dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Late 90's auto point and shoot film cameras wind up abandoned in thrift store bins and can be ransomed often for less than $5. This Olympus Stylus 80 was last weekend's find. I always feel a bit silly on the way home after buying yet another of these auto compacts but not silly enough to stop adding to the ever increasing pile on my desk.
I usually find that the image quality of the zoom lenses demanded by the marketplace at that time comes up a bit short of what one would expect. Anyway just for fun, here's some from a test roll of a barn that I have had my eye on as a subject for some time. The camera came loaded with a full roll of color film of unknown vintage, and as this particular model often has light leak problems, I shot it rather than waste a fresh roll of BW. Processing it in BW chemistry along with the film's age gives the heavy grain.

Any ideas on how these could be improved when I inevitably revisit with better gear and when the light is more favorable on the barn's roof will be appreciated. I have been missing out on photographing these buildings as they are becoming victims of gravity and a demand for old barn boards.

#1

(Download)

#2

(Download)

#3 (the Frankenflip version)

(Download)

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

For me, no.1 is a clear winner here. The rocks in the foreground and the windswept tufts of grass add a desolation to the shot that's missing from the other two, though possible a small crop to the base might give a wider experience and increase this feeling.

As for the actual pictures - a timely reminder to use an Olympus trip I purchased from a similar source some years back.

MattPhox Loc: Rhode Island

I like #1 and #3. And I think that I like #3 better. Unfortunately not much going on in the sky.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I would say #1 has a bit too much in the foreground, and having a fence between the viewer and the barn isn't ideal, but it's not a shot killer.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

#3 is highly appealing to me for the balance: the image is about the total scene, and I really like having context for these types of subjects. #1 is a little heavy on the rocks. If doing a study of the decaying barn itself, I'd want more details - much closer than #2.

Fences don't bother me since they are "in my way" all the time

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

#1 do it for me. It is showing some of the surrounding area and not just an old barn house in the middle of no where. The rocks anchor the shot for me.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Dan,
#s 1 and 3 are the story tellers for me.
The stony fruits of years of “rock picking” from the fields is a reminder that sod-busting north of the glacial moraines promised years of “rock picking” the crop of “frost heave” each Spring to minimize ploughshare damage. In New England the rocks went into stone fences at the margins of the fields; in the flatlands to the west they were piled on “stone boats”...sledges hauled by a good team ...and dumped in some spot otherwise unsuitable for tillage...an unarable site. In Upstate New York rock picking was a part of a summer farm laborer’s two weeks of “getting back in shape” for the rest of the summer’s labors!

Memories, God bless’em!

Thanks for posting.

Dave

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Thanks for the look John. Like this one best as well. Could be a bit rock heavy though as you mentioned.
Had a Trip 35 as a hiking camera and liked it a lot. If I ever come across one I'll pounce on it in a heartbeat!

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Thanks Matt. Skies here often are featureless as they were yesterday. A planned reshoot with more cloud is hopeful.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Agreed R.G. #2 without rocks and fence could be better with a more favourable angle. I wanted to include the rocks but they are a bit much.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

I too prefer a wide shot for this building. Any close stuff would be detail shots which would require entering the property. I did walk across a stubble field but would feel better if I had the owners permission. After going back to my truck and driving away I noticed lots more features on the West side of the structure.
...and the rocks tend to overwhelm.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

There is remains of another structure on the property as well but it wasn't as interesting as the barn. As you mentioned, the building needs surroundings for context.

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Memories, God bless’em!

Thanks for posting.

....and thanks for the look and comments Dave. By the time I came along main use for a stoneboat in Eastern Ontario was to put a barrel on it and single hitch it through the maple bush collecting the contents of sap buckets. The work was less and the reward greater.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Most on this site know that I'm a big fan of film. I'm intrigued by the quality of the "point and shoot" images. If you take into account that the film could have been decades old, and that you developed the film in black and white chemicals, the quality is really pretty good. Yes, there is a lot of grain evident. I like the texture of grain, which looks better to me than digital noise; but sometime I'll run my film shots through a stand alone denoise program (I use movavi denoise) which does a nice job on grain. It is not a free program; but I think it is pretty good. If you want me to run these through the program to give you an idea of the results (If, in fact, you are even interested in reducing the grain), I could do so and re-post them in your thread. Just a thought.

As for composition, I like the first and the third photos. I might lean toward number three; but it is close. My reasoning is about the same as what others have already mentioned. Thanks for posting shots from cameras that most of us have pretty much written off. You are right that they can be found for very little money and they are fun to play with. The bonus is that the results are often quite good.
Erich

dansmith Loc: Southwest Alberta Canada

Thanks for the offer to try movadi denoise on these. To be fair though, they have been stepped on pretty good in elements 9 and silver efex. Here's the first one hot off the scanner dusty bits and all. The negs were scanned at 2600 dpi on an Epson V500, not a pro machine but not too shabby a machine either. In the sky where the grain is most noticeable I hit it with the blur tool so a fairer test of movadi would be to try it on the original scan. Feel free to do anything else that you wish to it as well.

I get sharper results from fixed lens compacts. I think that it is easier to design and fit a fixed focal length lens to such a small camera than it is a zoom lens - even in the lower lengths like this 35-80.
Camera companies were lucky to sell these by the 1000's. They became obsolete as soon as the more reasonably priced digital compacts hit the shelves a mere 5 to 10 years later. Smartphones with their competent 15mpx sensors are causing these little critters to show up in thrift stores now as well.
.

(Download)