Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Nostalgia Thread

1356

Posts

  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201
    elbowloh said:

    Jeez did you guys have those flashes with powder and duck you heads under a blackout cloth to take the exposure?

    My first camera was a Kodak Brownie Box.


    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 4,125

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!


    Wonder if it's as heavy as my current d7200. Weighs a ton.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame ??
    Tall....
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 6,021
    elbowloh said:

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!

    Wonder if it's as heavy as my current d7200. Weighs a ton.
    Not quite a tonne, but a tad under 1kg, without a roll of film in it.
  • Charlie_CrokerCharlie_Croker Posts: 1,123

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!



    There’s something very satisfying about the feel and handling of these Olympus cameras, not yet replicated in the digital age IMHO
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201
    edited 11 January
    elbowloh said:

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!

    Wonder if it's as heavy as my current d7200. Weighs a ton.
    The thing about cameras is that up to a limit mass actually gives more stability. FWIW my D600 weighs more than yours but less than Brian's. Chuck on a heavy lens and...

    Suddenly realising that my camera is 8 years old. 😱 Not so important in a film era but an age in digital terms.

    PS - Still fancy an FM3A but I dare say I'd rarely use it.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • capt_slogcapt_slog Posts: 3,446
    I had a Pentax film camera, I used to take loads of black and white, I bought the film in bulk rolls. I developed and printed in my own darkroom It was lovely to see the images come up in the tray. I still have all the stuff, perhaps I'll have a another go one day.


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 6,021
    capt_slog said:

    I had a Pentax film camera, I used to take loads of black and white, I bought the film in bulk rolls. I developed and printed in my own darkroom It was lovely to see the images come up in the tray. I still have all the stuff, perhaps I'll have a another go one day.

    Yes, I think that these days particularly film cameras only make sense if you've got your own darkroom, so you can do it from start to finish. The ease and cheapness of digital, plus some pretty awesome kit (which can get stunning results on auto settings) at relatively low prices, makes it something few people would have the patience for.
  • ProssPross Posts: 25,462
    Being able to go on a site visit and people accepting you weren't going to be contactable for the day. Ruined by mobile phones. Now some people expect you to be contactable any time of day or when you're on holiday.

    Also, if you had forgotten to do some work, being able to say you posted it a few days ago and act surprised they hadn't received, promise to resend it and finally get around to it. Some of this was ruined by fax but being able to send emails with drawing attachments was the real killer.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 11,843
    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,702 Lives Here
    edited 12 January

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
    It's not though.
    With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,638
    Nah, I used to take loads of really bad pics back then too :/

    ... never mind all those films that failed to engage in the winder and the whole spool came out blank, or the ones that got lost in the post, or....
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,702 Lives Here
    pblakeney said:

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
    It's not though.
    With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
    Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201

    pblakeney said:

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
    It's not though.
    With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
    Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.
    True, and I do.
    You should see the number of shots on my camera when my wife has had a shot though. I have to delete hundreds of rubbish to get to the few good ones. I'll take 10, she'll take 200.
    Ease makes people lazy.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 11,843

    pblakeney said:

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
    It's not though.
    With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
    Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.
    I'm flattered that you won't allow me a psychological weakness.
  • pangolinpangolin Posts: 3,151
    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
    It's not though.
    With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
    Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.
    True, and I do.
    You should see the number of shots on my camera when my wife has had a shot though. I have to delete hundreds of rubbish to get to the few good ones. I'll take 10, she'll take 200.
    Ease makes people lazy.
    I tried an exercise where you take as many as you want and at the end of the day delete all but 6. Makes you think about what you're taking a bit more as you don't want to be endlessly deleting stuff.
    Genesis Croix de Fer
    Cube Attain
  • step83step83 Posts: 4,016

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!


    I was given one of these by my mother, stamped USSR on the base Works perfectly still, lens is lovely




    Anyway, nostalgia.
    Woolworths pick an mix
    Panda pops
    4 star fuel
    Only having four channels on the tele
    Proper weather (ie when it was cold it was actually very cold an snowed an you got decent thunderstorms in summer)
    Marathons and Opal fruits
    John Lewis being closed on Sunday and Monday
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 6,021
    step83 said:


    Only having four channels on the tele

    "Only three" I think you mean. And closedown at night, and no daytime TV.

    https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/october/launch-of-daytime-television
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201
    pangolin said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    I used to take much better photos with film due to being able to take far fewer and therefore putting more effort in.

    This sounds suspiciously like "I ride faster on a single speed as I have to keep riding hard to stay on top of the gear"
    It's not though.
    With film you wouldn't see the result for days, and possibly months later and it cost money (quality film/slide wasn't cheap) so you had to make sure you got it right first time. More effort, more concentration, better results. It is the difference between taking 60 shots a year and 60 shots a day.
    Just apply the same level of concentration with the new kit.
    True, and I do.
    You should see the number of shots on my camera when my wife has had a shot though. I have to delete hundreds of rubbish to get to the few good ones. I'll take 10, she'll take 200.
    Ease makes people lazy.
    I tried an exercise where you take as many as you want and at the end of the day delete all but 6. Makes you think about what you're taking a bit more as you don't want to be endlessly deleting stuff.
    Yeah, I've been through that process and refined it down to only taking 10 in the first place, although the number depends on where you are. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201

    step83 said:


    Only having four channels on the tele

    "Only three" I think you mean. And closedown at night, and no daytime TV.

    https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/october/launch-of-daytime-television
    Some of us were lucky to have 2 ITV channels. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 11,843
    Another factor in photography is that the internet now provides images of everything, so let's imagine you go to the Taj Mahal and want a really nice photo. Why not just download it? What's the point in taking your tripod and going at sunset* just to get your photo that will be slightly worse, but otherwise look the same.

    This factor also means I put less effort in.

    In contrast, I put more effort into photos of family now, and have been really enjoying using a fixed 50mm lens.

    *I never did this anyway
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,879

    Another factor in photography is that the internet now provides images of everything, so let's imagine you go to the Taj Mahal and want a really nice photo. Why not just download it? What's the point in taking your tripod and going at sunset* just to get your photo that will be slightly worse, but otherwise look the same.

    This factor also means I put less effort in.

    In contrast, I put more effort into photos of family now, and have been really enjoying using a fixed 50mm lens.

    *I never did this anyway

    Someone should also tell people in crowds at major events about this phenomenon.
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 4,125
    My main type of photography is wildlife photos, so the "joy" is actually experiencing the moment (or not). Can go hours without seeing anything, sometimes entire trips and not see what you were actually trying to see.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame ??
    Tall....
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,702 Lives Here

    Another factor in photography is that the internet now provides images of everything, so let's imagine you go to the Taj Mahal and want a really nice photo. Why not just download it? What's the point in taking your tripod and going at sunset* just to get your photo that will be slightly worse, but otherwise look the same.

    This factor also means I put less effort in.

    In contrast, I put more effort into photos of family now, and have been really enjoying using a fixed 50mm lens.

    *I never did this anyway

    A photo of you in front of the Taj Mahal at least shows you were there.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201
    elbowloh said:

    My main type of photography is wildlife photos, so the "joy" is actually experiencing the moment (or not). Can go hours without seeing anything, sometimes entire trips and not see what you were actually trying to see.

    My quiet and calm time, especially at dawn.
    Much like cycling but without the effort. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • piker2piker2 Posts: 44

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!


    That lens cost as much as the camera. Have you just taken that out of a black bag that contains your standard, wide angle and long telephoto lenses? I still have all that. It all cost a fortune then. I dont think it would fetch £10 on Ebay now.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,201
    edited 12 January
    piker2 said:



    That lens cost as much as the camera. Have you just taken that out of a black bag that contains your standard, wide angle and long telephoto lenses? I still have all that. It all cost a fortune then. I dont think it would fetch £10 on Ebay now.

    £75? Even more for Olympus lenses.

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Olympus-OM10-35mm-SLR-Film-Camera-with-Lens-and-Flash-Kit/303840949724?hash=item46be54f5dc:g:zYsAAOSwn41f82nt
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 6,021
    piker2 said:

    Gosh, I'd forgotten how heavy it is!

    That lens cost as much as the camera. Have you just taken that out of a black bag that contains your standard, wide angle and long telephoto lenses? I still have all that. It all cost a fortune then. I dont think it would fetch £10 on Ebay now.
    Can't remember how much the lens was, though it was lovely having used just the fixed 50mm lens for years. I only had those two. Apparently my 1981 £110 for the camera would be about £450 now, allowing for inflation, so not silly money for some fantastic engineering. And yes, you can pick them up on eBay for £100 or less now.
Sign In or Register to comment.