Art & Inspiration Film Photography & Hotrods

This past year I began dabbling in film photography. My parents-in-law had an old Nikon collecting dust that I "borrowed" and started shooting 35mm color & BW film with. This was around the same time I bought my '63 Fairlane and began working on it here in Baltimore. I found that older hot rods & nostalgia race cars look super cool on film. The imperfections of the film give the cars in the photographs an authentic feel.

Below are a few of the photos I've taken, mostly of my '63. None of these have been edited. I'd love to see other people's photo's, be it digital or film!

 

Two bits of trivia you probably already know. Many of the old Nikon lenses will fit the new digital Nikons. I just wish Canon was the same on lens interchangeability. Also you can have your film developed and transferred right to digital without the expense of making prints. It is sure nice to be able to use Photo, iPhoto, Adobe and many others instead of having to build a darkroom. I still have more and better lenses for my film cameras than for my digital (but I am catching up). I am looking forward toy giving us any "tricks" you have developed. One of the nice things about the old film cameras is that most of them were totally manual and you had to think about what you were doing and this lead to being appreciative to what all of the settings could really do. The good news is that most of these manual settings are still available in the more expensive digital cameras and many of them are available with a simple cameras.

Charlie Stephens

 

That is one of my favorite things to do as well,[side shooting] it becomes increasingly harder as time goes on, to make sure everything in the photo fits. Ditch the trash can and the plastic lawn chair and replace it with a metal one and the second pic would look like it was taken 40 years ago. If I could reshoot this one, it would be in front of an old garage with a period license plate on my car. The rest fits ok. Great looking fairlane by the way.

 

interesting

 

Nice work CBurne7. You have an artful eye and that's 75% of the job when shooting photography.

 

As a former "film" photographer (as we are evidently being called now) all I can say is good luck, and hope you are well financed. Back in the early 70's when I was in school, I routinely shot 100 ft of Tri-X a week, that's 30-32 hand-loaded rolls (30x30 or 900 exposures) and if you were lucky you'd get one good shot per roll. Often less. Kodak 100 ft rolls in the can were about 7 bucks at the discount photo places. Then you have to add in all the developing / drying time of the negs. A 250 sheet box of 8x10 Glossy Polycontrast DW paper was less than 20 bucks, too. Then add proofing time and costs if you want and, without a good densitometer, a fair amount of work in the lab - even if you were experienced per print. Then there is all the selenium toning and washing (hours) to get archival prints. Hours and hours later, you might have a couple of keepers. Luckily, the Army taught me how to print fast, consistent, by the eye doing massive runs of aerial reconnaissance film. The other stuff I learned in college was easy by comparison. But... I'd have EASILY given all that up for what the digital world provides us today. Youz be crazy to go back! And despite all the time and costs, I can't tell the difference and I'm sure there are aps out there good enough to fool anyone who thinks they can. All in all, it's the image the counts, anyway, not so much how you got there. Gary

 

I don't miss film at all. I used to spend about 100.00 for film and developing at every big show I attended, and was stuck with whatever the store printed up in a tiny format. my Cannon EOS 650 is worth about $25.00 now.

digital editing adds a whole new dimension of fun to photography.

 

I had a old 35 mm camera that was given to me years ago. I liked the way the old black and whites looked. still have It but can you still even get film? Here are a few I took with it of my wife.

 

^ ha! those are some good candid photos!

gnichols, it's interesting you mentioned shooting film for the Army, I was just tagged by my reserve unit to do POA. I have ZERO experience with photography before picking up this film camera and now they're buying me some fancy digital camera that looks like a laser cannon. I'm used to doing all manual focus, shutter speed, aperture, etc. I'm not sure what to do with all the buttons. I'm just gunna have to spend some time getting to know it I guess. I may not ever return to film either LoL.

Here's a few pics of my Fairlane:



​

 

I took this 5 or 6 years ago with a 1940s Kodak Brownie.

 

I like this, nice shot. Really excellent. I don't know if you planned it, but I really like the depth 0f field that I assume you chose, in conjunction with the backlighting, and how the focus gets soft towards the rear of the car. If you planned this, very nice. I really like what you did here, outstanding.

 

^^^

gnichols, it's interesting you mentioned shooting film for the Army, I was just tagged by my reserve unit to do POA. I have ZERO experience with photography before picking up this film camera and now they're buying me some fancy digital camera that looks like a laser cannon. I'm used to doing all manual focus, shutter speed, aperture, etc. I'm not sure what to do with all the buttons. I'm just gunna have to spend some time getting to know it I guess. I may not ever return to film either LoL.

Just set it up all in automatic. You almost can't screw it up. Gary​

 

you NEVER would have got that shot by setting it on "automatic". The lens is stopped down, fast shutter speed, I assume you focused on the headlight, shooting through the door frame restricts the area of the shot that is in soft focus, the brick wall and grill are in sharp focus, and the backlighting accentuates the soft focus at the rear of the car, which diffuses the sunlight. If its a fluke, then that's what it is and you got lucky. If, as I am thinking, you thought all this out, set it up and shot the photo, you have some talent. This shot is reminiscent of a lot of the B&W photography you would see in Life magazine in the sixties, and that was some masterfully shot stuff.
FWIW, my father was a freelance photojournalist as a young man, and an accomplished photographer, if he were still alive, this shot would have impressed him.
Oh, and find a better print lab.

 

I was only speaking to Cburne7 about how to use his new digital camera, and not about his images. His new job and digital camera as PAO (public affairs officer) requires quite a different approach and result. In the Army world, he just needs to get the shot to cover the story, on what his unit is doing, or who got an award, or depolyments, or to document volunteer civil action programs. And hopefully, not combat. As a PAO, he's not trying to be get his work into MOMA, just get the coverage and prints for the participants / record / hometown news. But if he wants to use the manual settings on his new digital camera, and he has the time, the manual settings on the digital camera work very same way so that doesn't preclude anything more creative. Gary

 

Ahhh, ok, yes, I misread your intent. The arrows point up under what I had posted confused me, I thought you were referring to the garage shot. I use automatic setting when I am wandering around taking shots at a car show, with the crowds of people wandering in front of the cars and stuff, its easier to be able to quickly point and shoot.

 

When I first started freelancing for the car books, I quickly found out that I could make a lot more money if I supplied photos with the story. Camera of choice back then was a twin lens reflex Yashica, a Japanese knock off a Rolliflex. You could pick them up in any pawn shop in San Diego for $25 thanks to sailors returning from Japan in the early sixties. It was a 2-1/4 X 2-1/4 format with a great view finder. Tom Medley schooled me on shooting a feature car with a single 12 exposure roll of film. Ended up with a bathroom converted into a darkroom to do my own processing. BTW, my wife bought a Canon Rebel film camera and all of the lens fit a digital format Rebel body. B&W film photography is still relevant. Cbourne7, your stuff looks great.

 

I have a rolliflex here, but I think it needs servicing. I would REALLY like to use it, if nothing else for the automotive journalism history that comes with a Rolliflex, they were THE camera of choice. It would sure be neat to take it to Bonneville and shoot photos with it. I would need a "Pure" pith helmet to complete the ensemble! Paying homage....

 

Fun with film in a 35 mm Minolta SRT 101

 

Even though you may have what you think is a great shot....the background will spoil it....
The shot of the Fairlane's right front fender is the best one.
Great pic of the wife , gun and hat....spoiled by the shadow of the photographer....
The other two of the wife would have been killers...if only she had looked at the camera....
I have been a professional scenic, model and vehicle photographer since 1983....

 

I really love side shots of cars. There aren't many things better than the thunderbird roof line. I'm glad my '63 Hardtop inherited some of that.



Here's a B&W side shot I took of a Mercedes last winter:



Honestly, I don'y know much of the technical stuff. I just choose a shutter speed, frame a shot, focus, and shoot. I don't often change the f/stop unless there's less/more sunlight (at least from the little of what I read online...) attribute it to luck, or whatever. I'm still a newbie when it comes to 90% of stuff, and honestly I don't give a rip if I ever become a "master". I have too much going on in my life and this is a way for me to explore rusty 'ol Baltimore when I have the free time, that's what's most important to me.

Some of that Baltimore rust:



Rick it's funny you mentioned that you think the photo of the front fender is the best one, because I like that one the least. ha. I think I have the most fun taking candid photos of people, places, etc. It's fun to catch stuff "in the moment".

 

Here in Scotland UK, we can still get 35mm film in some £stores, and processing and prints for £5 ($8)

Processing shops will often scan the film and stick on a disc but the file sizes are pretty small

I've a 1970s Pentax that I use one in a while, but prefer the convenience of semi auto & manual focussing digital.

Here's a couple of detail images of a 1937 Austin

 

Gary, as a 'former' film shooter, I had to pay for all my film and dev in the old days. So when I had a 36 exposure roll of film I made sure I had at least 25 good images. When I started shooting my B-Ville calendar I was shooting with a Mamya PRO 645, every shot was planned and executed. I can tell when a photographer is from film or digital. The film photographer shoots like a single shot rifle, whereas the digital is shooting like a AR 15 on full auto.
I am a film photographer lost in the digital world

 

Yep, when I was at B'ville a few years ago I was surprised to see guys walking around shooting like that. Why not just shoot video? Bizarre. Takes the fun out of it.

Anthony, was that you who yelled at me for taking your photo?

 

I just scanned these prints (4x6) from 1973 / Elkhart lake TransAM. TriX, Nikormat, 24mm lens, available light. I did have a Sekonic meter. I took more pix of the people than the cars. Forgive me for not using a tripod for these and taking less than 20 seconds to compose. My summer project took 12 weeks and I had 100 rolls of film to develop when I got back to school. Some day I'll get all these scanned... Gary

 

AR15....hahaha

Prefect20, I love that second photo of your Austin's gauges.

Man the salt flats look insanely beautiful. I can't imagine being there at sunrise... gives me goosebumps.

I do find myself taking ONE photo of things as opposed to friends I know who regularly use SLR's will fire them off like there's no tomorrow. I like the challenge of getting the BEST shot and feeling satisfied afterwards knowing (or at least hoping!) that it'll come out awesome. I also love the satisfaction of getting my developed film back and looking through all the old photos that I forgot that I took.

 

PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS. PEORIA TT
AUCTION FEVER.

CANDY IN THE BACK SEAT.

 

YES, FILM IS ART (sorry for the yelling). Photography is art, instagram is milktoast C***. Am I the best photographer in the world? NOPE, I look up to photographers like: Peter Vincent, Mike Harrington, and here on the HAMB I am blown away with what I see.
And Big A, that would have been either Pete or Mike most likely Mike, as I am a journalist photographer that records moments in time not still life so I try to include people doing things in my photos. And the more crew I get in the more sales I make lol.
I recently bought a Mamaya 645, that I couldn't afford in my younger film life, and am starting to shoot with it. I have to dig out my film developing canisters as having it processed is expensive. I also got a film scanner to be able to work the images as I threw away my 4X5 enlarger 10 years ago when I lost darkroom space,, ouch.
Keep up the great work John, you have the Photographer's eye.

 

and jnichols

 

I liked this thread. I hope more of our photo guys will post more original auto related artsy-fartsy photos. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really like the photos!

Alan

 

I love it when someone posts that they are a "Pro" photographer, and then begin to critique someones images without a request for such or even posting some of their "Pro" work..........Everyone should take photos its the best way to show the way you see the world. Great, and cool photos everyone