I took another look at the snaps I grabbed with the little Canon rangefinder I purchased not too long ago. More specifically, I was drawn to the lack of quality in the low-resolution scans made by WalMart when I had the roll processed. I decided the images had a fairly retro feel to them. Could be a new photo genre: Walmarta Obscura.The pictures, the scans that is, almost look (to me at least) like they were snapped thirty or more years ago and with film that was a little past its expiration date. I dragged one into PS (pictured above) and cropped it a bit, screwed with the levels a little, (un)sharpened a tad, and added some sepia toning. This was the only pretty girl pic, BTW, that didn't have an overly-obtrusive flare from a back-light. (That rangefinder's 40mm glass, sans a lens shade, makes it tough to keep the flare-gremlins at bay.)
I'm somewhat taken with the retro look that's been created, not so much by me but by the camera, the film emulsion, and the sub-standard scanning. I didn't intend to give the images a retro look--all I was doing was testing the camera, insuring that it works--but now that I see the results, I might shoot some stuff with the intent of this being the outcome. I might, besides shooting with an eye towards a retro look, "dirty" the pictures up even more in post. I would also consider pushing the film well past its 400 ISO to increase the grain but I'm not sure WalMart's processor does that. Something to look into.
The picture at the top--once again, I cannot recall the model's name--looks (to me) like a snapshot of a 1970s era dominatrix feigning a bit of modesty. (Nipples covered to get past WalMart's censors.) It's not even close to being a memorable snap but it does look to me like it was shot years ago in a fairly non-descript bedroom with a low-end, point-n-shoot, film camera manufactured in the 60s... which isn't far from the truth, regarding the camera, that is.
Sometimes, new ways of doing things are born of crap.
And sometimes not.
Image captured with Canon Canonet G-III 17 w/fixed 40mm f/1.7 prime lens, Kodak BW400CN, f/8 @ 125. C-41 processing. Crap scan courtesy, Sam Walton.
7 comments:
Thanks for updating us on the little Canon. I have been running film through my old Nikons again and have had the same problem with low quality scans from my local Walgreens. I hadn't thought about treating the crappy results in an artistic manner though :-) I like it! Pancho
You should be able to push the film. Just set your exposure as if you are going to push-process it. The photo lab equipment should automatically "correct" the exposure.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way with film. You don't just add printing time, but need to adjust processing time and unless you tell them to modify it when you turn it in, they won 't know that you changed the exposure. It is an automated process, and reads the bar code on the cassette.
@Elliott, Gotta go with Anon on the processing. Pushing film is a custom processing... uhmm... process. WalMart's processing vendor, who I'm confident is one who uses automated processing, will not automatically adjust that process if I push the film with my exposure. It is possible they can do it, but it's going to be per my request and instructions and, I'm guessing, if they can do so, it's gonna cost me extra bucks.
@Pancho,
I hadn't thought about treating the crappy results in an artistic manner though
Perhaps WalMart is to scanning as Holgas are to cameras?
I just ran another roll through my old Nikon FM. The difference between a Holga and Walmart is that Holgas give varied unpredictable results while the scanning at Walmart is all too predictable... and bad. Pancho
Try Costco, they have great processing and printing
Post a Comment