|
Maybe one of these days when UNICEF gets into the photo critiquing business... until then have a Provia picture inspired by alkanphel's work.
luchadornado fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jun 24, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Choicecut posted:Why are you taking things so serious? Are you a female? lol what the hell is this
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:lol what the hell is this choicecut being edgy, gotta show off now that some OG bad posters like Bottom Liner have shown up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Trying something different. Not sure if it works or is terrible. Or just mediocre. Opinions please. Wellington by Euan Torstonson, on Flickr I wanted to do another take with bulb mode to expose it properly and compare the two but it started raining and I didn't want to get my gear wet. Might go back tonight if it's not raining again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Doesn't work, way too dark. Take a look at rangerscum's archive to see just how to do dark af urban landscapes properly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Wellington This is really really dark. I didn't notice anything until I zoomed in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
I thought as much but kind of hoped it might work to capture a mysterious vague shapes in the dark kind of vibe (which was what I got as I approached the scene, it freaked me out a bit as those trucks weren't there last time I was there). I guess not though! Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I thought as much but kind of hoped it might work to capture a mysterious vague shapes in the dark kind of vibe (which was what I got as I approached the scene, it freaked me out a bit as those trucks weren't there last time I was there). I guess not though! Thanks guys. It's not abstract enough to be mysterious. We can clearly see that it's a truck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Something like that with a more organic form would be more evocative. Something like a model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Having yourself in the photos is fine for you as a way of marking a point in time for yourself in the future when you look back on your Iceland trip, but as far as a landscape photo goes its completely unnecessary as we know you were there. You're the photographer, your the one taking the shot and showing us something interesting/beautiful/telling a story/etc, we don't need you also in it. This is helpful. Thanks! Re: some of the other comments – putting a person (it's a buddy of mine – not me) in the photos was an attempt to make it something other than generic landscape vacation photography. I can understand why that would only mean something to me though, knowing the guy. I can understand why it's a crutch, instead of finding an actual focal point. So I'll take that constructively.  I definitely appreciate the exposure comments though. I think I rely on bumping up contrast too much at times to make things look overly graphic or something. Dekk fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I'd love to hear why being female makes you so irrational, but I guess I'm too busy bleeding from my vagina and crying to care or something. Come on love you're getting hysterical  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Trying something different. Not sure if it works or is terrible. Or just mediocre. Opinions please. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
 Bedroom by Tom Olson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
 90980005-Edit.jpg by Geektox, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:That's why you should shoot Velvia 50, it's the real hipster film. Until a guy started processing Kodachrome again it was, not anymore. You're SO out of the loop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Until a guy started processing Kodachrome again it was, not anymore. You're SO out of the loop. Hahaha is he still even doing it anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Hahaha is he still even doing it anymore? On Etsy since last may.. Perhaps we're talking about two different people? https://www.etsy.com/it/listing/386864406/rotolo-di-kodachrome-64-beta-con-lo
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
maxmars posted:On Etsy since last may.. Perhaps we're talking about two different people? https://www.etsy.com/it/listing/386864406/rotolo-di-kodachrome-64-beta-con-lo "This process is in the VERY early stages, no guarantee is made as to color accuracy, stability, or production of images." sounds worth it for $60~
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:"This process is in the VERY early stages, no guarantee is made as to color accuracy, stability, or production of images." sounds worth it for $60~ That is VERY hipster style isn't it
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Not gunna lie, I never had the ability to shoot Kodachrome, so I'd probably roll the dice for the cost of a few Chipotle lunches. Weird processing be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
I think I was following this guy's progress on APUG for a little while. I have essentially zero deep knowledge of the K-14 process, but my understanding is that the dyes for each color are not really built into the film emulsion itself, but rather a product of a separate developer and coupler used for each color sensitive layer. So unless he's using the original Kodak formula, which he isn't, you'll get an image but the colors and stability of the dyes won't be the same at all. Still, might be worth it if you had some old Kodachrome shot by family members and you're dying to see what's on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
You guys in this thread really know about film development. Did you learn from someone or just dive in one day? I was looking at color negative kits that would cost the same as sending 8 rolls off to get developed. I've been reading about the process a bit and it seems simple and complicated at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Well see, back in the dark ages, we didn't have digital cameras. I know it's hard to believe but for a while film was the state of the art. So some of us actually learned a thing or two about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
haha ur old
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
haha ur girl
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
a cyberpunk goose posted:
I like this. Choicecut posted:You guys in this thread really know about film development. Did you learn from someone or just dive in one day? I was looking at color negative kits that would cost the same as sending 8 rolls off to get developed. I've been reading about the process a bit and it seems simple and complicated at the same time. I just dove in. Doing your own black and white is really easy. Color is more work and needs more precision on temperature etc., so as a spastic idiot you might consider B&W.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Start with black and white. Once you feel comfortable doing that, C41 isn't as daunting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Right on. I was about to dive right in with color development, so glad I asked. Do you think those developer starter kits are a good way to go or do you guys recommend something different? I was going to buy black and white film this last round but it seems pricey. Can you guys recommend some b&w film ? I ended up buying 2 four packs of fuji 200 and 2 rolls of ektar 100 color negative this round. I really have no idea what I'm doing, so I appreciate the help and direction. Should I move this to the film thread or is it ok to discuss this in here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Right on. I was about to dive right in with color development, so glad I asked. Do you think those developer starter kits are a good way to go or do you guys recommend something different? You'll get better responses in the film thread. For B+W pick up Tri-X 400.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:You'll get better responses in the film thread. For B+W pick up Tri-X 400. Thanks man! I'll move this over there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
 IMG_4081 by difficult listening, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, this thread is cringy as gently caress. Can you people please stop acting like petulant children to each other? To add something worthwhile to the discussion, this: is most likely The Painted Hills area, in Eastern Oregon. It's a pretty amazing place. Great shot, too. This is kinda what the area looks like:    It's a pretty gorgeous spot, and the highways around it are incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
 Bathroom by Tom Olson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
ape posted:Where are the pics of the crashed plane? It's been a few pages since anyone posted that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
More corners. Untitled by Jason Martin, on Flickr  Untitled by Jason Martin, on Flickr  Untitled by Jason Martin, on Flickr  Untitled by Jason Martin, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
 Tai Thong Crescent by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Oh, I'd love a tai thong. How do you measure light on shots like these? Spot metering? Brain metering?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
 Not sure if I like this one or not: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:42
|
|