Hi.. Is anyone into photography?

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

Sonic Purity

Jiggle Junkie
Apr 9, 2006
Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
This was taken with an early Kodak digital camera I think about 3 MP the colors were not ready for primetime so I converted it to B&W I had the camera in the early 2000's it was a Nikon with a huge back and base that held a harddrive from a laptop in it or a CD card or both. MPView attachment 138265
Photographers such as yourself impress me. Always more of an aural rather than visual person, plus not wanting to deal with the cost and hassle of shooting film, i never really got much into photography. Of the few cameras with which i dealt earlier in life, my favorite was my grandfather’s circa 1950s Kodak Model S 35 mm SLR, actually made in Germany. The camera went to someone else in the family; no idea where it is now. I can’t find a picture of the exact model online, though this one is close:


My first camera which i actually used with any regularity was my first digital camera: an Apple QuickTake 200 sold originally in 1997, that i bought during a “channel clearing” (e.g. “Make these old models go away!”) sale for employees in January 1998 (these photos of the older camera and its box courtesy of a 2005 Canon A95 5 megapixel point-and-shoot digicam):
QuickTake 200 box closed.JPG
QuickTake 200 box open.JPG
back of QuickTake 200.JPG
The only things Apple about this camera itself are the logo on the front and the printed word Apple on the back. Fuji made the camera, which my 1990s notes indicate might be close to their model DS-7. Used a whackadoodle 4 MB memory card, maybe SSFDC? Whatever it was, it didn’t last long in the marketplace.

3 fixed focus settings, glacially slow shutter speed, all of 0.8 megapixels (640 x 480 at its high resolution setting). Macro photography just passable enough to go on WWW pages of the era is about all it was good for. Here’s an example distance shot, looking out onto the front yard, park strip, and street (as it was in 2004):
park strip in bloom.jpeg
(Paragraphs of ranting about the scourge of file suffixes and inline metadata omitted.)
What you see is the original, full size.
Colors tended to be hilariously overblown oversaturated: overly and unrealistically vivid. Here’s an example of that:
rose vclose cropped.jpeg
In real life direct to human eyes, that was a pretty bloom, and the hues are more or less kinda sorta correct. It was brightly colored, but not that brightly colored. Fine for making art tending towards the fanciful/fantasy, but not for accurately capturing perceived reality.

Being able to take pictures without burning through film/developing is what finally started me taking pictures, despite the low quality. It’s now a whole other world with people who never shot to film (as well as some who did) taking a bazillion photos they may or may not someday sort through, without a care as to how many pics they’re taking.


Dedicated Amateur
Apr 12, 2010
@Joker I've never printed in color from film. Is that a fairly labor intensive process? I also got a film scanner for future work.

Latest posts