ContaxIIIa

ContaxIIIa

Lives in United States San Francisco, United States
Works as a Photographer (Retired)
Joined on Apr 17, 2020
About me:

I have doing photography since 1972 when I first bought my first camera a Adolph Gasser, and who would it known that I would be working for the that sold me my camera. I got my degree in Photography in 1981, and have done fashion work, but I started working at the camera store in 1984 since then I went to Japan in 1985, and after seeing the country that I have change from Fashion to Travel documentary photography to Street photography. I still used film mostly, my photo gear is not modern they dates back from the oldest model of a 1956 35mm Canon RF to my 1968 Nikon F SLR, I also been using instant print photography. My favorite shooters are as follows: Bresson, Doisneau, Riboud, Brassai, Winograd, John Free, Joel Meyerowitz, Margaret B White, Andre Kertez, and Diado Moriyama, and Shinzo Maeda as these are my hero's, and now since that I AM RETIRED as NO ONE IS READING THIS! I am in the process of archiving my film when I have it scan by myself. As for Digital I do have a DSLR-very much IN MY gear 12 TO 16pixel job, and shooting in RAW, and using the lenses of Manual focus Nikon Nikkor Lenses in which they date back from the 1960's which they are Yellow Coated at the time I read that these line of lenses were mostly use for B/W shooting, and when using in Digital that the look that I am witnessing is much better rendition, contrast, color saturation, and sharpness. I'm also a camera collector in which I do collect from 35mm to large format cameras. As when I seen other photographers with $$$$$ Expensive cameras that the first thing is that they asked is Why did I bought this camera since that most of them do not know how to use correctly, and 9 out of ten do not know how, & THINK. And I am RETIRED, and Phase Two as I will be going to Japan, and lived there to continued my photography there. Maybe teach Photography there. In the meantime that I will be doing my traveling in Japan, and other places in Europe.

Comments

Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dellaaa: I hate to be a turd in the punch bowl but IMHO to my eye, neither the quality of the film nor the camera (medium format no less) is anywhere near the quality possible with current state of the art digital cameras.
To be honest, this is the quality I hated when I shot film 20 years ago. Back then we all yearned for sharp grainless images (a la Ansel). These images are soft and grainy. It's kind of like extolling the beauty of the tape hiss on a cassette recorded in 1970. I just don't get it, but if you like it, have at it.

Were talking about LARGE FORMAT LIKE TO 4X5 TO 11X14 or LARGER as the Grain of the film is non existed, and did you shot on Kodachrome in which both ISO or ASA was to the ultra 25 to 64 as it was fine grain. And 20 years ago that I was using HP5, and FP4 as I was using a developer called UFG as it gave me very Fine Grain Images, and for color I was Using Fujicolor 400, and 800, and Kodak Ultracolor400, and Ektapress 800 both color film had TMAX emulsion.. And still I got fine grain images With Nikkor Lenses....

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2022 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

Marksphoto: You guys are forgeting that film is not meant to be scanned, it loses it's magic in scanning. The best way to use film is to view it as a slide, then there is no loss of taste! scanning either film or scanning reality is digital imaging aka digital photography, so obviously scanning film is a second generation copy so calling it film photography is a false statement.
And for the older generation who have seen medium format wedding photos printed on Kodak Portra paper would understand me that film has more character, just not when it's digitized.

No that is not True.... You got a problem with that as I scan my film, and already achieved in what I wanted to be shown online, and have already being getting good hits on both Instagram, and Tumbler, and You?? Film were talking Film with a Nikon Film Camera, Or when I was in High school 48 years ago a Praktica Nova IB using a a Meyer Optik Domplain 50mm 2.8 as has a 3 element glass design as I have seen this lens on You Tube as I STILL OWN IT along with my Nikkor's, and Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.... Or are you using a iPhone to get that great superb images in the WEE LITTLE SENSOR OF your phone....

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2022 at 04:16 UTC

Yea SO? I rather have a Original Nikon Nikkor 180mm F Mount lens either manual focus or AF lens.... I am not into New Gear, I like my Nikon gear in what I have... As you Poor Peasant Folks that WANT NEW GEAR, and Spend a Arm & A Leg to get it. To the Math or either get Leitz Gear....

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2022 at 03:59 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

JackEtweather: it should be "in a day and age," not "in a day in age." That deprecates the entire article.

Do you want Good Grammar or the Lens that was Use in Cinema History??? or I should say in Kubrick's Cinema History??

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2022 at 03:55 UTC

Like quoting in what Indy Jones would say: "IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!!" Way a go to preserve this item lens since Kubrick is a Pioneer in taking any ordinary lens, and make it into a Piece of Art in Cinema. I know on You tube that their is a video of Kubrick Cameraman describing the Many of Lenses that Kubrick use - I suggest that you look at it...Also that I have read, and seen on Pinterest pf Kubrick on the set of 2001 as he is on the Space Station, and he is using a Russian Horizont in getting, and achieving the WIDE curve shots as when using the camera that on the viewfinder their is distortion as he wanted to design it from the viewfinder, and how the Horizont gives a curve look onto film as I have this camera as well a 1967 model....

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2022 at 03:48 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

OK - One Question??? WHY??? Why would you want to connect an adapter to this Camera from the Last Century, Remember this camera did not make it to 1 Pixel, even I have a Kodak DC290 Zoom, as it was 2 pixels, as it was decent for an 4x6 to 8x10 but this adapter for a camera that Apple made in which it was really a Kodak camera... Was the guy that made this adapter DRUNK??... Why Not Apple Brings Back The Powerbook Pismo Retro Style Laptop??

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2022 at 04:23 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Dmg778: 2009? I had been shooting film for 40 years. Not totally correct. I stopped shooting film in 2004. Film is what it is but I haven’t looked back. I still have all my old film cameras though. Including a Kodak Retina Reflex III, my first “real” camera. A bunch of others also line the shelves (Nikon, Rollei, Polaroid, Olympus) with many great memories. But history belongs to the past. But I kept the photos.

BRAVO GANNON!!!! I like in what your thinking.... And to jjz2, Yea like me, I started with 127 format, and then 110, but got more to 35mm in using my Dad's Contax in which I later starting getting more Nikon Gear, and then lead to medium format ro Bronica, and TLR, and Graflex Rangefinder to having 3 models that dates back to 1933 - Plaubel, Zeiss, and a Foth TLR all from the 1930's , and then to getting a 4x5 Graflex in shooting 4x5, and now I am shooting Instax Film from the the Graflex... Simple No?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2022 at 02:46 UTC
In reply to:

RolliPoli: Wow... 2009 You came rather late to the party! 😯

Yea Gannon, You are right I was born in 1956, and started Photography in 1972, although I did get the bug in 1964 when I photograph my First Holy Communion Cake using my Mom's Kodak Starflash Brownie. Still got that camera as it is a Memorial to my Mom, as I have my Dad's Contax IIa in a Display case as it is also a memorial to him too. I have my share of Digital Gear, but I have more enjoying in shooting Film Today...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2022 at 02:45 UTC
In reply to:

Overrank: Funny how the world turns - in 2009 there were a lot of people shooting expired film because it was cheap, then much of the expired stock got used up and fresh film was pretty widely available. Now, because of demand and Covid supply issues fresh colour film is in short supply and expired film is back again.

Photos are nice - I particularly like how the colours in the last one match the orange from the light leak. I shoot a roll or two of film a week - digital is so boring.

HERE - HERE How true, and still enjoying in shooting with Old Cameras, as I got a Collection, as now I am using a Pentacon, and Praktina 35mm SLR's from 1956..

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2022 at 02:40 UTC
In reply to:

Chris Dubea: 2009. How cute.

I started shooting film in 1976, prolly before you were born....

Yea well Chris, My first film shot was photographing my First Holy Communion Cake at the bakery at where we got as that was back in 1964 using my Mom's Kodak Starflash Brownie IN COLOR, and then taking a photo of Mom after the my party, that was my memory of taking a a film shot...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2022 at 02:37 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Firstlight: I began shooting film some 50+ years ago with a Kodak Instamatic and a play developing/enlarging kit. I still shoot film today for fun alongside my Nikon Z9 for production work. I also still develop and print my own in my wet darkroom - mostly 6x7 medium format and 4x5 large format. It's a true craft, and I am proud that I follow all ecologically safe practices, recover all my silver, and totally neutralize my chem to the point I produce virtually no toxic waste - far less than the disposal of a single digital camera or battery. Yes, it takes extra effort of course, but it's worth it. I respect those that don't enjoy the craft and the many reasons, however, quite a number of us do enjoy it for as many reasons and all we ask is equal respect - which is so often lacking. Funny, I used to read "film is dead" so often I could have made a mint for every utterance. Today's equivalent retort would be "DSLRs are dead". Hey, it's all just different facets of the craft we call photography.

BRAVO Michael How True...

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2022 at 02:30 UTC

I try shooting with my Dad's Contax IIa during high school, & when I enter City College, and you would not believed in the results that I had in using my Dad's Camera, The tones, and contrast that I was surprise in seeing it, Unfortunately my Dad's Contax need about $400 worth of repairs, Shutters were Off, the film spacing towards the end of roll was not spacing right, & the lens was OK, but I look through a light as it starting to show wear, and haze. But I still was using my Nikon gear as I was happy, but later in 2000, I also got a Contax II, and III as I was enjoying Rangefinders again that I also got the Canon 7, and the Vt, and a Yashica YF from 1959. in which I am respectfully enjoying in getting the lenses for these models, the 39mm mount, & then Contax Mount. So I do not need to get an Expensive Leica as I am happy in the results that I am getting models from the late 1950's to the early 1960's, and also save alot in money when getting lenses, & treating correctly..

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2022 at 02:28 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

n3eg: Tony Northrup says this product line is dead wood, and needs to be pruned.

I do not know why you listen to this person as Northrup thinks that he knows photography, and his Winny Wife that wants to shoot fast flash synch Hey Lady Get a Hasselblad it synch's at all speeds. This couple do not know photography since they read off the Ipad's, like they know - bull. I do not Shoot RAW, I do not Rely of ISO dial, I use P Mode. WHY ARE THEY ON AIR ON YOU TUBE since their are more Young YouTubers are using MORE FILM SHOOTING Answer me that ....

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2022 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

apsc4ever: Stoopid.

To You It is Stoopid, to me it is Creative to have one of these works of Art, Hey let ask you something, If Ansel Adams was still Alive, (Yea I know he would be OLD) But would you ask him to get rid of his View Camera that he use in his famous photo - "Moonrise Over Hernandez", and Get a Sony A7III??? Would you say that to him??? And what would prove to say to a Photographer that has been doing photography through most of his Life as I have been doing photography for 50 years, would you say that to a person like that??? Respect the artists....

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2022 at 18:33 UTC

As I wrote to the new company called "NewLandCamera" told me that they are working on it in making a Instax Back for the land series. As I have the Lomograflock for my 4x5 camera as I am Please on the results. As I have a polaroid back for my Medium Press camera Graflex XL, as I will be having that back modified to take the Instax film since the Land film that when I was using Type 669, 679, 667, 665P/N and 664 in which I really enjoy shooting. But I will be glad when they make the Instax back in which it film size will fit the modified size back.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2022 at 18:16 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

cybersnap: When will there be a way to bring life to the Polaroid Image Pro? Actually, its film is no longer in production.

Well then someone will come out with making a DIY Digital back using the Raspberry software like the person making the latest version Full Frame backs for 35mm cameras... As I am talking about the company: "I'm Back" making a digital back for the Colorpack Series.... Their is a Scary Thought...

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2022 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

sibuzaru: If you print a polaroid that way your image gets flipped right? It's not a big issue but I feel like instax wide would've been the better choice, cheaper more reliable and doesn't flip the image

Sibuzaru - like I told Mattburger - Yes that is true Only on the Polaroid Film, The Instax film is expose through the Negative Side, as the Polaroid Film is expose through the Positive side as the Polaroid SX-70, 600, and the One Step, etc Has the Mirrors inside to be expose correctly.. As when the Peel Apart film were made for the colorpack series, that the Negative film is Expose first then through the rollers as emulsion to emulsion as after the time is up peel the negative part, and you have the positive photo, Instax Film both Mini, Square, and Wide that the light expose through the Negative side, and through the rollers, and the positve is shown correctly. Does that answer the reversed statement??

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2022 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

sibuzaru: If you print a polaroid that way your image gets flipped right? It's not a big issue but I feel like instax wide would've been the better choice, cheaper more reliable and doesn't flip the image

Matterburger - Yes that is true Only on the Polaroid Film, The Instax film is expose through the Negative Side, as the Polaroid Film is expose through the Positive side as the Polaroid SX-70, 600, and the One Step, etc Has the Mirrors inside to be expose correctly.. Does that answer the reversed statement??

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2022 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

n3eg: Tony Northrup says this product line is dead wood, and needs to be pruned.

Oh Yeah, Well Then I really STOP watching him, and his Wife that gets the Camera History WRONG! So all I can say to Tony, Alex is not listening, and Alex does not Care, and lastly all you people that do not like the idea of person making camera models that you are ALL NOT TRUE SHOOTERS, So Tony, and others that all of you go "F" Yourself...

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2021 at 06:06 UTC

I LOVE this idea, I would mind having the Nikon Model, and place, and display it right next to my Photography books. I say BRAVO!!! Even a web site called Photography Supply is also bringing back their Wooden Models, and wouldn't mind having the Polaroid SX70 model....

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2021 at 05:59 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »