|
Cross post: http://vimeo.com/m/67115692 If you're interested in Aerochrome check this out, amazing stuff. His stills work from the Congo are mind blowing too.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Spedman posted:Cross post: Had the pleasure of seeing some of Mosse's stuff in the Dublin Contemporary Art festival in 2011, it was absolutely incredible, blown up to absolutely huge prints. If this is anywhere near you, rush to it. Also music is by Ben Frost, who's great. (Seriously, shooting, 16mm Aerochrome  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
holy poo poo i've developed film  Ilford HP5+, ID-11 developer, vinegar stop and ilford rapid fixer. i'll go drag my scanner out of the basement and see what's up
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Speaking of developing B&W film, does using a faster development time (and correspondingly a higher developer temperature) affect the look of the film significantly as compared to a slower development time? Just curious because the water is comming out of the tap is slightly warmer now that we're in the summer months.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:Speaking of developing B&W film, does using a faster development time (and correspondingly a higher developer temperature) affect the look of the film significantly as compared to a slower development time? Just curious because the water is comming out of the tap is slightly warmer now that we're in the summer months. Higher temperatures mean shorter developing times which in turn means higher contrast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Cross post: quote:"I'm not even doing it through beauty, I'm just doing it through colour. Through the colour pink. People are so offended by the colour pink, it's just a fekking colour! Honestly, how much more constructive is a pink photograph than a black and white photograph?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
This picture was taken very early on when i had yet to actually understand exposure (a year ago) This one was taken about a week ago, main improvement is that it's actually in focus  
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
 NOW IN GLORIOUS EXTRA C O L O R by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr Does anybody shoot 220 anymore? I got a dozen rolls of cold-stored from my uncle that I don't foresee myself using any time soon. I was basically a kid in a candy store when I went through the rest of his stash. Actual film as compensation for lovely flickr app-filtered phone cameraness:  Untitled by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
I've got some 220 portra that I use, but I've been having trouble shooting my p67 much at all lately. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
220 is always preferable to 120.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
dukeku posted:220 is always preferable to 120. Serious question: why? I know a fair number of "medium format" cameras can take either, is there a good reason to pick one over the other if a roll of each was available for the same price?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
It saves loading the camera twice and paying for developing two rolls. On the other hand, I don't have a camera with a removable back and I switch up the kind of film I shoot quite a bit. Sometimes it's preferable to have a smaller roll of film in your camera so you aren't stuck shooting a filmstock you don't want to be shooting. Same goes for 35mm, I usually prefer 24 exposures over 36 unless I know I'm going to burn through the roll at a concert or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Also film flatness is a bit better with 220 than with 120, especially so in humid/hot environments. It doesn't matter that much, but it certainly is cheaper: My lab charges more for 220 development, but it is still less than the cost of 2*120 development. Also here, 220 film is a bit cheaper per frame than 120 -- and last but not least, with some cameras like Fuji's GW690 8 frames isn't really cutting it if you're on a trip/vacation whatever. So there's a convenience factor, too. That said, the only disadvantages I could come up with are: it might fog easier, takes longer to shoot, also scratches easier if your film transport mechanism is messy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Another disadvantage: my TLR's counter only goes to 12. ...yeah yeah get a better camera. I'm waiting until I find one at "stole it from a yard sale" price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:This picture was taken very early on when i had yet to actually understand exposure (a year ago) I don't know how you could improve on that, given the framing.. Or perhaps you were saying that you wouldn't be shooting a photo half covered in deep shadow and half in direct sun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with having shadows. If you squint it looks like an Ocean Spary logo of foliage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
I had an interesting evening of photography. - I managed to somewhat impulsively buy a full-plate camera from the LFF - Exploded some C41 blix all over the wall in the laundry/bathroom and myself, as it was seriously outgassing as I was doing the inversions - Scanned some more film from my trip  
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
maxmars posted:I don't know how you could improve on that, given the framing.. Or perhaps you were saying that you wouldn't be shooting a photo half covered in deep shadow and half in direct sun? the difference being, i had no idea what i was doing in the first, so it's purely accidental. The second one was after realising that i had aperture backwards
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I had an interesting evening of photography. Very nice shots. The colour tones are particularly good-looking, to me. I bolded the part that makes me go  Blix is nasty - how ruined are things? Clothes? paint on the wall? your skin?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I bolded the part that makes me go As soon as I did it: "poo poo poo poo poo poo...." thinking I was going to stain the walls of my rented house and lose my bond/repaint. But it wiped off no problem with a few paper towels, but I was having to continue processing the rolls, while stripping off and rinsing my clothes in the other sink, turned out okay in the end. Blix isn't too bad if it's still wet, you can wipe it off anything, but when it drys and stains there is no getting it off. I was a little bummed after it happened I didn't get a shot of a blix covered wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Yea the colour on these is great, very pleasing to the eye. The second one especially so, the light hits everything perfectly. bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I had an interesting evening of photography. Good example of how discolored and low contrast can be a good thing. really nice tones
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
I should put some time into getting the tones more like reality rather than an aged postcard from the 70's. When I use Epson scan I make sure I cover the whole histogram and then push the white and blacks to their max. Run the scan then do a very quick levels (each channel) in PS, then white balance in LR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I should put some time into getting the tones more like reality rather than an aged postcard from the 70's. I like the tones, except the slight magenta cast to the shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
It's anything but an offensive colour balance. It's easy to come away from a place like Yosemite with run of the mill photos, but I think the 6x9 medium format and the tonal shift really helps set yours aside with some identity. I really didn't get any faux-retro vibe from these at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
I agree with aliencowboy - the colour balance is excellent, and those photos are too sharp by far to suggest an old faded photo. Can you remind me what camera those came out of?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
The Texas Leica, or the Fuji GW690ii. I've become a massive fan of the 6x9 format, I pretty much don't shoot with my Bronica setup anymore because of this camera. (Next to the nearest thing I have to an actual Leica)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
What do you scan to? Those pictures are sharper than anything I get from my Mamyia and the v700 at work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
I just use my v500 (as shown in the background of that picture above), with the standard Epson holder, I have the un-sharpen mask set to low in the Epson scan software. I then import into Lightroom and set the sharpening level to what looks right, do a little noise reduction (this will reduce the overall sharpness a little), then upload to Flickr which sharpens the image even more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I just use my v500 (as shown in the background of that picture above), with the standard Epson holder, I have the un-sharpen mask set to low in the Epson scan software. I then import into Lightroom and set the sharpening level to what looks right, do a little noise reduction (this will reduce the overall sharpness a little), then upload to Flickr which sharpens the image even more. Is there a reason you sharpen before you reduce noise? In digital workflow it's pretty much universally accepted that sharpening is the absolute last thing you should do to an image. Is film-> digital different? Beautiful pictures, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Cheers, been looking at getting my hands on a v600 for years but they are literally twice the price here (Australia) and the used market is non-existent. Plus their powerpacks aren't multi-voltage, so I can't order online. Guess it's lovely lab-scans for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Cheers, been looking at getting my hands on a v600 for years but they are literally twice the price here (Australia) and the used market is non-existent. Plus their powerpacks aren't multi-voltage, so I can't order online. Guess it's lovely lab-scans for me. I can't believe how much a place like Office Works charges for a v500, something like >$450, it's loving ridiculous  But, you can just get yourself a step-down transformer for $40 and get the cheap US v500, and save yourself $200 in the process, I think it's well worth it considering how much you'll save in the long run on not paying for lovely lab scans.Fart Car '97 posted:Is there a reason you sharpen before you reduce noise? In digital workflow it's pretty much universally accepted that sharpening is the absolute last thing you should do to an image. Is film-> digital different? To be perfectly honest, no. I've learnt how to process in lightroom/photoshop from a reading/watching a few guides, a lot of trial and error and just figuring out what looks good to me. That all probably means I'm doing it "wrong". Anyway, here's a couple of non-Yosemite images (nearly finished):  
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Anyway, here's a couple of non-Yosemite images (nearly finished): Very nice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Is there a reason you sharpen before you reduce noise? In digital workflow it's pretty much universally accepted that sharpening is the absolute last thing you should do to an image. Is film-> digital different? If you're using Lightroom, I don't think it matters what order you apply anything since it's a non-linear/non-destructive editor? I was curious because I'd never given it much thought before, so I dug through my library and found a noisy image, reset all the develop settings and made two virtual copies. I cropped them both to the same high contrast area. On the first one, I increased sharpness in LR to 107 with the other settings at default, then I increased the noise reduction to 50/25 on lum/color respectively. On the second one I did the same noise reduction first, then applied the same sharpness increase. They look exactly the same:   I guess Photoshop is different. Maybe this isn't news to anyone else, but I figured it was a good exercise if for no other reason than to prove to myself that order of operations doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
I've got a small collection of G and D type Nikkors for my D800, but I was looking at dabbling in film. F100s seem to be a sleeper model in price - they're pretty cheap - and they have the benefit of being able to take G and older glass just fine. Locally, used shops want around $300 for units in very, very good condition. Internet ranges from about $90 to $200, but it's a roll... Is there anything I should watch out for with these guys? Is there anything that makes the F100 unsuitable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
krooj posted:I've got a small collection of G and D type Nikkors for my D800, but I was looking at dabbling in film. F100s seem to be a sleeper model in price - they're pretty cheap - and they have the benefit of being able to take G and older glass just fine. Locally, used shops want around $300 for units in very, very good condition. Internet ranges from about $90 to $200, but it's a roll... Is there anything I should watch out for with these guys? Is there anything that makes the F100 unsuitable? KEH has a BGN F100 for $149 and an EX one for $189 (and some even cheaper if you don't mind "eyepiece damage", I'd call to find out what that means though). KEH is very reliable and it will come with a 6 month warranty. I'd rather pay $150 to KEH where I know the camera will work than to risk $90 on ebay with someone who "didn't know how to test the camera".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
krooj posted:I've got a small collection of G and D type Nikkors for my D800, but I was looking at dabbling in film. F100s seem to be a sleeper model in price - they're pretty cheap - and they have the benefit of being able to take G and older glass just fine. Locally, used shops want around $300 for units in very, very good condition. Internet ranges from about $90 to $200, but it's a roll... Is there anything I should watch out for with these guys? Is there anything that makes the F100 unsuitable? 300 bucks is cheap when you can get an f75 (which'll do G and D type just fine too) for 20 bucks on ebay  I guess anything is cheap when you're comparing it to a d800, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
krooj posted:I've got a small collection of G and D type Nikkors for my D800, but I was looking at dabbling in film. F100s seem to be a sleeper model in price - they're pretty cheap - and they have the benefit of being able to take G and older glass just fine. Locally, used shops want around $300 for units in very, very good condition. Internet ranges from about $90 to $200, but it's a roll... Is there anything I should watch out for with these guys? Is there anything that makes the F100 unsuitable? The F100 is a very durable camera so don't be afraid to get something with cosmetic blemishes. The only real issue I ever had in nearly a decade of heavily using two of them was a slight problem with the metering switch on one camera, it would sometimes refuse to switch out of matrix meter mode. I think the contacts were worn or something thing because fiddling with it would generally fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Inf posted:If you're using Lightroom, I don't think it matters what order you apply anything since it's a non-linear/non-destructive editor? Apparently anything done in a Camera Raw editor (ACR via photoshop, or Lightroom) is applied in the 'correct' order upon final processing 
Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Apparently anything done in a Camera Raw editor (ACR via photoshop, or Lightroom) is applied in the 'correct' order upon final processing Same is true with Apple Aperture, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 22:17
|
|