|
Done, thanks for the thumbnail suggestion! also sharp eye, I love my btzs hood. I previously used a made in China one. It had this horrific chemical smell of plastic that could never wash off. The hood is great!
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
 Galleria degli Uffizi by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:
I like this!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:I like this! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
evilspoon21 posted:
What brand of direct positive paper, and what kind of exposure are you using? I've tried some, and never had any success getting usable photos. When my photos weren't massively underexposed (metering for about ISO 3) they were still unusably high contrast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Hi, I`m using Harman Direct Positive Paper. I can't comment about the high contrast thing, I use it only in conjunction with a speedlight. You can sort of see my setup in the photo i`ve posted, I`m using a flash sync cable at f/6.3 @ with a 430 EXii at full power and full zoom at about 0.5m away from the subject. Development wise, I developed in Ilford Paper dev at the recommended times for FB paper. 2 mins plus. I don't have any experience using it in daylight, I would assume due to its dramatically low ISO it would be a crapshoot if a scene is already contrasty to begin with. Perhaps you could try shooting in diffused lighting. There's a new Galaxy photo paper coming out though, that should be less finicky to use. Cheers
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Well, that example you posted is definitely high contrast. I've heard of people preflashing the paper in a darkroom to reduce the contrast. Also, it's worth pointing the Galaxy photo paper is just regular photo paper - unlike the Ilford stuff, you need reversal chemistry to use it as a positive. They've been pretty shady about obfuscating this fact, leading to the only time I've canceled a Kickstarter pledge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
That's exactly why I cancelled my Galaxy paper pledge too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed that the Galaxy paper ended up being like that as well. I've gone through a few boxes of Harman Direct Positive shooting landscapes and, yeah, it's a finicky bitch. It's extremely contrasty, the iso changes radically depending on what type of light you're under, and it's just a general pain in the rear end to use. But in those few cases where I managed to do everything right, the results are spectacular. For landscapes I recommend shooting on overcast days to begin controlling the contrast (it's orthochromatic so the sky will render pure white except under the darkest clouds) and, as MrBlandAverage mentioned, flash the paper with diffuse light. You can do this either before or after exposure. I flash my paper immediately before developing. Flashing can ruin your blacks by raising them too much if you're not careful, though. My workflow with the Harman paper is to make two identical exposures of the scene; then in my "darkroom" I would flash one for 5 seconds (7w frosted bulb bounced off the ceiling), develop it, and check the print. If 5 seconds of flash raised the blacks too high, I would flash the second exposure for 4 seconds before development. Likewise, if 5 seconds wasn't enough I would do 6 seconds for the second sheet. But even with flashing the paper either pre or post-exposure, you're still only looking at a range of 2-3 stops of usable exposure. So if you're using the zone system, put everything with important detail on zone IV to VI, and since it's positive paper err on the side of underexposure and pre/post-flash to fill in the shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Does the Harman direct positive paper respond differently to long and short exposures? Long meaning 1 second up, and short being like 1/15 or faster. My massively underexposed results were all on fast exposures, about 1/30 with the Speed Graphic curtain shutter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Does the Harman direct positive paper respond differently to long and short exposures? Long meaning 1 second up, and short being like 1/15 or faster. I can't say for sure, as all my exposures with it have been in the seconds-to-minutes range. Are you flashing your paper at all? I've read elsewhere that the rated iso of 3 is assuming you flash the paper; it's closer to iso 1.5 without. If you're not flashing the paper, that could have something to do with it. But you say it's only happening with shorter shutter times? Maybe the shutter is off? There's really so many variables that seem to affect HDPP that all you can do is just shoot a poo poo-ton of it and learn how it responds to them. If you're consistently underexposing when your meter says 1/30, then perhaps try 1/20 in those situations instead. Like I mentioned, this stuff is finicky and a lot of things that make sense and we take for granted when shooting film or digital seem to go out the door when using it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
same roll as the other shot of the pears, portra 160
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
^ I like the vibe of this one and the previous ones that you've been posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
 Yup, agree with the contrasty properties of the Harman Paper. This one I photographed of myself kept it's tonality pretty well though. I`ve never seen the direct positive thing as anything more than a novelty. I use it so that I can develop a print for a stranger on the spot, which is only achievable practically through this process. ( Other than polaroid. ) I do shoot other stuff such as C41 and E6 photos, which are the ones posted below:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:^ I like the vibe of this one and the previous ones that you've been posting. thanks, always been a fan of your abstract compositional non-scape-y things. 2015 was the year I finally finished acquiring all the right stuff, 2016 thus shall be the year of producing things and revisiting old shots that I was dissatisfied with and making them satisfying. also, hopefully, getting some useful feedback as I don't have art friends who are as technical as I am, or photographers really. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
 Lopi by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
dat texture
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
 Bukit Batok by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
  edit: ektar 100 fail son rebate fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
I dig it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Someone tell me why I shouldn't get a GW690. Besides the fact that I'll run through film faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Someone tell me why I shouldn't get a GW690. Besides the fact that I'll run through film faster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQRW0RM4V0k
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Buy one and shoot a little less. I love mine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
I do not regret getting mine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
I need to shoot with mine more. But I don't regret it in the slightest. Hell shooting less is more a bonus. I don't often shoot that many frames, and this way it's less likely there's half a roll of unshot film sitting in my camera for several months...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Dusted off my Bronica. Fun but a bit large camera. I guess mirrors take up a bit of space. Untitled by Maciej, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Starting to get a handle on this Delta stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
 _DSC2417 by Maciej, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Nice mortar shell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:Starting to get a handle on this Delta stuff. Have you given Delta 3200 a try yet? I love that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Nice watermark, was gonna steal it but now I realize I can't
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Fantasic Username/Post combo. Pukestain Pal posted:Have you given Delta 3200 a try yet? I love that stuff. I think I did a long, long time ago on 35mm. But these days 99% of what I shoot is landscapes and 100% of the time it's on a tripod, so slower films work fine for me. I don't think Delta 3200 is available in LF anyway. ansel autisms posted:Nice watermark, was gonna steal it but now I realize I can't If you're referring to my photo, the watermark isn't there to stop people from stealing it. But it does provide a curious viewer a way to find my website.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Nice watermark, was gonna steal it but now I realize I can't here you go friend 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
That'll be $2,500 to $25,000 plus attorney's fees, please. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:I think I did a long, long time ago on 35mm. But these days 99% of what I shoot is landscapes and 100% of the time it's on a tripod, so slower films work fine for me. I don't think Delta 3200 is available in LF anyway. On MF it's great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I tried typing "D H------" into my browser but nothing came up seriouspost: It's a cool photo but watermarks always detract from the image imo, they're either distracting or break up the image in a weird way or in this case make the foreground seem uneven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
crap nerd posted:seriouspost: It's a cool photo but watermarks always detract from the image imo, they're either distracting or break up the image in a weird way or in this case make the foreground seem uneven. I agree completely, but they are beneficial on the internet in helping someone identify the creator of an image. I've gotten paying work because people have tracked me down from my watermark. I do realize that my opinion of them is vastly different than the majority of the Dorkroom, however, so I'm going to shut up about it now and just back away slowly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 20:29
|
|