Buy Junk for Ridiculous Scenarios

February 11th, 2011
So I have had some cash set aside for either a K5 or the X100. I have been waiting to see the X100 in person to see if it is as good as the hype, if not I was going to get the K5 to replace my main DSLR body.

So tonight on ebay ( a evil evil place) I noticed two Hasselblad 500's for sale one with a 85 the other a 150 lens. I thought... "Self, wouldn't it be neat to shot a wedding with a two body system using hasselblads" so I pulled the trigger...

a few notes...

I hate doing weddings, I do them, but I really prefer to be second shooter to the point that I hire a primary shooter or talk the bride into hiring one, who sells me their files and I put together the package for the wedding.

film is not great in low light... I have had good success with Ilford 3200...



but still not great....

second, I am WAY to busy in the next few months to shot a wedding... in my real life I run a firm and we just had our new son.



I got them for a great price and can flip them for a profit easily, so I don't feel too bad and might just do that...

So what other ridiculous things have you bought for scenarios that you know in your mind of minds will likely never come to be....
February 11th, 2011
Nod
A 300 f2.8L Super great and super sharp lens as you know. I bought it because it's such a great lens with excellent sharpness and nice bokeh. Too bad I hardly used it because I don't do sports or wildlife.

Opps..sorry not junk. Just buying something I hardly ever use.
February 11th, 2011
About a year ago, I bought a Canon A1 film camera with 3 lenses. Bought it because it was a deal, and it's the camera I learned to shoot on, and since I bought it, I've only shot 1 roll of film through it.
February 11th, 2011
@viranod Yeah, not junk for sure... I used that term ironically... Do you pack it every time you go out? It is a big boy to just leave it at home...

I wonder if a 300mm would work as a portrait lens?
February 11th, 2011
@sudweeks yeah... i am a sucker for film cameras too... that A1 was I nice set-up... why not make a point to try it more often? Or is digital just easier?
February 11th, 2011
@icywarm - Digital is easier. And my developer turned black, so I don't trust it anymore.
February 11th, 2011
@viranod, @icywarm - A 300mm f/2.8 makes a killer portrait lens, but you have to be a long ways away from your subject. One of my favorite shots of my wife was taken with my sigma old 120-300mm f/2.8, wide open at 300mm.

Mine got left home a lot since it's so difficult to carry around. It was fun for birds, but I didn't use it enough so I sold it.
February 11th, 2011
@sudweeks That is a bad sign... but you could use Vit C, Borax and coffee...
February 11th, 2011
Nod
@icywarm I sold it after keeping it for a year or so. Portraits from this lens is great though, but ...boy...handheld the thing was like carrying a baby! Need monopod.
February 11th, 2011
@viranod do you often carry a baby up at face level with one hand with the other one ... oh wait... never mind... I am sure I have used that hold to rub noses with my boy...
February 11th, 2011
@icywarm - can you actually develop film with that, or are you just joking? D-76 is only $6 on amazon, so I really should get it and shoot a bit more film.
February 11th, 2011
@sudweeks yes... Vit C (liquid) or other acid + instant coffee mixed as strong as you can... soak the film in it for 10 or 20 mins. It is not actually doing anything at that point...

Replace the mixture with borax as strong as you can make the solution... let it develop for 5 or whatever mins...


Fix as normal(there are homemade fixers, but not worth it)

the negs milky and dense, the results random, but you can even use C-41 film with that mess and get something that resemble a B&W image... with a strong orange base (that you can remove when you scan the negs)

google for 'exact' measurements... but it is really all trial and error...

you can also use with pin hole cameras on sheet film...
February 11th, 2011
Last month I bought a brand new in box Banner from the late 1960s... why I have no idea, it's worse quality than my Holga (funny something else can make a Holga feel like a Hasselbald in comparison) and I have yet to use it. $55 I could've spent on... Velvia.
February 11th, 2011
Wow, where to start. I buy junk all the time.
- Polaroid Land 350 (hardly junk, but hardly needed)
- Kodak Tele Ektra (110 camera, 2 of them for $4, and yes I have tons of 110 film left. Even some kodachrome 64)
- An Argus 35mm camera that sort of looks like an LCA

I could go on and on. But they were cheap so I don't feel too bad. I just know they will collect dust before I get to them.

February 11th, 2011
@icywarm - gotta be honest. I think this shot came out great. I love the look. Ironically refreshing to see a film shot as opposed to a digital wedding shot processed to "look" like film. Very nicely done.
February 11th, 2011
@crappysailor yeah I don't get the digital to look like film thing... hence why I will try film for a bit...
February 11th, 2011
@icywarm - to each his own and all. Film is expensive after all. :-P

I think its a beautiful image. As I said, refreshing for a wedding.
February 12th, 2011
@crappysailor yeah but it is all relative... I find with 12 shots to a roll... I pick a choose... I am at about 50% good, 10% crap, 20% really good, 20% great with film, so I only need about 60 - 100 shots to capture an event... which I develop and print myself.

with digital I have seen photog proud that they shoot 1k-2k snaps per wedding... well if a modern digital camera is good for 100k snaps... and you work a wedding every weekend you need a new body every year... at 5k for a pro level camera... that is a lot of film
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.