|
Or, you know, a self timer.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
No bullet was in the chamber, just the outside ones, and the hammer wasn't pulled back. Had him point at the camera, tape measured from gun to lens, set the focus, than used a shutter release cable to fire it remotely. So no, I didn't stand in front of the gun while it was pointed. Still stupid? Definitely. But if it causes the viewer anxiety I'd say I succeeded 
pootiebigwang fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Thanks for the info guys, here's some gently caress ups from the roll I mangled. I have a similar shot.  It's a cyanotype, original photo on film, but scanned, enlarged and printed to transparency paper on my computer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:No bullet was in the chamber, just the outside ones, and the hammer wasn't pulled back. Had him point at the camera, tape measured from gun to lens, set the focus, than used a shutter release cable to fire it remotely. So no, I didn't stand in front of the gun while it was pointed. It would have actually been safer if you had the hammer back with no round in front of it... Revolvers work by advancing the cylinder on each trigger pull before dropping the hammer, so you were just one trigger pull from firing off that round just to the right of the frame in the photo. Just keep that in mind in case your next project involves, uhm, pulling the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Inf posted:It would have actually been safer if you had the hammer back with no round in front of it... Revolvers work by advancing the cylinder on each trigger pull before dropping the hammer, so you were just one trigger pull from firing off that round just to the right of the frame in the photo. Just keep that in mind in case your next project involves, uhm, pulling the trigger. Glad to know the possibility of me dying was that much higher. Don't plan on doing anymore shoots with firearms but if it happens, thanks for the heads up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Inf posted:It would have actually been safer if you had the hammer back with no round in front of it... Revolvers work by advancing the cylinder on each trigger pull before dropping the hammer, so you were just one trigger pull from firing off that round just to the right of the frame in the photo. Just keep that in mind in case your next project involves, uhm, pulling the trigger. Not if the revolver is single‐action. I don’t know my revolvers, so I couldn’t say to which class the one in the photo belongs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Not if the revolver is single‐action. I don’t know my revolvers, so I couldn’t say to which class the one in the photo belongs. I think he said it was a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver? He knows more about it than I. I just wanted the photo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
The Film Thread: Kodak's dead, and pootiebigwang was almost next.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
did a still life. i love shooting large format, i missed it so much.  Fireplace, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Portra 400 is so good, gotta get another roll tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:The Film Thread: Kodak's dead, and pootiebigwang was almost next.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
As an update for my question regarding my A-1: I contacted KEH and they declared it beyond repair. Considering the condition of the camera and the price I got it for I took it to a local shop. 5 minutes later the guy handed it back to me. The problem? KEH's tech put a piece in upside down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
I'm just getting into film photography so this is a dumb question. I had a couple of rolls of Velvia 100 that I had shipped off to be developed. Velvia 100 is Slide Film and the company has a seperate order form for Slide Film. Since it's slide film, does that mean it will only come out as tiny slides that can be mounted or is it possible to get 4x6 prints from it? I had the company cross process it to C-41 and the film came out beautifully. I took the negatives to Costco for some reprints and they just came out extremely yellow. Is that because Costco has to cross-process the negatives as well or is cross-processing something that only happens when are developing the negatives? I want to get more prints made with the same beautiful colors so I guess I have to mail the negatives back out and ask them to cross process the prints, correct? Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Cross-processing refers to developing the film in the wrong chemistry. C-41 and E-6 are close enough that you will still get colours for either film in both processes, but dissimilar enough that the colours you get will be wrong, apart from the obvious part that the E-6 process produces positives and C-41 produces negatives. The prints you get made from the film are most likely made digitally from intermediate negative scans, with automatic colour correction done. Different minilabs might do different colour correction, but if you want to have full control of the colours then you'll either have to wet print yourself (meaning setting up a full colour darkroom) or get some high quality scans of the negatives and colour correct them yourself, then have those files printed. (And to be entirely clear, "cross processing" is only for developing the film into slides or negatives, it's not involved during the print making at all, despite the word "developing" often being used to refer to the general process of getting prints of photos.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Just to expand a bit, E-6 (slide film; aka "colour reversal") produces positive images (so red things look red, blue things look blue, etc.). The standard post-developing procedure is to cut each frame from the 35mm roll and mount it in cardboard; 30 years ago you'd load those slides into a projector carousel and shine a bright light through them onto a screen, and bore your friends with snapshots from your trip to Disneyworld. You don't have to have them mounted, and you can request "develop only" and "do not mount" when you send in the film. What you get back is a roll of developed film, just like C-41 (colour negative) comes back as the developed film, typically cut to 4 or 5-frame lengths and stuffed into a plastic sleeve. Some places won't cross process, and some places no longer have the equipment and know-how to process E-6 but might be willing to throw a roll through their C-41 machine (and thus cross process it). It's entirely possible to get prints made from slide film. It's possible to do it entirely analogue, but no commercial operator would be willing to do this for less than ridiculous amounts of money. The way any shop would do it is the same way you'd do it at home if you had a scanner and a good-enough printer - scan the film frames, touch up the images on a computer (this is where that "auto colour correct" comes in), and print. You could do the important parts yourself - any camera shop (and any larger retailer that handles photos, like Costco) can print digital files at whatever size you request - so you can set up the colours however you like if you scan the film yourself. Costco might give you the unmolested digital files if you just ask them to scan the film for you - make sure you request no automatic colour correction and a higher quality (higher than 72dpi, which is often the standard quick-and-dirty scan resolution) and they'll probably sell you a CD with your images on it for a few dollars. Then fiddle with the colours youself, and give them the modified (or unmodified, up to you) files to print. This also gives you the chance to specify which pictures are worth printing, and which deserve no more money to be spent on them. *** This morning I messed up loading another roll of film. The "magic fingers" of my Pentax ME super are less than advertized, and now I've got a roll of Velvia 50 with the lead accidentally rolled back inside the cartridge and only the first 5 frames used.  Dammit, the golden morning light caused by the smoke from forest fires is perfect for Velvia!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
You can either buy a tool to retrieve the film leader or try something like this: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/tipster/2012/06/29/diy-film-retriever-extractor , then fire off 6 or 7 frames with the lens cap on (use f/22 and your highest shutter speed just to be safe) to back to your place on the roll. That way you will only lose a couple of frames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
I've had no luck with DIY film retrieval in the past, but I didn't try very hard. It's worth trying that one - I have a bit of leftover 35mm (they make good bookmarks). I was planning to get a retreival tool anyway, maybe I'll find one here. It'd be fun to get some of the wooden boat festival on Velvia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
I used the technique shown in this video before with good success: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc00ULY7cYU I've also just dropped by my local photo shop and asked them to extract the leader before and they did it in a matter of seconds. I switch rolls mid-roll quite frequently now that I've become comfortable getting the leader back out. Just make sure to carry around a sharpie so you can write down the shutter count for when you reload that roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
I got a roll of slide film developed a few months ago in where I think was the only place in my city that does it. It was twice the price of color neg and they didn't even give me little slide packets, just a plastic pocket. But goddamn it looks amazing. Slide film for life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
Do you have a slide projector or something? Because otherwise I don't know why you'd get them mounted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Do you have a slide projector or something? Because otherwise I don't know why you'd get them mounted. I can see if you are gonna flatbed scan them. Mounted slides are probably a little flatter than the shitastic 35mm holders most scanners come with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
I remembered that the lab includes a darkroom that's not being used as a darkroom anymore, but is still light-tight. I tried to get the film leader out with a strip of paper the right size and some tape, but the tape came off the paper and ended up sticking the end of the leader to the roll inside the cartridge. I discovered this when I carefully popped the bottom of the cartridge off in the dark, pulled the roll and figured it out. Then I re-assembled it, with the leader extended. I finished off the roll that was in the camera at that point, and loaded the Velvia. As was suggested, f/22, lens cap on, maximum shutter speed, and advance to where it messed up before - frame 6. It wouldn't advance any further, I think the problem is the perforations have torn on at least one edge. After the sun goes down, eliminating the light under the door in the room with no windows, I'll try opening the camera and pushing the film forward. We'll see, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I can see if you are gonna flatbed scan them. Mounted slides are probably a little flatter than the shitastic 35mm holders most scanners come with. Yeah exactly this, I have a few old slides from way back when and it's much easier to scan them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've had no luck with DIY film retrieval in the past, but I didn't try very hard. It's worth trying that one - I have a bit of leftover 35mm (they make good bookmarks). I was planning to get a retreival tool anyway, maybe I'll find one here. It'd be fun to get some of the wooden boat festival on Velvia. I bought one of these: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/32760-Arista-Deluxe-Film-Retriever?sc=24100&gclid=CNO9vuSWp7UCFVFgMgodujcAcg It's easy to use and worth $15.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I can see if you are gonna flatbed scan them. Mounted slides are probably a little flatter than the shitastic 35mm holders most scanners come with. Mounted slides are (usually) flatter but you do also lose some of the frame to the mount.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
If I'm using a Tiffen #12 yellow filter with B&W film, meter is not TTL, any idea how many stops I need to compensate by?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Just 1 I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Can you put the filter over the meter and see how much the reading changes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
A #12 yellow filter should have one stop of correction to expose properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Thanks, I was thinking 1 as well. The meter is situated too close to the lens to really get the filter over it, good idea though. I suppose the compensation will depend on how much blue is in the frame (since yellow #12 is a blue-stop). Whatever, it's arista 400, give no fucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Got some pictures back in the mail. At some point I'll need to invest in a better scanning solution since I seem to lose both color and detail in the transition. Would scanning the negatives rather than the prints be a better option? Some Fujifilm in 220.  Jordan Smiling by I Like Natty Light, on Flickr And Ilford 120 shot as 220.  Liz on Ilford by I Like Natty Light, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Got some pictures back in the mail. At some point I'll need to invest in a better scanning solution since I seem to lose both color and detail in the transition. Would scanning the negatives rather than the prints be a better option? Undoubtedly. Lovely pictures by the way 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Got some pictures back in the mail. At some point I'll need to invest in a better scanning solution since I seem to lose both color and detail in the transition. Would scanning the negatives rather than the prints be a better option? Yes. The most common rec though is the Epson v700/750, which is the best consumer flatbed film scanner on the market. Dedicated scanners are hard to come by for medium format, but are definitely higher quality. As far as I know, the only two currently produced dedicated scanners that will take 120 are the Plustek 120 and a Reflecta something or other. Neither company is held in high regard generally, and I haven't seen much in the way of reviews of either product, but iirc there is one goon with the plustek, maybe they can chime in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yes. The most common rec though is the Epson v700/750, which is the best consumer flatbed film scanner on the market. Dedicated scanners are hard to come by for medium format, but are definitely higher quality. As far as I know, the only two currently produced dedicated scanners that will take 120 are the Plustek 120 and a Reflecta something or other. Neither company is held in high regard generally, and I haven't seen much in the way of reviews of either product, but iirc there is one goon with the plustek, maybe they can chime in. I'm using an Epson V500 and the quality is meh, but probably good enough for my needs. I was considering a glass negative holder from betterscanning.com. Has anyone heard anything good or bad about those? Where is everyone buying their B&W 120 film these days? I see the cheap Chinese film is pretty scarce, so the cheapest prices I'm seeing are Ilford for around $4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm using an Epson V500 and the quality is meh, but probably good enough for my needs. I was considering a glass negative holder from betterscanning.com. Has anyone heard anything good or bad about those? Amazon
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm using an Epson V500 and the quality is meh, but probably good enough for my needs. I was considering a glass negative holder from betterscanning.com. Has anyone heard anything good or bad about those? I had a betterscanning.com holder for my V600 and it was head and shoulders above the epson holders. I highly recommend them and plan to pick one up for my V700 soonish. I order my film either from Amazon or Freestyle. If you are looking for cheap B&W freestyle is the only place to be, Arista EDU Ultra runs about $3 and is rebranded Foma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
I spent all last night learning how to use my new Canon AE-1, and spent all day carefully taking exposures for practice. When I finished the first roll, I didn't push in the bottom pin before rewinding and ended up ripping the film (forced it a little too hard and figured the resistance was normal). Never knew what I did until I opened the back and saw that the film hadn't been rewound at all. So there goes the entire roll. Welp, welcome to film 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I spent all last night learning how to use my new Canon AE-1, and spent all day carefully taking exposures for practice. When I finished the first roll, I didn't push in the bottom pin before rewinding and ended up ripping the film (forced it a little too hard and figured the resistance was normal). Never knew what I did until I opened the back and saw that the film hadn't been rewound at all. So there goes the entire roll. Welcome to the club! If you have to force it, you're doing it wrong!  When I first got an AE-1, I fought with it to rewind my first roll, but I luckily figured it out before I ripped it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm using an Epson V500 and the quality is meh, but probably good enough for my needs. I was considering a glass negative holder from betterscanning.com. Has anyone heard anything good or bad about those? Seconding recommending these. Mine is loving brilliant and I will never go back to the stock canon holder (8800F)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
We have the Epson V500s in college and I don't know what it is about them but they just suck the colour out of negative scans. Really not a fan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 11:55
|
|