I stumbled across the cult of low-res photography, looking for a miniature digital camera I could carry in my bag for times when I see something and don't have my regular camera at hand. This little Chinese camera appears to have had many brand-names. At present it is Vivitar. I bought one at Walgreen's for $7.99.
It has no preview window, only a little clear plastic viewfinder that slides up on top. The front Mode button provides a limited set of functions that are selected with the Snap button on top. It has 16Mb of storage. "High-resolution" pictures are 352x288 pixels, with a capacity of 20 images. "Low-resolution" are 176x144 with a capacity of 81. It can also store many more pictures "compressed", but with a "decrease in quality".
It was a heavily overcast day, and I expected to hear the three beeps the manual said would sound when there was not enough light. It has no flash. But I didn't. The little mini-cam strove to capture the image as best it could.
The McQueens' place at 352x288.
Claudius on the move past the BVM.
The BVM.
The BVM at 176x144
Ginger Plants
My back yard, back to 352x288.
Hit snap button by mistake.
Watching squirrels.
Ginko tree.
2 comments:
Yes, there is something curiously attractive about low resolution photography. I also like the cult of the Lomo camera and went to an exhibition of photos, or Lomographs, as they liked to call them.
Perhaps the lack of detail distills an image to its basic essence.
These days, I just take my glasses off.
Lomo, Lomographs, thanks, I did not know those terms.
Maybe it's a reaction against relentlessly excellent, PhotoShopped photography, though not all Low-Res artists disdain to enhance their images.
What Would Cartier-Bresson Do? I think also of William Christenberry.
Post a Comment