|
This is great.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Since film mishaps are in vogue it seems, my brain decided to somehow load a roll of color negative film "backwards" into a camera. For a second I thought I might still get something out of the roll but then realized that it was the paper backing that got all the light, not the emulsion, and then I cried a little.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Since film mishaps are in vogue it seems, my brain decided to somehow load a roll of color negative film "backwards" into a camera. For a second I thought I might still get something out of the roll but then realized that it was the paper backing that got all the light, not the emulsion, and then I cried a little. You can do it with 35mm film and get redscale photos: https://www.flickr.com/groups/redscale/
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:You can do it with 35mm film and get redscale photos: https://www.flickr.com/groups/redscale/ I thought that was actual red-scale film and not just shooting through the anti-halation layer, which should just give you softer slightly halo-ed images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I thought that was actual red-scale film and not just shooting through the anti-halation layer, which should just give you softer slightly halo-ed images. I think Lomography sells redscale film that's already wound backwards so you don't have to do anything other than load it, but otherwise you can make your own by winding it upside down: http://fmphotocourses.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-to-make-redscale-film.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I thought that was actual red-scale film and not just shooting through the anti-halation layer, which should just give you softer slightly halo-ed images. Film has multiple color-sensitive layers and red is generally the furthest from the front of the emulsion. When you flip the film backwards, red light reaches the red layer without being attenuated through the other layers, giving the "red scale."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Film has multiple color-sensitive layers and red is generally the furthest from the front of the emulsion. When you flip the film backwards, red light reaches the red layer without being attenuated through the other layers, giving the "red scale." This is also why sigma sensor's make the most "film like" images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
That's cool. I had no idea that color film was just a combination of 3 separate R/G/B exposures. But I guess it makes total sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Is B&W film a lot thinner than color? I assume it only has one layer, or maybe not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I made a series of decisions and now I own a Chamonix. Which is really exciting except I'm flying out of the country tomorrow and my share of the luggage is already spoken for with the Hassy and various accoutrements. So: what's the best way to store a LF lens while not in use? Obviously I'll leave it uncocked, but do I need to do anything fancy with the aperture or shutter? Also, I know a lot of you either live in or travel to Japan a lot -- are there any must-see film places? Is Map Camera worth checking out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
chamonix club  You'll probably be fine just leaving it uncocked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:I made a series of decisions and now I own a Chamonix. Chamonix club Just what I've been told: uncocked, T mode, shutter closed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Cool, makes sense why Lomo can do it so easily, and then over-charge for a cheap flipped film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Is B&W film a lot thinner than color? I assume it only has one layer, or maybe not? If I remember correctly, part of the reason black and white film has much better dynamic range than color does is that it's got more emulsion, all working for the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
chamonix club My LF lenses get stored uncocked but frankly that's only because cocking them is the last thing I do before taking a picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
chamonix shot
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
How do the Fujinon LF lenses stack up against the Nikkor ones?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:How do the Fujinon LF lenses stack up against the Nikkor ones? Very well. Fuji is known for making sharp as heck optics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
On a broad level, the Fuji line's quality is comparable to the Schneider or Nikkor lines. Specific designs and individual lens results vary of course, but it's not going to be garbage. I have a Fujinon-NW 150/5.6, I haven't taken a microscope to the images but it does just fine and I've shot Polaroids wide open. Kerry Thalmann's site is pretty much the go-to reference, you won't find much other information except for maybe technical specs in a big list. Fuji makes nice stuff but they really really suck at marketing and conveying info about their products, particularly to the West. Usual Fuji rule of thumb: if it's labeled on the outside rim, it's multicoated (labeled "-W" but referred to as "-NW type"). Inside rim, single coated ("-W type"). Obviously coverage varies with the design too, and even within a specific design type (eg "-W type" vs "-SW type") there can be substantially different coverage between different manufacturers or different models of the lens. The Fujinon-W 150/5.6 throws a 245mm image circle, the NW 150/5.6 is 224mm (the CM-W is a slightly newer version, also multicoated, 223mm circle), a Symmar 150/5.6 is 210mm. I would avoid the A-series in particular unless you're doing macro work. They're repro lenses, so they're slow as poo poo, but they don't have the charm (read: bargain basement price) that make G-clarons or other repro lenses attractive. The CM-W series also doesn't really offer much over the NW series in my opinion. Wouldn't turn it down if it was a bargain, but I wouldn't hunt it down either. Also the W 150/6.3 is a weirdo lens in the lineup, it's a Tessar not a plasmat. My recommendation would just be to buy whatever you can get cheap, unit variation is probably a bigger deal on the whole than the difference between Nikkor/Fujiinon/Schneider/Rodenstock within a lens type and if you bargain hunt you can usually get one of the above for under $150. "Apo-Symmar" or the like are a really marginal gain and in some cases they're literally just a new name for the same lens. If you can get them extra super cheap the rebadged lenses like the Caltars are nice, but double-check the lens formula before you buy, and remember that you can bargain-hunt first-party lenses pretty damned cheap nowadays. I would shoot for a Plasmat rather than a Tessar, and note that 135mm lenses do carry a small premium over nearby focal lengths like 150mm because it's virtually impossible to locate rangefinder cams for press cameras (eg top rangefinder Graflex) in any other FL except 135mm. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
    Not really even sure what I'm doing with photography anymore but at least I'm shooting a lot :3
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Please never stop, I LOVE your portraits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
I've been doing a little more work on the 8x10. The standards are now done and attached to the base, along with the focusing rack. The bellows extend to about 650mm, and can collapse to around 200-190mm, so its got a good range to work with. Here it is a the moment: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I've been doing a little more work on the 8x10. The standards are now done and attached to the base, along with the focusing rack. The bellows extend to about 650mm, and can collapse to around 200-190mm, so its got a good range to work with. how do you plan on transporting it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:how do you plan on transporting it? It'll fold down to around 35x37x20cm, and will be around the same weight if not lighter than a Speed Graphic. I'm going to put a handle on it so it can be carried around directly, or I'll just get a carry bag for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:
Can someone with more color experience than me tell me what's going on with the skin tones here? The look in her eyes is haunting and great, but her skin looks sickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Can someone with more color experience than me tell me what's going on with the skin tones here? The look in her eyes is haunting and great, but her skin looks sickly. At a guess? It's probably just color balance issues stemming from a combination of healthy exposure, open shade giving it a slight blue cast and a lab scan trying to autocorrect that. No idea how much post Dorkasaurus_rex puts into his stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Ok, so I don't have to recalibrate my monitor. I was wondering if anyone else was seeing what I did. Also, Dorkosaurus, keep on keeping on. Your work pleases me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:At a guess? It's probably just color balance issues stemming from a combination of healthy exposure, open shade giving it a slight blue cast and a lab scan trying to autocorrect that. No idea how much post Dorkasaurus_rex puts into his stuff. I just did Lightroom adjustments but my post skills aren't so great, admittedly. maybe I don't have a very good eye for this stuff? Thanks for the encouragement y'all, it's meaningful n stuff <3
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
With the camera getting closed to finished, I decided to Bathroom, with a bunch of beakers, solvents and assorted stuff:  Mixed collodion, it's all cloudy to start with, then is good to go after clearing up in a few weeks: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I just did Lightroom adjustments but my post skills aren't so great, admittedly. maybe I don't have a very good eye for this stuff? Thanks for the encouragement y'all, it's meaningful n stuff <3 Your photos are the poo poo. Those past two photos are def too pink tho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
I murdered the test roll I put through my RZ during my attempts to develop it, but an old roll I had from my C220 came out fine. Even with an old scanner (Epson Perfection 2450), the results are very nice:
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVXY8OEZAEQ Interview with the photographer who captured the Windows XP wallpaper, Bliss. Apparently he did it with a Mamiya RZ67 and some kind of Fuji film (probably Velvia). Neat stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Anyone know enough about Pentacon Sixes to know what bit might be not working when I can't get the film counter to work when film is loaded, though it's fine without any film loaded? Managed to ruin a roll already finding out, though when I rerolled it to test it again it worked, so I'm at a loss.
IanTheM fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
If I have no intention of shooting 8x10 film and just want to mess around with paper negatives and such, is there any point in picking this up? It was priced at $35. Lens was marked BAUSCH AND LOMB and TESSAR but there weren't any other identifiers or aperture as far as I could tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If I have no intention of shooting 8x10 film and just want to mess around with paper negatives and such, is there any point in picking this up? Buy that immediately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
For $35?! Yes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If I have no intention of shooting 8x10 film and just want to mess around with paper negatives and such, is there any point in picking this up? Buy it for me if you don't want it. Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Worth it just for the lens at that price. Probably f/4.5 or f/6.3 I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If I have no intention of shooting 8x10 film and just want to mess around with paper negatives and such, is there any point in picking this up? Go buy the gently caress out of it and shoot some paper, and if you get into it grab some x-ray film, cheap as chips. And the lens is probably worth close to a couple of hundred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 23:33
|
|