Weekend

[j4]

Went to fanf's birthday party yesterday. The weather was just perfect for a barbecue (where was all this sunshine in June/July/August, eh?); my STEAK was a bit on the chewy side but the salmon in Laphroaig worked fairly well. Could have done with more whisky though. Strawberries and cream went down well, as always, but the real hit was fanf's mum's garlic mushrooms. Mmmmmm.

It was lovely to see existing friends and make new ones. And very flattering to acquire a one-man fan-club for the evening, but since I only want him for his pinball machine (he has a Star Trek TNG pinball table in his room!) I didn't think it was fair to lead him on too much. It's fun to flirt sometimes, and K. is a lovely chap, but I don't have anything more than flirting available to give at the moment.

Today I didn't wake up till late; decided it would be a shame to waste the nicest weekend of the year, so sion_a went to wander round Cambridge with the intention of Seeing Interesting Stuff and incidentally teaching me to use my SLR camera. Before embarking on our expedition, we went for a very nice lunch at the Pickerel -- I had the biggest Caesar salad I've ever seen in my life (which I couldn't finish), and sion_a had a tasty-looking spicy beanburger.

And then, we wandered. Thankfully not past too many shops (though I did wander into Oxfam and accidentally bought some shoes and the video of High Fidelity) -- down to the river, and along the river, and then back up and round and at that point I lost track of where we were as I was just following sion_a. In the course of our wandering we took in Ridley Hall and Robinson College, as well as the surprisingly interesting architecture of the Sidgwick site.

It was strange walking along the deserted back streets, and campus-like university site, having the time and space to stop and stare at odd bits of buildings, or interesting effects of light and space, without odd looks from tourists and inhabitants alike. Everything was so deathly silent that at times it felt as though we were wandering around a long-forgotten city of the ancients, searching for clues to the people who once inhabited it. Without people around it's possible to abandon all sense of scale; the pattern of leaves against a low wall can acquire as much interest and importance as a towering building. The air felt heavy with sunlight and dust.

I didn't actually take many photos with the SLR (though I took a few with the digicam, which I may put up here at some point) as the battery for the light-meter wasn't working. Took one or two, though; it's all so complicated, but hopefully I'll get the hang of it one day. I will have to develop a steadier hand, though, or get a tripod.

Came home hot and tired.

I feel as though I am taking photographs of everything from a very long way away.

Comments

[imc.livejournal.com]

my parents' old SLR

I have an SLR which I personally bought from Argos in the early 1980s (together with a 28mm wide-angle lens, a 70-200 zoom and a doubler). I haven't used it for about four years, although not long before the 1999 eclipse I bought a mirrored 500mm lens that was on offer [the mirrors mean it's not actually 500mm long, fortunately, but it's rather harder to focus and has a higher f-value] - but of course Falmouth was under blanket cloud cover on the day and all I've got to show for it is a picture of some higly magnified clouds which is so dark they didn't bother framing the slide (and they also didn't frame my pictures of the night sky with clearly visible stars on them).

It is, of course, entirely manual - though it does have a built-in light meter which can tell you when the settings are about right. It was made at Carl Zeiss Jena, I believe.

In the last few years, though, I seem to have gone entirely digital. The media is cheaper, and you don't have to remember to send your film off for processing.

[j4.livejournal.com]

The media is cheaper

Are! The media are cheaper! Or, of course, the medium is cheaper. Fewer guacamole. HTH HAND HORSE ETC. </ox.*>

I bought this SLR for 20 quid second-hand. And films aren't that much more expensive (at Jessops you get a free one when you get one developed) than shelling out for 4xAA batteries every month or so for the digicam...

[imc.livejournal.com]

I probably meant "the medium is cheaper", though I'm prepared to defend the use of "media" as a singlular noun in this day and age (the OED has a couple of examples of its use). Compare and contrast: "Media studies is a popular degree course" (though doubtless you'll argue that Media Studies is in some sense a proper noun).

shelling out for 4xAA batteries every month or so

NiMH rechargeables are your friend (though we managed to lose ours for a couple of weeks). Still, I think six quid buys you 6-8 batteries but only one 36-exposure film (including processing) so unless your camera eats batteries for breakfast I think the batteries are still cheaper. Unless you then take your digital pix to Boots to get printed out, in which case it's about 10p each provided you order 50 at once. At least that way you have the opportunity to select which photos to spend your money on instead of paying up front for an envelope of blurred under-exposed photos of people without their heads.

[j4.livejournal.com]

doubtless you'll argue that Media Studies is in some sense a proper noun

Naturally. You wouldn't say "studies is" in any other context, would you? (Unless 'studies' is quoted.)

I think six quid buys you 6-8 batteries but only one 36-exposure film (including processing)

The film is free with the processing. Not sure how much the processing costs... sion_a? Is it as much as 6 quid at Jessops? It's not usually elsewhere, so long as you're prepared to wait a week (and I usually am).

At least that way you have the opportunity to select which photos to spend your money on instead of paying up front for an envelope of blurred under-exposed photos of people without their heads.

The flip side of this, of course, is that you have much less incentive to actually learn to take anything better than under-exposed photos of people without their heads.

[oldbloke.livejournal.com]

Processing at Jessops is around a fiver for a 36 shot roll, with free film.
If you get arty and go mono, it'll cost you quite a bit more.
Don't try slides until you can get exposures right more than 85% of the time, coz slide film doesn't have the amazing 3-stops-either-way latitude of modern colour print film. The results are theoretically better, but you need a projector... too much hassle all round, really.

NB There used to be chains that processed in Kodak chemistry and chains that processed in non-Kodak chemistry, and it wasn't wise to take a non-Kodak film to a Kodak processor or vice-versa. You often got colour casts. Even though in theory they're all using the same basic chemicals to do it all. Jessops are as good as anybody, so just stick with them, is my advice.

[imc.livejournal.com]

I've always used slides, as it happens (except I think I have one or possibly two ancient envelopes of prints - not sure why) which is how come I don't know how much it costs to get prints developed and forgot that you get a free film when you do. :-)

I do have ones that came out too dark - they are OK seen through a projector but I had a devil of a time trying to scan them. (It eventually turned out that pointing my digital camera through a hand-viewer stood on a light-box gave better results.)

[imc.livejournal.com]

The flip side of this, of course, is that you have much less incentive to actually learn to take anything better than under-exposed photos of people without their heads.

Depends on how much pride you have in your work. If you're the sort of person who doesn't care ("and besides, it didn't cost anything") then that may be true; on the other hand, if you can see the results instantly then you'll be less likely to make the same mistake 36 times before getting the film developed and then saying "oh well, they didn't turn out".

The ability to take more photos almost cost-free surely means you'll get more practice, rather than that you won't care at all what the results look like.