The Canon AE-1 is the best artistic camera ever made.

I gave my AE-1 to a very good friend. Yes I loved that Camera indeed! I never got a bad shoot.

old school

First camera I ever owned was an AE-1. Brings back some good memories : )

You should kick his but and take it back.

Nothing photographs artwork like the AE-1!

And please give me a bad day with messed up light so I can laugh and take the
best pic ever anyway!

AE-1 was also my first camera many years ago.

While there's no denying it was a fine camera - what makes YOU say its the "best artistic camera ever made"?

What comparative basis do you have for that?

How do you define "artistic"?

And what would it cost you to shoot-and-develop 400 frames in a typical 4-hour photoshoot - as opposed to today's more cost-effective dslr's?

To me - if you're labeling something "the best" - all the factors must be considered.

Looks like a nice camera. Can get some very nice quality shots done probably.

artsy fartsy

In no way am I implying this is the best camera for shooting in this business.
I don't have any porn shooting experience at all.

But from the standpoint of someone shooting stationary subjects for artistic presentation
this camera has a "feel" that works.

Basically it's the crude simplicity of the camera that gives me the shot I want.
Of course the photographer must understand use of film speed and f-stop.

For example :

If I shoot a piece of artwork, say a painting, I will typically choose either 100 or 50
speed film with no flash and open the f-stop based on the conditions.

The advantage is that the camera seems to mirror my eye perception of light better
than the newer cameras that "help" you.

So when I figure what settings I need, I get it right more often.
And because the camera is crude, "the setting is the fucking setting!"
It doesn't "drift" or false read etc..

When I hold the photo up against the painting, the colors match exactly.
But with other cameras it's like a crap shoot to get exact colors.

Not really a problem when shooting porn but when an artist is shooting to make
a photo print and displaying it right next to the original painting then it's obvious
if the color is not right.

Black and white photos come out like pure gold from this camera and black and white
is a classic art form of photography.

Basically the camera shoots exactly what I see and when shooting art what I see
is exactly what I want and not adjusted in anyway.

I don't use this camera to "create" art; I use it to capture the art I have already
created.

There is no such thing as an artistic camera. There is no such thing as an artistic paint brush.

How could one film camera be able to reproduce colours more accurately than another when all that's between the film and the lens is a bit of air?

The AE-1 was my first serious camera. I used it for many years. Another fun little camera I had around that time, which consistently produced interesting results, was an Olympus half-frame camera.

Makes me want to crack open the old photo albums and fire up the scanner...

ADG

i went with the minolta xd-5 back in the day and got a lot of really terrific shots with it.

choice of film was what gave you the look you wanted back in those days, all the camera did was hold the lens

As if I was too stupid to use the same film with both cameras.

Knock yourself out Rembrandt :

rhetorical, are you out of hiding?
you missed this:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=915975

you little cunt

Back in the day I rocked Minolta too. I have a Canon DSLR now, happy with that but never used one of their film cameras.



Anyone here play around with toy cameras? I have a Diana I like to experiement with, but it seems places to get the film developed are becoming fewer and farther between