considering how crazy tech is getting now, it won't be a surprise if photography gets completely phased out in the future because our eyes will be able to take pictures through cybernetics
@Sjors Bullshit. Maybe your plastic budget cameras won't, but a well built flagship camera *designed* to survive any weather and hard drops *will* survive.
We don't realise how fortunate we are nowadays - it's so easy to take perfectly exposed and focused photographs with modern digital cameras. The skill now is more about composition, timing and subject choice than in manipulating a device that doesn't want to co-operate. However, there are certain modern menu systems to survive ...
@@zachward6441 That's why you need to shoot raw and adjust the light values yourself. Leave it up to the built in program in the camera or presets and your going to get a generic clinical look.
Wow, Mathieu, it is a terrific camera! I wish I had one. I have a few old cameras that I actually used to shoot some pictures about 35 to 40 years ago. In those days, 35mm film cameras were widely used, but the negative was sometimes to tiny too get big enlargements without getting a too much "grainy" picture. You can think of "grain" as the equivalent of a pixel: too much enlargement leads to a pixeled picture. Although, sometimes one could use grain in a kind of artistic expression. Having a 60x90mm negative was always a plus. In terms a young photographer today can understand, 35mm film had a useful area of 24x36mm, which compared to 60x90mm was like saying SD vs HD. Also there were many types of films, varying from coarse to ultra-fine grain. The last can somehow compare to 4K, namely when using big format films, like the 8x10 film sheets used by the most sophisticatred studio cameras. It took one sheet for one picture. Highly expensive. With these manual cameras, to be able to get the perfectly exposed photo was a skill you could develop after some time of carefully registered field work. I had copybooks (several sheets of paper held together by means of metallic clips, nothing electronic, hahahaha!) were I took notes on every shot: f-number, shutter speed, film type and sensitivity, and hand-held light meter readings. Then, after shooting, one had to get to the laboratory, to develop the film into a negative. But that's another story. To be a photographer 40 or 50 years ago was certainly a lot of work, but it was really fun. I reaaly miss those days!
I regularly use cameras that old and older -- my "one camera," the one I'd keep if I could only keep one, is a Kodak Reflex II built in 1952 or so, but I also frequently use a Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera made in 1927. Surprise! It produces really good images, with scale focus, wire frame viewfinder, and red window frame counting, at *ninety-three* years of age! My 4x5 Speed Graphic is also pre-War, made around 1938, and my Graphic View (also 4x5) is from about 1950. The *newest* camera I use regularly was made before 1980. Of course, I learned to operate an adjustable (all manual) camera in 1969. I develop my own film, as well (learned that in '69 too). Next on my list of photography learning is printing color. This year.
Checkmate. My 1898 Rochester Premo #2 is older!! Lol, I shoot 5x7 wet plate on it. Could you believe I started photography almost 2 years ago in junior year? Haha
I love seeing images from really old cameras like this. I have a 35mm Kodak Pony camera from the 50s that I actually like a lot. Zone focusing and very easy to accidentally do or multiple exposure. I did end up with a few happy mistakes. It's my go to camera for the lower ISO films.
I never saw one of these before and I go back to that era - getting my first camera at age 5 in 1946 by sending in cereal box tops. It took 127 film and was pretty awful! I've seen and owned a lot of folding cameras but the most exotic was a Kodak I paid $2.00 for in the fifties that took 5 inch roll film and produced 4 by 5 images. No, it was not a view camera, but a big folding camera, of really nice wooden construction with red leather bellows. I made a black paper film holder and managed to get film into the camera in the darkroom and discovered my negatives were drastically underexposed. Further research revealed that the lens (a Kodak Rapid Rectilinear - a precursor to the great Tessar) was marked in "US stops" which are different from standard f stops. I found a conversion table and worked out the actual shutter speed by comparing it to known accurate shutters and managed - as you did with your "Tank" camera to get acceptable images from it.
I honestly don't understand why some people spend time and energy writing negative comments on a video like this! "Oh, Mathieu! For a professional photographer like me, this video is not technically good enough!" "Oh, if you don't improve the technical aspects of your videos I'm gonna tell my mom and she will be angry at you!" Man, honestly, I try, but I don't understand these people! Good on you Mathieu, keep on with your wonderful job!
I had a mamiya press camera once, and it was very much like that. So many steps in taking a shot, it was the most interactive camera I ever owned. But when you did it right, the 120 film produced some terrific photos, and even better slides.
I have the 1933 Plaubel Makina Model Two in which have shot with it, as the lens is only has one coating, but still sharp, and the colors are amazing... Will be taking it to Japan in 2022.
It's great to see this camera getting some love. I've had one for years and have only used it a handful of times because of how demanding it is to use. I've had many of the same issues but when the results are good, they are great. I love the character of the images as well. Thanks for sharing!
I've got a Graflex xlsw and had to laugh that we made all the same mistakes. But I sure was happy with the few frames that turned out. Sometimes it's hard for a modern photographer to go back in time. ...but worth it.
I bought two old Nikon lenses for my modern Nikon camera and those lenses are the best lenses that I've used. I like older lenses I think they're the best as far as quality
How nice to see this camera at work. I have one miself that used to be my father´s. I remember making a wedding to a client who was in love with this camera, and by the way I used a Graflex flash unit back in 1976. I still own it and it´s still working. You forgot to mention how easy it was to take a picture with the blind of the film holder in place and finally not take any picture. Graet camera!
Also, they are designed for orthochromatic film that is not sensitive to red light so many have a red window in the back for viewing the frame numbers. Today's film is sensitive to the full spectrum of visible light so the window should be covered with tape or something when not in use, otherwise the film may get partially exposed through the backing paper if strong light hits the window.
Lovely exploration of this camera. I guess that as a press camera, in the time that it was used for news photos, it'd be generally only for B&W film which probably would be more forgiving for exposure - and also given how dreadful (by comparison to today) photo reproduction was in most newsprint then, missing focus a bit would hardly be noticed. I'd like to see you having a go with this type of camera and the "old flash" systems. That must have made the whole thing even more of a nightmare.
That is a beautiful camera! Complex cameras like this really put into perspective Kodak's old slogan: "Your press the button, we do the rest". I have a Zeiss-Ikon folding camera from the 30s. It's not actually difficult to use, but I often forget to advance the film after a shot, giving me a double exposure. I once did this in a shoot with a model, but the result was the best image of the day. I can't complain!
Why would miscalculating the exposure time make the photo blurry? *when hand held you should always shoot at a shutter speed greater than the focal length of your lens to avoid shake,*also you could open the aperture wider or push the film. Use a dedicated exposure meter to get your light readings, I don't even use my Canon EOS D6 reading to take photos with my 5x4 let alone using a phone., the second image was really sharp pity it was double exposed. Well done for using film!
Working on a Lomo Berlin review right now and it seems they have issues like this a lot... especially with their 120 film. The 35mm I’ve shot is a lot more stable (presumably because it’s in a can) but the 120 is kinda a mess unfortunately.
i actually have one of those! the shutter speed select ring mounting flange is cracked and wont hold the shutter speed ring in but otherwise is in good condition
What's funny and interesting and cool about film photography; is the fact even accidents that are made, turn out to be interesting and unusual. You can't say that about digital, the throw away nature of the medium, tend to lead to people deleting photos without thought if there not perfect. Going back to the camera, theres seems to be lots to consider when taking a shot, so i;m assuming your more mindful of the placement and shot selection, i'd also suggest that the film used although week backed, has a nice tonal quality and seems to suit the camera well.
I bought an Agfa Isolette II for 5€ for Decoration, the seller didnt know if its working but i wanted a Vintage Camera to have its podestal. When i came home i played around with it and everything worked so i bough 120 film and shot my first roll of film. Some pictures are just for testing the others were more serious, i had to guess the distance for focusing, and yes the film was well exposed and hat that vintage look to it.
It's a bit sad that you don't make clear what an amazing high quality camera the Makina is. If you operate it right, it will produce absolutely phantastic pictures with amazing resolution and clarity, also by today's standards.
In my experience the most common issue with the Lomo film is that it spools badly onto other manufacturer's spools (particularly Kodak) and it ends up too loose, so light gets into it from the side. I haven't had these issues since paying attention to this and making sure the uptake spool is Lomo or Fuji. (I almost always shoot Lomo film so it's always on my mind).
Hi Matthieu. Could you please reply with what film you used for that forest photo? An image like that is the EXACT reason I would consider shooting film. The colour, the contrast, the lighting and the grain in the bokeh is perfect.
I remember the old days taking pictures. EXPENSIVE is the first thing that comes to mind as well as NOT SO EASY. You had to Buy the film and when buying you had to buy the right type of film for specific speeds and lighting. Then load the film. Set your Speed, ASA,, f-Stop FOCUS the picture ( if you had a fancy newer CANON -A1 or PENTAX or NIKON camera - Take your pictures and having no idea what it was going to look like until it was developed. After each photo some cameras like this one had to be rolled forward to take the next or get a double exposure some newer ones would not allow for double exposure unless you wound the film back. After taking all of your pics THEN you had to take your film and PAY AGAIN to have it developed and wait a couple of days or later on wait an hour to get your pics back THEN you could see how your pictures turned out. NOW DAYS you can buy a nice camera that does every thing for you and you can see what your pic looks like before you take it and you can take as many pics as you want and delete the bad ones and choose the good ones for development.
I have one in good shape from my grandfather's things. I have no idea where he got it, and it has a yellow filter screwed on. I noticed it has film in it with the exposure # at 6.
@@MathieuStern If you ever come out to Arizona, you certainly can. I also have a neat old Welta camera of his from around the 30' s that looks fun. Cheers and happy new year!
Wow, the camera looks really like a tank and a bit tricky to use. I think it's an interesting challenge :-) Interesting photography channel, subscribed!
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Even the mistakes were gorgeous, awesome camera!
Perfect mistake
2090 : "taking photos with 70 year old 2020 DSLR and i have to say it is really hard to use"
The cameras in 2090 takes images from our eyes and stores it directly to the cloud
@@misaalanshori using brain waves to connect to our optical eyes.
considering how crazy tech is getting now, it won't be a surprise if photography gets completely phased out in the future because our eyes will be able to take pictures through cybernetics
That would be a miracle! (If a modern piece of technolgy still works in 70 years time).
@Sjors Bullshit. Maybe your plastic budget cameras won't, but a well built flagship camera *designed* to survive any weather and hard drops *will* survive.
We don't realise how fortunate we are nowadays - it's so easy to take perfectly exposed and focused photographs with modern digital cameras. The skill now is more about composition, timing and subject choice than in manipulating a device that doesn't want to co-operate. However, there are certain modern menu systems to survive ...
But the clinical look is disgusting. I personally use digital, but still prefer film photos.
@@zachward6441 If one is anyway near competent, it isn't that difficult to avoid the 'clinical look' by editing an image sympathetically.
@@zachward6441 That's why you need to shoot raw and adjust the light values yourself. Leave it up to the built in program in the camera or presets and your going to get a generic clinical look.
@@IanWilkinson film has an unique look that it’s really hard to emulate.
@@mariogpx2990 CCD sensors gave a much closer to film look than today's modern CMOS sensors.
honestly this shots are gorgeous, even and especially the castle with the funny lomofilm effects.
OR, maybe Lomo cameras have Makifilm effects?...
I think those shots are crap. Obviously the technology got a lot better in the last 70 years lol
@@Darkest_Soul_187 posting that shit on his birthday. For shame
I use my Plaubel Makina 67 and W67 nearly every day! I love them, interesting to see their "grandfather"
Wow, Mathieu, it is a terrific camera! I wish I had one.
I have a few old cameras that I actually used to shoot some pictures about 35 to 40 years ago. In those days, 35mm film cameras were widely used, but the negative was sometimes to tiny too get big enlargements without getting a too much "grainy" picture. You can think of "grain" as the equivalent of a pixel: too much enlargement leads to a pixeled picture. Although, sometimes one could use grain in a kind of artistic expression. Having a 60x90mm negative was always a plus. In terms a young photographer today can understand, 35mm film had a useful area of 24x36mm, which compared to 60x90mm was like saying SD vs HD. Also there were many types of films, varying from coarse to ultra-fine grain. The last can somehow compare to 4K, namely when using big format films, like the 8x10 film sheets used by the most sophisticatred studio cameras. It took one sheet for one picture. Highly expensive.
With these manual cameras, to be able to get the perfectly exposed photo was a skill you could develop after some time of carefully registered field work. I had copybooks (several sheets of paper held together by means of metallic clips, nothing electronic, hahahaha!) were I took notes on every shot: f-number, shutter speed, film type and sensitivity, and hand-held light meter readings. Then, after shooting, one had to get to the laboratory, to develop the film into a negative. But that's another story.
To be a photographer 40 or 50 years ago was certainly a lot of work, but it was really fun. I reaaly miss those days!
I regularly use cameras that old and older -- my "one camera," the one I'd keep if I could only keep one, is a Kodak Reflex II built in 1952 or so, but I also frequently use a Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera made in 1927. Surprise! It produces really good images, with scale focus, wire frame viewfinder, and red window frame counting, at *ninety-three* years of age! My 4x5 Speed Graphic is also pre-War, made around 1938, and my Graphic View (also 4x5) is from about 1950. The *newest* camera I use regularly was made before 1980.
Of course, I learned to operate an adjustable (all manual) camera in 1969. I develop my own film, as well (learned that in '69 too). Next on my list of photography learning is printing color. This year.
Checkmate. My 1898 Rochester Premo #2 is older!! Lol, I shoot 5x7 wet plate on it. Could you believe I started photography almost 2 years ago in junior year? Haha
I love seeing images from really old cameras like this. I have a 35mm Kodak Pony camera from the 50s that I actually like a lot. Zone focusing and very easy to accidentally do or multiple exposure. I did end up with a few happy mistakes. It's my go to camera for the lower ISO films.
woah, very Inspector Gadget style camera !
The beauty in those images is astonishing.
No matter how hard and impractical it is to use, no one can deny how beautiful it is. What a camera!
I never saw one of these before and I go back to that era - getting my first camera at age 5 in 1946 by sending in cereal box tops. It took 127 film and was pretty awful! I've seen and owned a lot of folding cameras but the most exotic was a Kodak I paid $2.00 for in the fifties that took 5 inch roll film and produced 4 by 5 images. No, it was not a view camera, but a big folding camera, of really nice wooden construction with red leather bellows. I made a black paper film holder and managed to get film into the camera in the darkroom and discovered my negatives were drastically underexposed. Further research revealed that the lens (a Kodak Rapid Rectilinear - a precursor to the great Tessar) was marked in "US stops" which are different from standard f stops. I found a conversion table and worked out the actual shutter speed by comparing it to known accurate shutters and managed - as you did with your "Tank" camera to get acceptable images from it.
I kind of like the backing paper image leaking through. Not what you were going for, but looks cool.
I honestly don't understand why some people spend time and energy writing negative comments on a video like this!
"Oh, Mathieu! For a professional photographer like me, this video is not technically good enough!"
"Oh, if you don't improve the technical aspects of your videos I'm gonna tell my mom and she will be angry at you!"
Man, honestly, I try, but I don't understand these people!
Good on you Mathieu, keep on with your wonderful job!
That is super cool. I have seen some of their more recent cameras, but never that one. Even the shots that didn't turn out were fun.
I had a mamiya press camera once, and it was very much like that. So many steps in taking a shot, it was the most interactive camera I ever owned. But when you did it right, the 120 film produced some terrific photos, and even better slides.
Sometimes big imperfections make a unique and perfect photography !!!
I have the 1933 Plaubel Makina Model Two in which have shot with it, as the lens is only has one coating, but still sharp, and the colors are amazing... Will be taking it to Japan in 2022.
That is a beautiful camera
4:16 well spent. Bravo Mathieu!👍
There are never mistakes, only lessons and happy accidents! 😊
who can dislike such a good video about a beautiful camera? WHO?!
Idiots!
It's great to see this camera getting some love. I've had one for years and have only used it a handful of times because of how demanding it is to use. I've had many of the same issues but when the results are good, they are great. I love the character of the images as well. Thanks for sharing!
Beauty old camera. I like it as a dekoration.
I've got a Graflex xlsw and had to laugh that we made all the same mistakes. But I sure was happy with the few frames that turned out. Sometimes it's hard for a modern photographer to go back in time. ...but worth it.
Really cool camera!
Lomo film (rebranded old film) is usually not worth the headache.
Amazing looking piece of history
I bought two old Nikon lenses for my modern Nikon camera and those lenses are the best lenses that I've used. I like older lenses I think they're the best as far as quality
I'd love to play with this, gorgeous camera...
How nice to see this camera at work. I have one miself that used to be my father´s. I remember making a wedding to a client who was in love with this camera, and by the way I used a Graflex flash unit back in 1976. I still own it and it´s still working. You forgot to mention how easy it was to take a picture with the blind of the film holder in place and finally not take any picture. Graet camera!
3:35 Some very old 120 and 620 film cameras are designet for very very think back paper.
Also, they are designed for orthochromatic film that is not sensitive to red light so many have a red window in the back for viewing the frame numbers. Today's film is sensitive to the full spectrum of visible light so the window should be covered with tape or something when not in use, otherwise the film may get partially exposed through the backing paper if strong light hits the window.
Lovely exploration of this camera. I guess that as a press camera, in the time that it was used for news photos, it'd be generally only for B&W film which probably would be more forgiving for exposure - and also given how dreadful (by comparison to today) photo reproduction was in most newsprint then, missing focus a bit would hardly be noticed. I'd like to see you having a go with this type of camera and the "old flash" systems. That must have made the whole thing even more of a nightmare.
What a beautiful camera
les traces du papier donne un côté vieille carte postal très intéressante! bravo!!
That is a beautiful camera! Complex cameras like this really put into perspective Kodak's old slogan: "Your press the button, we do the rest". I have a Zeiss-Ikon folding camera from the 30s. It's not actually difficult to use, but I often forget to advance the film after a shot, giving me a double exposure. I once did this in a shoot with a model, but the result was the best image of the day. I can't complain!
What a beautiful looking camera.
looks super cool - especially that blue lens
This really is a big camera! I'd be totally lost using it so points for getting a few good shots!
It is good that we have such enthusiasts.
Excellent color redition. That lens is a powerhouse
I've been around vintage cameras for years... I have not seen this one. Looks like an awesome camera. Thanks for sharing!
I love old cameras. I have several that I use and I have taken weddings with my Leica IIIC.
That is one beautiful lense/aperture.
the colors look AMAZING
These shots were stunning and interesting
Its a very nice looking camera. I love the metal finish
What a beautiful camera!!! Thank you Mathieu...
Love the results! Cheers from Brazil!
Why would miscalculating the exposure time make the photo blurry? *when hand held you should always shoot at a shutter speed greater than the focal length of your lens to avoid shake,*also you could open the aperture wider or push the film.
Use a dedicated exposure meter to get your light readings, I don't even use my Canon EOS D6 reading to take photos with my 5x4 let alone using a phone., the second image was really sharp pity it was double exposed.
Well done for using film!
The camera looks simply awesome! And the images are all very impressive -- even the "duds"!
Working on a Lomo Berlin review right now and it seems they have issues like this a lot... especially with their 120 film. The 35mm I’ve shot is a lot more stable (presumably because it’s in a can) but the 120 is kinda a mess unfortunately.
I mean, some of those images are very effing cool! Portfolio material.
i actually have one of those! the shutter speed select ring mounting flange is cracked and wont hold the shutter speed ring in but otherwise is in good condition
What a beautiful camera 😍
What's funny and interesting and cool about film photography; is the fact even accidents that are made, turn out to be interesting and unusual. You can't say that about digital, the throw away nature of the medium, tend to lead to people deleting photos without thought if there not perfect. Going back to the camera, theres seems to be lots to consider when taking a shot, so i;m assuming your more mindful of the placement and shot selection, i'd also suggest that the film used although week backed, has a nice tonal quality and seems to suit the camera well.
Nice! For sure your first roll was better than mine! I think I got only four shots in the first roll. Great job!
I have the Plaubel Makina 67, but this thing looks awesome!
Dang, these are so good!!!
I bought an Agfa Isolette II for 5€ for Decoration, the seller didnt know if its working but i wanted a Vintage Camera to have its podestal.
When i came home i played around with it and everything worked so i bough 120 film and shot my first roll of film. Some pictures are just for testing the others were more serious, i had to guess the distance for focusing, and yes the film was well exposed and hat that vintage look to it.
It's a bit sad that you don't make clear what an amazing high quality camera the Makina is. If you operate it right, it will produce absolutely phantastic pictures with amazing resolution and clarity, also by today's standards.
Good point!
Nice looking camera!
Salut! What a wonderful experience, thank you for sharing!
This, and a medalist ii. The 6x9 tanks of postwar society. The plaubel uses 120, but the medalist can be has for less...
Either one is insane.
j'adore le look des photos, ça fait si propre avec la profondeur de champ du moyen format, très joli
In my experience the most common issue with the Lomo film is that it spools badly onto other manufacturer's spools (particularly Kodak) and it ends up too loose, so light gets into it from the side. I haven't had these issues since paying attention to this and making sure the uptake spool is Lomo or Fuji. (I almost always shoot Lomo film so it's always on my mind).
You'll get some interesting "happy accidents" with a camera like that - it's brilliant.
We geezers who grew up with gear like that Plaubel are laughing quietly to ourselves, having made exactly the same errors ... 55 years ago!
Holy shit.....
I hope for more videos like this....
Soooo cool! Those shots seem so full of character, so distinct. Excellent video!
That is a pretty camera 😮
Hi Matthieu.
Could you please reply with what film you used for that forest photo?
An image like that is the EXACT reason I would consider shooting film.
The colour, the contrast, the lighting and the grain in the bokeh is perfect.
Amazing piece of art!
I remember the old days taking pictures. EXPENSIVE is the first thing that comes to mind as well as NOT SO EASY. You had to Buy the film and when buying you had to buy the right type of film for specific speeds and lighting. Then load the film. Set your Speed, ASA,, f-Stop FOCUS the picture ( if you had a fancy newer CANON -A1 or PENTAX or NIKON camera - Take your pictures and having no idea what it was going to look like until it was developed. After each photo some cameras like this one had to be rolled forward to take the next or get a double exposure some newer ones would not allow for double exposure unless you wound the film back. After taking all of your pics THEN you had to take your film and PAY AGAIN to have it developed and wait a couple of days or later on wait an hour to get your pics back THEN you could see how your pictures turned out. NOW DAYS you can buy a nice camera that does every thing for you and you can see what your pic looks like before you take it and you can take as many pics as you want and delete the bad ones and choose the good ones for development.
Was disappointed was not a camera from a tank
So good!
Super test. Une vraie usine à gaz quand même 😅
Mistakes even looked good as surreal art or modern expressionists. 2:19 super imposed shot looks good! Honestly, I don't see them as failed shots.
Amazing
I just love weird cameras 😀
Pero que máquina más hermosa 😍
How technology has advanced over the time....
Nice location - Alaro Castle?
They sent it to you with all them light leaks thats crazy
2:43 OMG SO AESTHETIC! LOVED IT!!!!!
Bref,la pellicule Lomography c'est de la...😅 Trés bon vidéo,merci M. Stern🤗
I have one in good shape from my grandfather's things. I have no idea where he got it, and it has a yellow filter screwed on. I noticed it has film in it with the exposure # at 6.
I would love to test yours
@@MathieuStern If you ever come out to Arizona, you certainly can. I also have a neat old Welta camera of his from around the 30' s that looks fun. Cheers and happy new year!
A slightly modified Tiger tank. But very beautiful.
That is beautiful one. =) Great job, Mathieu.
Has it a blue coated schneider xenar lens?
Une pure force brute
you gotta try a wet plate in there :) I like the photograph in the woods the most. I don't mind the light leak ;)
Does it overheat?
In a bit of irony, it's too bad it doesn't store images like cameras do today, think of what a camera like that might have seen when it was new :D
I work with a guy that uses one of these as an everyday camera.
0:14 praktisch quadratisch, gut
What Brand of Film Never to Buy?
Hi may i know where is this ?
I see the lens is coated blue. What lens on it? Enna?
It's like doing highway with a 1903 car with wood wheels
Wow, the camera looks really like a tank and a bit tricky to use. I think it's an interesting challenge :-)
Interesting photography channel, subscribed!