Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
February 1, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 57
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Anathemas are unforgivable sins, like these: [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] [link] I just know I'm going to have nightmares about this.




Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
its a bizarre macabre sort of horror movie for photography equipment.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
Thank god they are not videos! I don't think I could stand to watch the guys actually sticking drills and power saws into these cameras. I have enough problems with guys who don't know what they are doing and who are trying to FIX them. Check this out, if you haven't already: [link]
Reply
:iconcat-man-dancing:
Cat-man-dancing Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
I'll have to go with "It's yours, do what you want with it."
And I love, and still use, classic film cameras, as well as the more modern ones.
I've had people tell me that I shouldn't be "allowed" to drive a hearse.
Disrespectful to the dead.
Poor mileage/global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!
My response has always been "Then buy it from me, and you will have the authority to decide how it is used."
If you take away one man's freedom to use his property as he sees fit, you sacrifice your own.
And it doesn't bother me to see someone burn the US flag. I will, however, pity them, for they can never understand that they can not destroy what it stands for so easily.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
they are dismembering cameras. the horror.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
Driving a hearse is not at all the same thing as destroying something just for fun or to elicit an outrage factor. In fact, you are probably preserving an old car that would otherwise be junked.
Reply
:iconcat-man-dancing:
Cat-man-dancing Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
True, but the principle is the same, that of someone attempting to use their desires and/or beliefs to dictate how another will use his own property.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
No, it is not. I have never once said that they don't have the right to do what they did. In fact, I have said that they do, repeatedly. The one being opressive of other people's rights is you. I have the right to express my opinion and you are apparently telling me that I don't.
Reply
:iconcat-man-dancing:
Cat-man-dancing Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
"you are apparently telling me that I don't."
No. I am not. Not even "Apparently".
You can say whatever you want.
But when you deliberately misconstrue something that I have said and then are offended by your own misinterpretation of what I actually said, well, that is not my problem.
Sarcasm, aggressive responses, and deliberate misinterpretation of what people say seem to be your style. That will not be my problem, either.
G'bye.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013

"True, but the principle is the same, that of someone attempting to use their desires and/or beliefs to dictate how another will use his own property."

Tell me how else I am supposed to interpret this. It seems to me to be pretty plain. By expressing my beliefs, you apparently believe that I am somehow attempting to dictate how other people can use their own property; that is my interpretation of what you said, and it flatly contradicts what I have said several times earlier. I believe that is a very obvious interpretation. What's more, I think it is fairly obvious that you are the one who is deliberately misconstruing things.

Reply
:iconlauraperezcerrato:
lauraperezcerrato Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I own that lens mug and, for your tranquility, it was not glass before. It is an actual steel cup with some rubber outside pretending to be beautiful glass.

The bulb on the camera got me ready for murder.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013
I finally figured that out when I saw it on another website (the first one didn't mention it was a fake). I even looked it up so I could buy one, but then I read the reviews. Apparently it gets great marks for looking like a lens, but it leaks horribly. I decided to pass.

They all set my teeth on edge, but the one that really made my hair stand up was the one with the shutters and front standards sawed off and glued to film holders (the last one). The shutter and standard in the middle comes from a camera that currently sells used for most of a thousand dollars, and that came with an exceptionally good lens that the company can't afford to make anymore. I think of how many photographers would love to have that, and then this creep comes along...
Reply
:iconlauraperezcerrato:
lauraperezcerrato Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
It does leak, I'd say it's ok for using it at home. It just looks really cool on a desk lol.

I feel your pain. A friend of my parent's owns a collection of analogic cameras, both compact and SLRs, and you can see the quality of the glass from far away, even on the compact ones. Nowadays we get a new supercheap superzoom every week. Each time I see one being advertised I get sad.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
Any time I see a zoom at all I get sad. Cameras used to come with primes. They had zooms back then (70s, 80s and 90s), but nobody wanted one because they sucked ass so bad. Most of them still do, compared to primes. One of the most idiotic announcements I ever heard (just a few years ago) was by a Nikon spokesman who said something to the effect that everyone should get zooms, because that was where all the improvements and innovations were happening. I actually had someone quote that to me to bolster an argument about why I personally should use zooms. As I pointed out, if you think about that for just a minute or two you will come to the conclusion that you should avoid zooms like the plague (he was saying, in effect, that there was a lot of room for improvement in zooms -- and he was right, there still is).
Reply
:iconlauraperezcerrato:
lauraperezcerrato Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Zooms are a necessary evil if you plan on working anywhere else than on a studio, but still :( I wish cameras still came with prime lenses, kit lenses are barely usable with their lack of quality and horrible aperture... Also, using prime glass teaches you a lot (I learned with a nifty fifty). It's just so sad that lots of people won't understand that "zooming with your feet" isn't the same as actually zooming in.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2013
Yeah, you can't zoom with your feet, but you CAN get the same effect, whith a hell of a lot better quality, by changing from a 25mm lens to a 50mm lens, to a 75mm lens to a 135mm lens. Takes more time and effort though. People are lazy and are more than willing to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Well I dont particularly like them and they dont even seam that practical and in most cases I think they would end up as trash or stowed away some where out of sight out of mind , I mean we all know just how much cameras are dust collectors and how much of a bitch they are to keep clean so imagine if they where a set of bookends.

I can just imagine my wife going on about the dust and all the cleaning she would have to do ...LOL


A lot of the people who do these abortions have no idea of the value of some of the cameras they are destroying and just because some one calls it art does not mean it is.

I would bet that most of these pieces end up as land fill in the first 12 months .

Its not just cameras that get this treatment , many years ago I was wondering around Melbourne and in a pawn shop there was this guitar that caught my eye , it was brush painted with some awful brown house paint, had one pick up missing and the electronics was gutted out. they guy at the shop was going to cut it up and make some crazy looking guitar with it but sold it to me for $50.

This was a genuine Gibson Less Paul from 1963 and I got $3500 for it , oh yes I knew what it was the second I picked it up :)
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013
Well, I don't know anything about guitars, but I do know clocks, guns and cameras. I've made some killer deals on old examples of all of these things. I found an old set of barrels for a muzzle loading Parker shotgun once in a barrel of pipe sections in a junk store. I found the stock and lock in another part of the store. Altogether, I paid about $40 for it all. The rib, joining the two barrels was bent up for about a foot and I took it to a gunsmith who removed the rib, straightened it, and silver-soldered the rib back into place. Now we're up to $100 invested. I sold it (to the gunsmith) for $3,000.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I'm not gonna lie I almost freaked out seeing coffee poured onto a 'lens' :P All those are a shame thought they look like nice cameras still!
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
The one that made my hair stand up was the last one, with the front standards of three cameras hacksawed off and glued to film holders. The one in the middle was worth at least $600. It could be worth 3 times that if it had a Heliar lens.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Wow! I had no idea it was that much that's crazy! I just think it'd be awesome to have a few film cameras around as 'souvenirs' but no way I would destroy them! Man that's hard to get over..!
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
There are not many of those around either, and now there is one less.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
:tears: Such a shame..
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Turns out that the lens cups are not really lenses, but the other stuff is real.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Yea I knew that but the other ones were real up to that so I thought it was... :P
Reply
:iconstevecaissie-stock:
SteveCaissie-stock Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Professional Photographer
I got one of the lens mugs for Christmas from my niece. They really do look, at first glance, like the real thing. Uncanny, as =Recoat said.

As for the remainder, well, I have a number of old cameras that are displayed around my living room and whose purpose is nothing more than to provide decoration. Some of them work, some need a bit of TLC, but I feel no particular attachment to any of them. I must say though, that I love the lens boards as wall art.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Just looked at the lens cups on Amazon and every one of them has bad reviews. They get great marks for looking like a lens, but fall flat on their faces when it comes to holding coffee.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Well, I am glad to hear that the lenses are not real. At least there's that.

I have a number of cameras on display too, but every one of mine works and I either use them or sell them to other people who use them. The problem with the "lens boards as art" is that those are not lens boards. Those are the front standards of folding cameras that have been ripped or cut loose from their hardware and glued to film holders. It looks like two came from Kodaks with ball-bearing shutters (1920 or 30s) and the other might have come from a Voigtlander Avus or Bergheil folding plate camera. I have those cameras. I would literally kill anyone who did this to mine.
Reply
:iconstevecaissie-stock:
SteveCaissie-stock Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Professional Photographer
Ah. Well, they still have a nice “found object” aesthetic to them. Perhaps as one of the other posters suggested, they were from otherwise junked cameras. One would hope.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
I can only hope; or maybe they came from cameras where there is no hope of ever finding film for them, like 122 film cameras. That Voigtlander standard upsets me though. They are pretty valuable and are very usable.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think they look pretty cool. Making practical art from old, useless cameras - cool idea.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Are you being offensive on purpose?
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Am I being offensive? I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see what is so wrong with this kind of art. I think it looks pretty cool.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
The cameras are far from useless, and are some of the ones being destroyed are very valuable and nearly irreplaceable.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
It involves destroying usable, and in some cases vary valuable, antique cameras. The two ball bearing shutters from Kodaks probably went with Kodak Autographic folding cameras, and they are not particularly valuable, but the one in the middle came from a Voigtlander Bergheil plate camera. Rollfilm backs are used on those, and they hold 120 film, which is still widely available, and it has a pretty good lens. Voigtlander Bergheils and Avuses are pretty valuable when restored. There is a Bergheil on ebay right now that's selling for $650. There is one that is unrestored selling for $300. I have a similar camera, an Avus, that I use regularly and would want $450 for.
Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So, they're antique cameras. Why are they valuable again? What can you do with them that you can't do with a new professional-grade HDR camera?
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013

Almost forgot.

As to why they are so valuable, look at the last link in my original post, the one with the shutters hacksawed off and glued to a wooden film holder. See the one in the middle? The one that belongs to the Voigtlander Bergheil? The lens in that shutter is better than the one in your modern HDR camera -- MUCH better. It is probably either a Heliar or a Heliomar. Voightlander doesn't offer those lens options anymore because almost nobody can afford them. They are legendary.

BTW, Voigtlander still makes folding cameras. A new Voigtlander folding Bessa will cost you about $4,000. The lens that comes on it is a Skopar (not even close to as good as a Heliar). If you look in my scrap gallery, you will see two Voigtlander Bessa R rangefinder cameras that I restored. One has a Heliar and one has a Heliomar; either one of those will cost you about $2,500 plus the cost of restoration.

Reply
:icondelusionalhamster:
delusionalHamster Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So, I still don't see why it's a problem if someone wants to make art out of them. They look nice, people make art out of a lot more stupid materials, and it's not your loss if someone trashes their camera by making art out of it. It's a lot better than murdering a cat with an axe and calling that "art". Or putting your own shit in a jar and calling it social commentary... seriously postmodernists make me cry sometimes.

Come on, they're just things. You can always make new things. I'm just saying... lighten up, life is fun.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013
You can give the same lame-ass excuse for pretty much any kind of behavior. For example: Why are those bad things? A cat is just a cat. They are not even a dime-a-dozen and there is no shortage of cats. They give cats away free, and there is nothing special about them. The SPCA kills hundreds of them every day just because it is less trouble than to feed them a few cents worth of kibble. In fact, there was a guy in Arabia who made wall hangings out of their skins. He would piece together bits from white cats, brown cats, black cats and so on to make pictures. I understand they were quite beautiful.

As for crapping in a jar, it is harmless, doesn't destroy anything, and I don't at all understand why this upsets you. Lighten up.

"Come on, they're just things. You can always make new things."
Okay, whip me up half a dozen of them; in fact I'll take a dozen. What's that? You can't? I thought you said you could make them. Sorry, but I have to call you on this. That's pure unadultrated 100% bullshit. They are very rare things, nobody makes them, no one is ever going to again, and that is an incredibly lame excuse for wanton destruction of a limited and already very dimished resource. Reminds me of my stepson who would trash something in a fit of temper and then say "it's only money," in a doomed effort to stop me me from paddling his ass. Didn't work for him either.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2013
Nothing. On the other hand, there is noting you can do (other than movies), that you can do with a professional grade HDR camera that you can't do with one of these, so let's scrap your brand new camera instead. What do you say? Makes just as much sense.
Reply
:iconrecoat:
Recoat Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013   Photographer
Not that this justifies it, but I do use my older cameras as bookends (none were altered and all work fine).

As for the lens mugs, those are novelty. The first time I saw one I almost died. The detail in them is uncanny.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
The website I saw the lens mugs on did not explain that they were not real. I was appalled.
Reply
:iconeaswee:
easwee Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
My gf got me one for xmass - at first I was like wtf that is an overkill gift - than I was "oooh got me".

They really make them in such details that at first you think it's real.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2013
Yeah, I hear they are really good at looking like lenses but really bad at holding liquids.
Reply
:iconrecoat:
Recoat Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013   Photographer
My local camera shop got some a few christmases ago. I just held one up and looked. Definitely a heart stopper without knowing.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013
I looked at the ones they have for sale on Amazon a couple of days ago. Every one of them has complaints. Apparently they are really good at looking like a lens, but they suck at holding coffee.
Reply
:iconmr-java:
Mr-Java Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Student Photographer
In my mind they were all broken beyond repair and were given a new lease of life this way. Otherwise I wont sleep tonight.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
If those were not broken really badly, I want a torch and a pitchfork.
Reply
:iconvalentinawhite:
ValentinaWhite Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Student Photographer
LOL, I totally agree.
Reply
Add a Comment: