|
Santa is strapped posted:Thirding yes because even with film, the film is processed and can be processed with different chemicals/temp ratios to give a different look. yes, not to mention darkroom exposure times when making wet prints, which are based off of contact sheet exposure times which are dependent on the negative's processing. shooting black and white film takes time, dammit. and even if you scan the negatives in, the scanner turns RAWS into tiffs or whatever. what if you have dust on your scanner bed? or negatives? right, so gently caress post-processing, whatever. Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jan 23, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Yes. Especially considering most images look terrible right of camera when shooting digital. What? Disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:What? Disagree. Panasonic raw files look like absolute poo poo right out of camera, I have oft lamented that they look so bad with a supplied editing program crafted from pure manure that a huge whack of the beginner market will just think gently caress it and only shoot in jpg - which is heavily edited by the camera itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Thirding yes because even with film, the film is processed and can be processed with different chemicals/temp ratios to give a different look. Yep, not to mention Ansel Adams, that master of photoshop, I think. Or maybe he was the master of the darkroom. Still, he post processed his pictures one way or another. *Obviously I know that he wasn't using photoshop, but you never know what goons will believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
The amount of "photoshop" Adams did to his photos is probably more than anyone nowadays will ever do with their film or digital photos. Just reading his explanation of how he "photoshopped" Clearing Winter Storm was insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:The amount of "photoshop" Adams did to his photos is probably more than anyone nowadays will ever do with their film or digital photos. Just reading his explanation of how he "photoshopped" Clearing Winter Storm was insane. Got a link? It's still impressive that he did it all manually and it's an amazing photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Got a link? It's still impressive that he did it all manually and it's an amazing photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
I'm thinking that a Kodak film division with a simplified product line would be a pretty attractive investment for an entrepreneur with deep pockets. The problem would be getting the rights to all the applicable names and trademarks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm thinking that a Kodak film division with a simplified product line would be a pretty attractive investment for an entrepreneur with deep pockets. The problem would be getting the rights to all the applicable names and trademarks. They were saying their chemical/film patents are worth hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Its not cheap. Interesting reading up on the difference between Kodak and Fujifilm. Fujifilm knew that film was dying so looked for new ways to use their chemicals and chemistry. They created a film that covers LCD screens which is now pretty much the only one used on all screens. They also released a cosmetics line created by their chemical engineers. Kodak did nothing like this and screwed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Didn't fuji also turn out to be a front for organised crime?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
A5H posted:Didn't fuji also turn out to be a front for organised crime? You're thinking of Olympus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You're thinking of Olympus. As someone who owned an E-500, I am in no way surprised by Olympus being terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Kodak did nothing like this and screwed up. Big exception there was the development of the "Advanced Photo System" only a few years before the rise of digital would require deep pockets and careful planning to navigate. That minor boondoggle drained Kodak of ready cash right when a few hundred million in liquid assests might have seen them through. My (baseless) prediction: in 10 years you'll be able to buy 4-5 films with "Kodak" printed on them, in each of black and white and colour (probably a mix of slide and print), courtesy of some other currently-obscure company that negotiates a deal for a suite of patents. I think Kodak's current "Our intellectual property is worth billions!" is strategic posturing, and not really honest. Nothing is worth any more than somebody is willing to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
What would be interesting would be to sell the film "effects" as an official branded app or whatever for the iphone/android. It's not quite enough at this point though, but I would definitely imagine the Kodak name will live on in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Nothing is worth any more than somebody is willing to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
I saw this article on kodaks missed opportunities. It really is hilarious in a tragic way and explains precisely what went wrong, but only if you read between the linesJeffrey Hayzlett, Kodak Chief Marketing Officer posted:“It’s sad because they still have good people there,” says Jeffrey Hayzlett, who was Kodak’s Chief Marketing Officer from 2006 until 2010. “Overall the company has made a bunch of bets on technologies and business models that needed a longer runway than they had.” quote:“If you want to point back to the most pivotal moment that caused this,” says Hayzlett, “it was back in 1975 when they discovered the digital camera and put it back into a closet. Some of the same people are still there. I actually had an executive from Kodak come up to me last week and say, ‘I think film’s coming back.’” The guy maybe wasn't driving the ship when it sank, but he was when it hit the iceberg and took on water without anyone bothering to pump. And he still doesn't see that divisions that make money are more valuable than inkjet printer and digital photo frame divisions that don't. And he manages to shift blame to everyone else (in this article at least) edit: I realise he wasn't CEO, but it's the CMO's job to move product and generate revenue, so he does have to take a huge chunk of the blame Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
Kind of hit or miss, but this popped up on my Facebook feed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnxtdT_wQsI
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Kind of hit or miss, but this popped up on my Facebook feed. That seems more like photographers making fun of wannabe photographers than adherence to the meme. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
xzzy posted:That seems more like photographers making fun of wannabe photographers than adherence to the meme. I see no problem there
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
I think anything that shits on someone for not doing photography "their" way is pretty lame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/dvu2QPQLlYA
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
35' large format camera for portraits across the country: https://vimeo.com/34571640 http://www.gizmag.com/35-foot-camera-vanishing-cultures/21178/
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:http://youtu.be/dvu2QPQLlYA Of course comments are disabled. That made me laugh more than the poo poo photographers say video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
I went a few pages back and didnt see anything mentioned and I'm absolutely a rookie when it comes to post processing so could someone tell me what the difference between the VSCO film product is and preset actions? http://visualsupply.co/film Are they just very well done presets or actions you run in LR or PS or are they something more actually worthy of purchasing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
AFAIK they're just really well-done presets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
You could always just pay for some film and shoot it. Instant preset.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Of course comments are disabled. That made me laugh more than the poo poo photographers say video. oh yeah, me too. x100
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
dukeku posted:You could always just pay for some film and shoot it. Instant preset. I'm aware, I did learn on film but was on a crop sensor for a long time and didnt have the drive to buy up a film body and lenses. I'm about to make a decision based on the the next D800 vs 5/7DMKIII to finally go full frame. Once I buy up some decent glass maybe I'll get a film body too. Till then I was just curious about the product.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
you can get a pentax 35mm and decent glass for dirt cheap. it's not like you need to save to buy for it if you're aiming for a full frame as is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
titanium posted:I went a few pages back and didnt see anything mentioned and I'm absolutely a rookie when it comes to post processing so could someone tell me what the difference between the VSCO film product is and preset actions? These aren't that great imo. They're just preset sliders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:you can get a pentax 35mm and decent glass for dirt cheap. it's not like you need to save to buy for it if you're aiming for a full frame as is. Everyone should have a Pentax ME or similar. Man they are fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:These aren't that great imo. I like how the Portra ones actually crank up the saturation. So accurate!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I like how the Portra ones actually crank up the saturation. So accurate! Yeah, actions/presets are the snake oil of photography. Especially the sets that are charging 100s of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
I used the dxo demo once upon a time when I only shot digital - I REALLY loved the look of some films. I thought to myself how pathetic it was to simulate film when the real thing is not really hard to get. i think most of my personal photography is film now. the most important part of moving to film was actually knowing there's a cost per each shot so i made drat sure i wasn't wasting my money. in a few months, my photography really improved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:the most important part of moving to film was actually knowing there's a cost per each shot so i made drat sure i wasn't wasting my money. in a few months, my photography really improved. It's amazing how many digital-only shooters say that film isn't good for learning on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's amazing how many digital-only shooters say that film isn't good for learning on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Just to clarify my post I know there isnt a true perfect alternate to film I was just curious if they were selling fancy sliders. I'm aware there are cheap options for those looking to get into film but like I said it's something I dive into later on. Right now I'm just re-allocating my would be yearly international trip money to a very nice full frame DSLR which I had planned to buy anyway. For some bizarre reason (hopefully not a terminal illness) my dad has decided to take the family to Italy all expenses paid, that seems like as good as an excuse to drop a ton on a nice camera. Like I said I intend to get a film back for whatever brand I end up buying lenses for.  My dads camera from college and the camera I learned how to shoot on starting back in middleschool. I should see if he still has it stashed somewhere, my step-mom tagged me in that photo because she found it after my dad accused me of losing it years ago and would hound me about it every time anything photo related came up. I wouldn't be surprised if he's since donated it. titanium fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I loving sucks to learn the technical side. Once you've got that down, it forces you to think and make photographs instead of just hammer the release. IMHO. It extra sucks when you're doing medium or large format. Every time I release the shutter with film in the holder on my Crown Graphic I'm out $5-$10 dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
titanium posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:22
|
|