HOME | DD

bondrox In reply to territeacher [2022-04-26 04:29:54 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bondrox In reply to piesitos82 [2022-03-29 17:25:02 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

piesitos82 In reply to bondrox [2022-03-30 07:07:56 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bondrox In reply to HusheR77 [2022-03-06 06:29:13 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bondrox In reply to Doofus90 [2016-10-30 13:06:57 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for appreciating classic/vintage photography! I might just get around to posting more. Meantime, I hope my small contribution is appreciated for what it is.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

bondrox In reply to dannysuling [2016-10-30 13:03:00 +0000 UTC]

I took this pic in the early 1980's with a 126 cartridge camera and scanned onto my PC years later. Not bad for pre digital technology!

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

dannysuling In reply to bondrox [2016-10-31 00:28:42 +0000 UTC]

I grant you the creativity of using a cartridge camera in the 1980s to do some photography of a honey of yours in amateur bondage. She's cute...what one can see of her, which is all fuzzy and mostly hidden. And it's a nice pose, all bed-bound and agged and stuff. And if you're telling me that you took this with a cartridge camera because it was the only one handy and you were trying to be spontaneous, etc....well, that's an excuse I'll accept, and even for posting it here at dA.

But that rationale has nothing to do with the quality pre-digital technology; that's all smokescreen. The truth is that the photo iS bad for pre-digital technology, exactly because it was taken with a crapy cartridge camera with a crappy lens, and probably less that quality film stock. There were excellent cameras available in the 1980s that would have provided you with exceptional images. Specifically, there were plenty of SLR cameras out there that took amazing, clear, crisp photographs, and Kodachrome film for color shots that was simply outstanding and very reliable and dependable. Those SLRs took phenomenal black-and-whites, too. I know this because in the 1980s I was taking occasional bondage photos of models with an SLR I bought in the early 1980s, using b/w film, and photographer friends told me they were quite fine for an amateur (and they weren't just being nice). Strictly amateur, of course, but even so I would never have dreamt of using the cheap little cartridge camera I owned for such photographic experiments. And I won't buy as a possible excuse that you used the cartidge because you couldn't afford an SLR. I frequently borrowed SLRs from friends, or rented one, before I could afford to buy one on my own. Of course, I had to show my friends that I knew what I was doing before they agreed to lend an SLR to me.... So I studied, rented, practiced.

Anyway, please don't insult the "pre-digital" technology that was available at the time you indicate. It was plenty damn good, and it still is now, even compared to digital. They're simply a little more complicated to use. You just didn't use it, even though it was there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bondrox In reply to dannysuling [2012-01-11 12:00:11 +0000 UTC]

I posted this because I thought people would enjoy seeing something pre-dating the digital era. This was scanned from an old photo from the early 1980's. The camera used was a Kodak 126 cartridge type with a square format. So, whaddya expect? Duh!!

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

dannysuling In reply to bondrox [2012-01-11 13:00:14 +0000 UTC]

Noted. When you sent your first reply concerning the photo's provenance, I better understood your purpose. This second response gives me even more info: date, format, etc. Point made.

I...um...had a Kodak 126 about that time also, just for informals. My more serious work was always with an Olympus OM-2, which I've still found occasions (rare) to use. It's such a fine, fine instrument.

I don't recall all the venues where I used the 126...but there wasn't anything like the one you posted. I'm rather envious....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bondrox In reply to dannysuling [2012-01-06 14:06:21 +0000 UTC]

This was a scan of an old 126mm celluloid picture taken with a cartridge camera. Duh!!

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

dannysuling In reply to bondrox [2012-01-06 15:08:49 +0000 UTC]

Hey, for a 126mm celluloid film cartridge camera, it's not bad at all!

👍: 1 ⏩: 0