7 Awful & Outdated Photo Techniques | This Old Camera Episode 31

[@Grasyl]

3:49 I fakes a ghost using this technique a couple of year ago and posted them into Facebook groups .. and my picture ended up on German television.

[@AzrielKnight]

I would love to see the clip of that.

[@MadsBakken]

Give us that clip!

[@scottca9780]

I'd argue that these were hacky effects even at the time, but I'm sure that as a boy, reading about and occasionally experimenting with such things, it expanded my understanding of what was going on between the lens and the film plane. By manipulating the mechanics of the shot you are engaging with the 'how' of a photograph, far more than you would be taking a tasteful picture on P (for professional).

[@scottw5791]

the techniques may be easy to replicate in photoshop but there was something magical back in the day when trying these out. they were simple and sometimes corny but they opened up the brain in a way that photoshop doesn't. They weren't the be all and end all rather they were the spark to get your creative juices flowing...and it was always exciting to see after processing how your pics came out if at all. happy little accidents were great to stumble upon and that seems to be a thing of the past.

[@AzrielKnight]

It's always fun to experiment, but personally none of these effects are ending up in my portfolio.

[@b6983832]

Making awful photos digitally does not make them any better.

[@AzrielKnight]

Accurate.

[@iainmc9859]

I have to agree with everything you've said; apart from when you're fed up with photoshop and you just want to experiment ... now where's that jar of petroleum jelly and the UV filter gone ?

[@AzrielKnight]

heh, you make a fair point. I think what I was trying to get across is, no one is replicating most of these effects in photoshop either.

[@haakon_b]

The Polarizer is actually the only effect that can not be replicated in Software.

[@AzrielKnight]

Correct. I mean you could darken skies in some cases but you cannot cut reflections in post.

[@danhill2045]

"Day for Night" is also the title of a 1973 film by Francois Truffaut about trying to make a movie under difficult circumstances. It was a common cinematic effect back then. Maybe it still is. It seems simpler than digitally editing umpteen thousand individual frames of film.

[@mikesmith-po8nd]

Any effect/filter/technique should only enhance the picture, not be the entire picture. Less is definitely more. One of my pet peeves is the waaay over-processed HDR stuff. As bad as Sabatier, imho.

[@Grasyl]

2:17 Due to pure coincidence I had a pair of 3D-Glases at hand and the effect is .. weak .. I had to go a view steps away from my monitor to even see this effect.

[@AzrielKnight]

Holy shit someone actually did it :)

[@rpdee7344]

@@AzrielKnight I have a few old comic books that came in 3d with a set of colored glasses, the effect was pretty cool, I think one of em might have even been a Batman/Detective one.

[@mortimersnerd8044]

Lensbaby says hold my beer

[@AzrielKnight]

lol, man there's a name I haven't heard in awhile. I remember when those were all the rage.

[@MikeLeePhoto]

Still got my colection of 80s Hoya Filters includiing Mist, Soft Focus, Starburst, Half Blue & Red filters, Multi Prism. Needless to say have hardly used these for years!

[@cameraman655]

Cokins were fun, especially when start I out. But after a while they just became cheesy. I played around with them for about 2 years in the early 80s. I may have their catalog lying around someplace.

[@AzrielKnight]

I get the appeal but I also have a hard time seeing the utility of most of them.

[@browntown52]

You can stack *most* circular filters too, either screw or bayonet. The cokin/lee/and other rectangular systems weren't unique in that respect. And when you mentioned circular polarizers at the beginning: unless you're using auto focus or in camera metering, manual cameras like my hassy 503cw do just fine with a linear polarizer. The 1/4 wave glue on addition in circular jobs is just to make your beam splitting toys play together.

[@AzrielKnight]

That is correct. Circular filters are threaded on both sides.

[@geoffreypiltz271]

Get a Cokin Filter catalogue from the 1970/80s and you will find it full of truly awful effects photos. I call them "Don't Try This At Home" catalogues. It's almost worth making a video about one.

[@Incandescentiron]

In the 80s I got dupped into Cokin filters. I wanted the graduated filters to exaggerate a darker blue sky or more exagerated sunset, but the images just looked terrible, grainy and fake. I was so disappointed. I used the polarizer, but better ones were available for the same price.

[@thecaveofthedead]

Graduated filters were used to great effect. But they weren't easy to use and required a fair bit of practice. They were designed not to 'exaggerate' sunsets and such, but to compensate for the very limited dynamic range of slide film in particular. Used carefully they could do this very well. But digital achieving high dynamic range combined with merging multiple exposures made them entirely obsolete.

[@moschop72]

Ira Cohen did great stuff with mylar in the late 60s/early 70s. Check out the book Into the Mylar Chamber.

[@AzrielKnight]

I googled it and it's definitely interesting. I think this article could have gone a lone way if they referenced more talented images.

[@paulh6043]

Man, the 80s, huh! You forgot the dreaded Tobacco filter. 😂

[@mikesmith-po8nd]

Hate on me if you want, but I like my Tobacco filter.

[@AzrielKnight]

lol.

[@imxg]

@@mikesmith-po8nd always wanted one, love the effect!

[@berkeleygang1834]

Double exposure of (1) closeup of a bride and groom kissing placed over (2) an overall scene of the couple taking their vows in front of the officiant.

[@boredgrass]

Solarisation is easy. Just try to make a print in the darkroom of my former highschool... However, at the time (the early 80s), seing that effect motivated us to really experiment! Looking back I would say, manipulating the "true to life, reality depicting" medium photography, presented definitely an invitation to reflect upon the medium, even if not everyone "attended".

[@kaczynski2333]

I often like to look at people's actual work. My grandmotber said something about having nothing nice to say.

[@AzrielKnight]

lol

[@newenglisharchitecture1012]

I just bought a Cokin Multi image 7 filter (no 207)... 😳

[@AzrielKnight]

If you like it that's okay :)

[@practicalphotography1235]

I thought this might be a gatekeeping video until I watched it. Every one of those techniques are as awful today as in in the 70s-80s

[@rpdee7344]

2/14/24 Olympus new OM camera has added to camera neutral density built in its camera to be able to slow/ blur water digitally also when you can graduate the sky to lower the brightness range to show more details, plus all these smartphone apps that allow all sorts of effects like bunny ears, pig noses, big eyes swap faces and also in motion, the digital age of Cokins I would say but more corny.

[@theblackandwhitefilmproject]

Cool! The big game changer for me with film photography was scanning. I use an Epson V800 scanner with Silverfast and not much else. I scan with the setting Less Auto Sharpness(-) as I feel over sharp scans are just like digital so what becomes the point of film? Over sharp scans also turn soft grain into sand. Cheers!

[@dominicwroblewski5832]

The only useful filters Cokin had were the graduated neutral density filters.

[@AzrielKnight]

There must have been a few that occasionally found some use but basically yeah.

[@jacobcamers3325]

i disagree, these are awesome!!

[@AzrielKnight]

to each their own ;)

[@yuriythebest]

#8 - Using film. Back in the day using a physical media was the only way to get an image, but now it's just an outdated pile of baloney for hipsters since you can get the same effect now through a point ant shoot CCD sensor camera or using post-processing and film simulation

[@AzrielKnight]

#9 - painting. Why do people even bother painting a portrait anymore? Like, get a camera Picasso.