
| has, like the fuel level in an old car.
|
| > https://petapixel.com/2021/11/02/epson-
| found-30-r-d1s-rangef...
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| As an amateur/hobbyist street photographer, there's another angle
| to using old/unusual cameras like digicams, Kodak instant
| cameras, etc:
|
| It's adds to your credibility and reduces how threatening you
| appear when you snap a photo of someone in public. If you're
| using your phone, the subject's assumption will be that they are
| about to be plastered all over your social media. If you use a
| huge DSLR, you come across as creepy.
|
| If you're using something odd, unusual, uncommon, like a film
| rangefinder camera or digicam, it's much more clear that your
| intentions are not evil, and that you simply really like
| photography. I've had curious people ask me about my camera after
| they notice me take a shot of them, which would never happen if I
| had used my phone.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Why does this website require a database connection to render a
| static site? This trend infuriates me, and PHP developers are the
| worst offenders. So many PHP sites can be static assets but no,
| for some reason they use MySQL. Grinds my gears.
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't complain about tangential annoyances--things
| like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-
| button breakage. They're too common to be interesting._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| Something1234 wrote:
| So many sites run wordpress cause it's easy. Wordpress doesn't
| cache by default unless you run on one of the major hosts like
| kinsta or wp engine. Wordpress needs MySQL. Can you really
| fault them for picking out a standard CMS instead of rolling a
| static site that requires someone to be slightly technical.
| tim333 wrote:
| I miss my Sony DSC U20 from 2004 or so. The focusing was really
| good for some reason - you could just point it randomly, press
| the button and it would instantly take a well focused picture
| unlike modern phone cameras that tend to wait a few seconds and
| then get it wrong. (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Cybershot-DSC-
| U-Digital-Camera...). They weren't very long lived though - most
| seemed to pack up in a few years.
| toast0 wrote:
| That camera (and a lot of similar cameras from around then) is
| fixed focus, so there's no focus delay, but you also can't
| adjust the focus either. With a fixed focus camera usually
| everything farther away than X is going to show up in focus (or
| nearly so) and anything closer isn't going to be in focus. But
| a lot of the time, you will be at least X away to frame your
| shot anyway, so no big deal.
| cehrlich wrote:
| After seeing some of my party photos from 15 years ago on
| Facebook I got nostalgic for the excessive flash type photos that
| the digital pocket cameras of that era took. Picked up a Canon
| Ixus (3 Megapixal) for 10 Euros and have been having a lot of fun
| with it.
|
| This article makes me want to buy something even older.
| dekoruotas wrote:
| It can become an expensive hobby but Canon Sure Shot Max is a
| blast from the past.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| I would love to buy a new "instant" camera, but it's hard for me
| to find something at the prosumer level.
|
| The Instax Mini by Fujifilm is a relatively "cheap" consumer
| solution [0].
|
| What's its equivalent in the $600-$1,000 price range?
|
| [0]: https://petapixel.com/2022/01/14/fujifilms-market-share-
| in-j...
| brudgers wrote:
| Carry a printer such as a Canon Selphy (even the CP1300 can use
| a battery) and use a camera with WiFi.
|
| Alternatively there are portable thermal printers with phone
| apps. Many will do 300dpi. But you are limited to black and
| white...though you'll live.
| CarVac wrote:
| Mint RF70 perhaps.
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| Do you want it to be portable or produce amazing images?
| Polaroid produces pull apart film for large format cameras.
| jetrink wrote:
| There's really not much out there, because the chemistry of
| instant film is very difficult and without the film, there are
| no cameras. Fuji's only real competitor is The Impossible
| Project, now known as Polaroid, having bought the name. Their
| cameras are very nice, but their film is more expensive and
| technically inferior (though not necessarily aesthetically
| inferior, depending on your goals.) You can also buy film from
| them that is compatible with classic Polaroid cameras.
| kunai wrote:
| Polaroid has always been worse than Fuji from a technical
| aspect, but that's always been part of the draw, I feel. It's
| why Instagram got popular in the first place as the filters
| mimicked the colors of a washed-out Polaroid still from
| various decades.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| It's ironic- Fuji have a monopoly so they can charge however
| little they want.
| hellomyguys wrote:
| There's the Rolleiflex TLR Install Camera
|
| https://mint-camera.com/en/shop/cameras/rolleiflex-instant-k...
| anthk wrote:
| A similar reason to using the Game Boy Camera today.
| csdvrx wrote:
| Art is what happens when people try to surmount the limitations
| inherent to their tools.
|
| I'd pay to watch unique GBC pictures. I would hardly pay to see
| pictures taken from an iphone, because I can do that myself.
| migueltarga wrote:
| Cached link:
| https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c7CQLu...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-17 23:01 UTC)