Cameras as fashion accessories
Is it just me, or is there a growing trend of cameras being "cool"? Sometimes it seems like the older or more outlandish they look, the better.
On my way to work one evening I was walking behind a guy who it would be fair to call an "indie" sort of chap.
Slung casually over his shoulder was an old-style leather camera case which actually looked quite similar to the leather purse carried by his girlfriend.
He proudly displayed this badge of artistic intention for all to see, as opposed to putting it in his larger man bag, which he was also carrying.
Being a photographer myself, maybe these things catch my eye more, but it seemed like a deliberate decision to "wear" it rather than carry it in his bag.
I couldn't help but wonder if he actually used it, how much he spent on film and developing costs if he did, or if it even worked at all.
I almost succumbed to the urge to ask him, but decided that interrupting his conversation to ask him about his cameras was... a little bit weird.
Apart from the occasional hipster, I also seem to be seeing more photographers around in general.
Not so long ago, if you took a camera to a pub, club or bar on a Friday or Saturday, you'd get a few sideways looks, and people would generally avoid the lens, fearing that you were a professional out to snap some drunks for a cover story on alcoholism.
Now, from what I can see, the camera-carrying population is on the rise, and many are choosing cameras for aesthetic purposes, sometimes at the cost of practicality.
Just look at almost every new point-and-shoot camera which comes out - it's almost guaranteed that it will come in variety of colours.
Does the colour affect image quality? About as much as a spoiler makes a car go faster.
Take the Polaroid, for example. While the enthusiasts will argue the merits of owning one, I still think of them as a bit of a gimmick. And yet, Polaroid has just launched a new model and people still seem interested in buying them.
Next up, you have the old-school film camera. This one is a huge hit with the hipsters, who display them proudly, as mentioned above. The older, the better, and it has to be film. I just can't understand the whole film thing. They say it gives more creative freedom and more options, but I'd prefer to use Photoshop, or the GIMP for my options any day.
I have to admit, though, that golden Pentax is pretty eye-catching. It looks like something from a James Bond movie.
There were only 300 of them made and they came with silk gloves to avoid tarnishing the 24 carat gold. I can imagine the theme to Goldfinger while using this camera.
And how about the Japanese robo-Pentax? The super-urban anime design probably fits well with the tight black jeans and colourful sneakers of many a fashion-conscious snapper.
It sure is a far cry from the standard black-on-black that we see with most cameras - it's actually quite refreshing, if a bit loud.
But the coolest cat among them is undoubtedly the Bruce Lee edition Nikon D3. This camera is probably faster than Chuck Norris and it has dragons on it. Is there anything cooler?
I'm more of a function over style kind of guy, so I'm happy with my camera. I definitely don't take it out to show it off. If anything, I dislike the attention it attracts, because the best shots are candid, in my opinion.
Each to their own, I guess.
How do you like your cameras? Plain and functional, or with a bit of colour? Are cameras becoming a fashion accessory?
» Join Connector on Facebook, Twitter @lukeappleby or Email Luke at connectornz@gmail.com
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
If something is slighty hipster looking, hipsters will buy it. Sad fact.
I think that hipster with the leather camera case might have been me, in fact (-: In which case I can answer: Yes the camera does work, it's a 1962-vintage 35mm Rangefinder. All completely manual... doesn't even have a battery! How much does the film developing cost? Very little, I do it myself. About $2 to $3 per roll. I use it because I can't afford a Leica M9. Can't beat that full-frame rangefinder experience (-:
See what happens when you jump to conclusions about people's motivations?
I have a Holga plastic toy camera. It looks pretty good, plus it takes great photos. And it's bright red. Undeniable.
Well Luke I think you've just been shot down by the hipster you mentioned! You should just let people do what they enjoy. Some people just really like the things you can do with film. I know that my old Olympus ends up costing me a lot in film and processing costs, but it takes beautiful photos and lenses are about $50 each max. It's much smaller than most modern SLRs too. I use it on special occasions and longer trips. For me, my digital SLR is a tool - for when I want to take professional-looking photos for use online.
I like to go back to film now and then for, believe it or not, some delayed gratification...you know, when you get the prints back and find a shot that came out great.
Fisch (#1) is absolutely right, you spend far more time thinking about how the shot will work....when I was learning the basics of photography, my tutor (dad) made me keep a notebook with me so I could write down f-stop, ISO, lens, shutter speed, subject and frame number so I understood what worked and what didn't - don't know if anyone would do that these days, they'd just open up in GIMP or PS and make the corrections they need - how many people check their EXIF data on great shots??
I am interested in photography and I like the indie look. I think the assumption here is that the 'hipsters' like the look of the camera, which is partly true. It's vintage, but I think what pushed the 'hipster' look of carrying an old school camera around is that they produce a different quality of photo. Vintage colours, artistically imperfect. I think it's the fashion of the photo style that's pushed the fashion of carrying the vintage camera around
Function over form. Still using a (comparatively) ancient Canon 350D. It's a trusty workhorse that's been dragged through some pretty harsh environments over the past few years.
I prefer digital, but I treat the shots like I would if I had a film camera. I rarely, if ever, adjust things in photoshop, only using a basic graphics utility to resize images for publishing. I learnt on fully manual film cameras and find that those skills are still essential to making the difference between a snapshot and a great photograph.
Too many people seem to assume that because they've got a decent digital camera that it will automatically take great photos. Still have to get the settings right for the shot you are taking, and it's quite frequently not what the auto function says it should be.
I'm one of those people that have old school (and a later model) looking film cameras. I'll take a few with me when on a photo 'expedition'. Reason being that I can have a different lens on each and so there isn't as much fiddling around. Helps with 'candid' shots, as what you said is true, the best shots are candid. I love film cause it feels more real, and I can't afford to get a decent dslr. If someone would sponsor me, I'd gladly go digital. But be grateful of what I learnt using film (and often go back for that 'real' feel).
@AdamR I would love an M9 also... Dreams are free, that's how I afford them.
Ethnic rights advice stuns communities
Dotcom accused van der Kolk 'flabbergasted'
Roll on 2050 - New Zealand economy to rise
Prison officers 'turned into mules'
Daily trivia quiz: February 12
Helmet law halves cyclist numbers
Quake city assets set to be popular
CERA report prompts mall evacuation
Old trains more reliable than new Matangi
Prime Minister John Key wins hearts if not minds
I enjoy 'going back to film' every now and then. I find that only having 24 or 26 shots makes me slow down and think about composition, focus, exposure etc before pressing the shutter button, to make sure I get 'the' shot; rather like a sniper rather than a machine gunner.