Konica Hexar AF (400) Photograph by Mike Funnell. I hope that what I have said is somewhat useful, or at least inspires conversation Check out more of my work Instagram: Website. Having owned this camera for almost exactly 4 years on the day I recorded this, I decided that I might have some insights to offer. Contax G2 4 Year Review - Before You Buy 10:04.
I was totally burned out and, in fact, I’ve never felt like this on previous years.What I want from a compact camera is same feeling I had with the high quality smart film cameras from the 90s where Contax G2, Contax T2/T3 and Leica Minilux was my favorites. Konica Hexar AF Nikon L35AF Olympus XA2 SLR Nikon F2 Nikon FE Pentax K1000 Canon AE-1 Canon A2/A2e Rangefinder Fuji GW690III Rollei 35 S Plaubel Makina W67 Contax G1/G2 Leica M6 Mamiya 7 II Medium Format Yashica Mat 124G Mamiya RZ67 Zenza Bronica ETRS Kiev 88 Pentacon. If you have a lot of Canon FD gear and like the system, getting a new body and fast lenses for available light might be the easiest option. Well, here I am again after a much needed time off.The Hexar AF might be the closest one, but you lose the option to change lenses (and the 1/250 shortest time is also not ideal - you might need to pack ND filters). While not technically a rangefinder camera, it’s ‘rangefinder style design’ and.
Culture vs PS3… one of the many parenting battles!I like to take pictures inside museums. I didn’t take many pictures as I really wanted to clear my head from everything.As soon as I got back to Lisbon, last Friday, I decided to take my son to a museum we often visit. My eyesight got worse, my eternal migraine issue is slowly killing me and this total lack of energy and inspiration did the rest.So, one week at the beach and another one in the countryside, up north, were just what I needed. Tc ly nt ca Hexar phi ngang nga vi Contax G2, k c trong iu kin thiu sng.My last months of work were devastating physically and emotionally and the truth is… I broke down. These cameras was extremely sexy, made in titanium with af features etc.Konica Hexar AF c h thng ly nt cc k nhanh v chnh xc da trn cng ngh hng ngoi.
Konica Hexar Af Vs Contax G2 Free Zone For
The grain is tight and I like it over the aggressive Delta 3200 or Kodak 3200.More important than any of that, the images are embodied, the negatives have… depth. Using Xtol I only went up to 3200.Using this stock the results are consistent.Dark shadows (and detail loss) but enough contrast and grey range to deliver a certain kind of results which I like very much. If I had any ID-11 I would have pushed the TriX up to 5000 or 6400 ISO. Like a soft approach to shooting people.My shots are no kind of example but I’m just saying…No, but I have a lot of TriX so… it is as good, if not better, than Delta or Kodak 3200.Only Xtol. It’s a confrontation free zone for everyone who are “afraid” of doing the same on the streets.
No wind, the sky had some beautiful clouds and there was a bit of mist coming from the sea so, everything was flat looking. I knew that the Holga shots would come out… Holga looking, and God only knows what kind of surprises that camera can deliver so why not playing on the safe side by using the Hexar too?And what’s “safer” than the Konica Hexar AF and Trix? Perfect match!It was not a bright day. On more extreme situations it will deliver a certain deep darkish contrast.Here’s another example of the same combination:After finishing up the film on the Holga I picked up my Hexar AF to shoot a couple more rolls.
I’m doing it next Monday.One of the main criteria for perceiving something as a work of art is its uniqueness.It’s one of the kind and no one can reproduce it, not even the author.There’s only one Mona Lisa, only one Guernica.It’s almost a requirement, to be unique, to be a single item.The “non reproduction” characteristic is a cultural and aesthetic value.Things changed and all the sudden we entered a digital age taking printing to a whole new level. I thought about using Trix at 1600 or 3200 ISO but I was afraid that the 1/250 top speed of the Hexar was not enough so I went for the Kentmere, which is much grainier and contrasted than the Trix, and I pushed it to 800.The idea right from the start was to push it yes, but to develop it at box speed, for even more… “harshness”.It was a wonderful day around good people, surrounded by the sea and the sky.I got to use the Holga and the Hexar and managed some experiments for Cooking Film.Thank you a million times, Garrett, for putting up with my silly experiments and thank you Kenton, it’s always a pleasure working with you.PS: I most apologize for my limited English.As time goes by I try to write a bit more, and to be more detailed in my posts, and that calls for language and grammatical I still don’t have.PS2: All of these shots were Brightness and Contrast adjusted in Photoshop and cleaned using the Clone Stamp tool.The goal is to print them in the darkroom as a gift for Garrett. Well, Kenton Thatcher had the same idea, so he asked Garrett to put on his wet suit and to stand against the sky despite the lack of waves.My film choices were Trix or Kentmere 400.
When Marcel Duchamp picked up a public urinal and exhibited it in an art gallery, something changed forever.There it was, an object not conceived as a work of art, mass produced and reproduced, with no aesthetic value, being seen as art.The bottom line is: Uniqueness or Reproducibility should not be a criteria for the aesthetic evaluation of something. We talk about how rare and important it is but not about how the pages are designed, the fonts, the margins, the kind of paper, the finishing, etc…Reproducibility is the characteristic of these objects.Communication, graphic or industrial creations, more or less creative but not art. We see it as one of the most important objects in the history of mankind, we acknowledge its cultural value, historic value but not much the artistic value. We don’t call it art, we call it design.Take the Gutenberg Bible as an example. They are designed, from the beginning, to be reproduced. All the sudden the world became filled with communication objects but… a very special kind of communication objects.
I try not to misspell a lot and I try to improve on every post. However… is that characteristic a criteria for the aesthetic evaluation when look at a photograph?I truly believe that the Sex Pistols cover is as beautiful as the urinal and as beautiful as the Mona Lisa.And I’ve also said that the intrinsic characteristics of something should not interfere with our aesthetic evaluation and enjoyment.When it comes to dust and hairs does it interfere?Please click on the images to see them larger.PS: I hope that some of my writing is understandable. It’s part of the process and we all accept it. I know that film is not supposed to get dirty or scratched but it comes with the territory.No matter how well taken care of our negatives are, there’s always that tiny spec we just can’t get rid of.
I’m talking about the way they behave from their maximum aperture to f5.6.I can’t deny, I like short depth of field and I almost never use a lens above f8 so it is interesting to go through a bunch of lenses to see the differences between them.A “softer” lens can render a scene in a way I prefer over the sharpest of lenses.A slow lens opening at f3.5 can have more character than a lens that opens at f0.95.I do believe that some lenses have charm, a very special signature… do I dare to say… soul?In the most naive way I do dare to say that some lenses have soul.It’s not about quality, certainly not about the price, it’s just about the way they do what they do.So… here are some samples from various lenses and cameras. I’m not talking about bokeh and I’m not talking about sharpness. Konica Hexar AF + Kodak TriX 400 6400 + Ilford ID-11One of the things I like the most about lenses is the way they render what’s in focus and what’s out of focus.
0 kommentar(er)
