I went and played in the rain Saturday morning and explored the Ouachitas for a change (not my usual stomping grounds.) I shot this with a FREE!!! Minolta 35mm SLR and a three dollar roll of Kodak Gold 200. It cost a about six bucks to get it developed at Walgreens.
For nine dollars I don't think it is too bad. Yea it's grainy but I think I could make a 12x18 that looked alright just don't stick your nose too close.
I can't wait for everyone's criticism. I can hear it already. Why are you shooting 200 speed print film? Why are you shooting 35mm? Why are you shooting film at all? This could be fun.
The hardware and medium have little to do with art. Almost everyone shoots 35mm these days.
One of my best images of all time was shot at ASA 40,000 many moons ago inside Barton Arena in Little Rock - it was a close-up of Billy Joel and his piano in the nearly-dark conditions during a concert in 1979 - he was looking right at me and waving (I was standing on the back of the stage). I had to process the Tri-X film for several hours before any image came up on the negative at all. That 8x10 print is amazing and perhaps is my most valuable print, although I've never showed it to anyone - I made it for me. It was shot with a Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror lens - in fact I still know the guy who uses this very same lens every day - I sold it to a friend who then sold it to him.
I bought a pair of sepia-toned prints from a native American photographer in Arizona a couple of years ago - he worked with Ansel Adams back in the 1970's. He uses a $12 Holga camera and sells his prints for $500 each and they are just incredible prints.
Hardware and medium have little to do with art. It is what you do with that equipment that counts. And if you enjoy what you have created, who cares what others think...
Thanks Tim. I'm really glad to hear you guys got a couple inches of rain Saturday and looks like more coming Tuesday. Boy have we needed it.
Yea Brian the guy looked a little lonely behind the counter, I don't think he had much to do, my one hour prints took about 30 minutes.
Posted by Larry Daniel on March 23, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Nice capture. You are lucky you got it developed, one of these days getting film developed will be much more difficult.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on March 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Looks good to me print film or not. I like the comp and for me there's just the right amount of underwater detail, nice work.
Posted by Brad Mangas on March 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Hi Matthew, I see absolutely nothing bad about this image. The color is nice the detail is nice, and the person behind the shutter done a nice job as well.
I think its really cool what you took it with and shared it with us. You done a mighty fine job with what you had, and as Tim very nicely pointed out, that is what separates the good from the bad. Very well done.
Yeah, this is classic Ouachita country alright. I've starting thinking about trying to find more to shoot down there, since the ice damage was so bad up here in the Ozarks. I think this photo goes to show that there are probably a lot of beautiful Ouachita scenes just waiting to have their picture taken. Nicely done, Matthew.
Yea Bill I am not too familiar with the Ouachitas either, but I did like what I saw on my little tour last Saturday. I will probably be out looking for more in the near future.
There are lots of great shooting locations in the Ouachitas - especially in the springtime - many are described in the Arkansas Nature Lover's Guidebook of course....
Discussion
10 repliesFor nine dollars I don't think it is too bad. Yea it's grainy but I think I could make a 12x18 that looked alright just don't stick your nose too close.
I can't wait for everyone's criticism. I can hear it already. Why are you shooting 200 speed print film? Why are you shooting 35mm? Why are you shooting film at all? This could be fun.
Here is another view I can't decide which I like better.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3373861123_ec231413e3_o.jpg
One of my best images of all time was shot at ASA 40,000 many moons ago inside Barton Arena in Little Rock - it was a close-up of Billy Joel and his piano in the nearly-dark conditions during a concert in 1979 - he was looking right at me and waving (I was standing on the back of the stage). I had to process the Tri-X film for several hours before any image came up on the negative at all. That 8x10 print is amazing and perhaps is my most valuable print, although I've never showed it to anyone - I made it for me. It was shot with a Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror lens - in fact I still know the guy who uses this very same lens every day - I sold it to a friend who then sold it to him.
I bought a pair of sepia-toned prints from a native American photographer in Arizona a couple of years ago - he worked with Ansel Adams back in the 1970's. He uses a $12 Holga camera and sells his prints for $500 each and they are just incredible prints.
Hardware and medium have little to do with art. It is what you do with that equipment that counts. And if you enjoy what you have created, who cares what others think...
Yea Brian the guy looked a little lonely behind the counter, I don't think he had much to do, my one hour prints took about 30 minutes.
I think its really cool what you took it with and shared it with us. You done a mighty fine job with what you had, and as Tim very nicely pointed out, that is what separates the good from the bad. Very well done.
I always figure the best gear to use is the gear you have with you at the time...