|
|
# ? Oct 17, 2016 03:24 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
# ? Oct 18, 2016 02:04 |
|
edit: bad at colors
Thoogsby fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 19, 2016 |
# ? Oct 19, 2016 04:19 |
|
|
# ? Oct 19, 2016 09:03 |
|
|
# ? Oct 19, 2016 14:35 |
|
~*just medium format things*~
|
# ? Oct 20, 2016 19:57 |
|
more like large format if you ask me, on account of how big that image is
|
# ? Oct 20, 2016 20:47 |
|
throw your camera in that gutter
|
# ? Oct 20, 2016 21:16 |
|
edit: nvm again
a cyberpunk goose fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Oct 21, 2016 |
# ? Oct 21, 2016 04:53 |
|
Wild EEPROM posted:
Did you get it back?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2016 13:58 |
|
Satan takes his toll.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2016 22:25 |
|
|
# ? Oct 23, 2016 23:53 |
|
I would like to ask a stupid question please. I really like the color and cast of a bunch of the medium format images posted here. For example: . by Alex J, on Flickr j'aime travailler by Joal Bennybagel, on Flickr And Alkanphel's but he doesn't let people not him bbcode share them (I didn't know you could do that.) But they all seem to have in common low contrast but sharp focus, slight vignetting and an overall color cast that I find really appealing. Is this just medium-format film, or are these being post-processed in Lightroom?
|
# ? Oct 25, 2016 20:29 |
|
The second one is straight for the lab's scanner except for a slight crop. This is portra. Alkanphel mostly shoots slides afaik.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2016 21:03 |
|
Portra is (as the name suggests) designed for portraits so it's a low contrast, low saturation film. It's a fairly distinctive signature once you know to look for it. For high contrast colour, you shoot slide film like Provia and if you want to crank up the colours, Ektar is the usual choice. Thus, it's not so much an artifact of medium format cameras per se, it's more that there's not the same level of choice in film stocks for 120 colour film as there is for 35mm cameras. You're well sorted for black and white options still but colour not so much.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2016 22:04 |
|
Helen Highwater posted:It's a fairly distinctive signature once you know to look for it. Yeah it's kinda funny when you start noticing movies filmed in Kodak Vision 3 (basically portra for motion pictures), or at least movies with a digital filter applied to simulate it.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2016 22:13 |
|
beep-beep car is go posted:And Alkanphel's but he doesn't let people not him bbcode share them (I didn't know you could do that.) Hmm I didn't know that either but I think I have now changed the setting that would allow people to share my bbcode. Amusingly I ran into the same situation as you when compiling the OP of this thread. Anyway yeah for color I shoot almost only slides, mostly Provia 100F but occasionally Velvia 50 in the past (and some rare Astia 100F).
|
# ? Oct 26, 2016 00:28 |
|
Very cool! Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't into photography when film ruled the world, and when I did decide to get into it, I gravitated towards digital mostly for cost reasons, I did not realize that (it seems) most Lightroom presets are there to simulate the look of different films.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2016 01:07 |
|
From what I've seen, I really like these look of astia, especially for landscapes. Shame it's discontinued.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2016 01:42 |
|
*clutches the remaining three rolls of astia 220 i have left*
|
# ? Oct 27, 2016 06:43 |
|
Yeah, I didn't do much to that shot, it's just a straight scan of Portra. The old lens may have caused some additional low contrast and the vignetting. It felt like cheating when I first started using 120 Portra and got the result I was after without having to work on the image forever like with 35mm and cheap film stocks or digital.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2016 07:41 |
|
I had to work the poo poo out of this in PS just to get it looking halfway correct. The roll it came off of developed slightly pinkish umber instead of the normal healthy orange. No doubt my gently caress up somewhere. Seems like I can only ever get good results from a unicolor c41 kit on the first roll I process through IMG_9485-0 by S M, on Flickr
|
# ? Oct 28, 2016 00:38 |
|
|
# ? Oct 28, 2016 01:00 |
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I had to work the poo poo out of this in PS just to get it looking halfway correct. The roll it came off of developed slightly pinkish umber instead of the normal healthy orange. No doubt my gently caress up somewhere. Seems like I can only ever get good results from a unicolor c41 kit on the first roll I process through I used to get wildly varying results too, until I built a temperature controlled water bath. Now every single roll comes out perfect. Even when I was certain my manual temperature control was spot on, it wasn't good enough. Edit: if your first roll comes out good but subsequent ones don't, you're probably experiencing some kind of contamination between steps. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 28, 2016 |
# ? Oct 28, 2016 01:08 |
|
I figure it's that sometimes, but I wonder if maybe I'm also getting better results the first time because I'm mixing chems at 110° and letting them cool to 102° & immediately developing, rather than heating them just to that point and no farther as I do for every subsequent process. Maybe by 2 minutes in to the development, it's cooled too much.. But that would be a moot point if I had a more controlled process method. What kind of heater do you use? I've got some old aquarium heaters, but they don't go high enough.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2016 01:19 |
|
I bought a heating element from the hardware store and cut a hole in the side of a large bucket and mounted it inside. It's wired up to a temperature controller I got off eBay. I had mixed results heating to 102 and immediately developing, too. I think there's too much carryover heat and the temp actually continues to rise a little bit during development. The temperature controller I got has a function that lets you "train" it for your particular set up so that it automatically turns the heater off before the target temp and it coasts the rest of the way. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 28, 2016 |
# ? Oct 28, 2016 01:23 |
|
iSheep fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 28, 2016 |
# ? Oct 28, 2016 02:08 |
|
Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Oct 30, 2016 |
# ? Oct 30, 2016 21:54 |
|
|
# ? Oct 31, 2016 20:05 |
|
Liking ektar more than I thought I would. Piss by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr BEIJING by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 04:20 |
|
A heads-up about Alpenhause Camera/Steven Icanberry. I sent him an email that amounted to "can you fit a Super Angulon 90mm f/8 in your cameras", since he can apparently fit something as large as a 150mm plasmat type. The answer is no but he apparently considers asking him anything at all to be the equivalent of agreeing to purchase a camera. He wouldn't take the hint and since I told him that I wasn't interested at present he's become increasingly hostile. Every couple weeks I get a random email that's something like "you're a jerkoff". Apparently the guy is something of a weirdo. He's had quite a a few complaints about him in the past on other forums (including some for non-delivery - and he insists on only being paid by money order and other non-returnable forms of payment), and he's pretty good at manipulating people to take down complaints about him. He basically seems to provoke a fight which gets the moderators flooded with reports until they lock the thread. LFF has a "no commentary" policy on seller advisories (literally nothing but the exact communications that occurred between you and the seller) and he's apparently rules-lawyered this to get the complaints taken down after he pitches his fit. I guess his handiwork is probably fine but I would have serious reservations about transacting with him at this point. It's not the end of the world to set him on my blocklist, but I guess I should have taken the whole crazy "don't email me if you're not going to buy a camera" rant on his website a little more seriously. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Nov 1, 2016 |
# ? Nov 1, 2016 07:09 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:A heads-up about Alpenhause Camera/Steven Icanberry. LFF has a lot of policies on what you can and cant say, most of us are banned from there after an incident involving moderator censorship. Basically if alpenhause is on their good ol'boys list you wouldn't be allowed to complain about him anyway.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 07:41 |
|
Here's some 4x5 shots of flowers taken with an uncoated f/2.9 lens
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 09:11 |
|
Castle. Kiev 88 on Foma 400. MedFormat003.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr MedFormat011.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr Also found an old Flexaret TLR at a flea market and put a roll of film through it. I think the shutter needs adjustment because everything was about a stop and a half overexposed, other than that however it works fine. Flexaret011.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 09:35 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I guess his handiwork is probably fine but I would have serious reservations about transacting with him at this point. It's not the end of the world to set him on my blocklist, but I guess I should have taken the whole crazy "don't email me if you're not going to buy a camera" rant on his website a little more seriously. And that's after he already said that he can't mount the lens you wanted? Was he expecting to talk you into something else? indeed. You weren't kidding. I've heard Will Littman is similarly pugnacious, though in a different way; there's been a joke running around since at least the early 2000s that there's something in the 110 plastic or glue that makes people modifying them go crazy. Steven Icanberry posted:PAYMENT DETAILS (As an aside, he's a SovCit-style tax-protest type, so he probably insists on money orders and such to avoid leaving a paper trail for the taxman to follow. Just consider yourself lucky that he hasn't started claiming that you created joinder and are obligated to pay him or started filing bogus liens against you.)
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 11:36 |
|
I like these!
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 22:30 |
|
Walls incoming
|
# ? Nov 1, 2016 22:31 |
|
Figured I would pose this question here since I THINK this film falls into the medium format category. My mom passed on three negatives to me of an event from many many years ago, it has special interest to us so I am going to have them scanned in. However I am interested in some of the facts about the medium they were shot on as well. The negatives measure roughly 3 x 4.5, black and white. I know this is not much to go on but hoping some here can steer me into a way to find out more on this.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 15:55 |
Can you tell if the negatives are from roll film or sheet film? How old are they approximately? Are there any edge markings, either text exposed on the edge or notches into the stock? If there is a chance the film is from before 1950, it may be nitrocellulose base, which can be unstable and has a risk of spontaneous combustion. nielsm fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 16:25 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 23:39 |
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Figured I would pose this question here since I THINK this film falls into the medium format category. Do you have any idea of about when they were taken? Are they cut individually, or part of a roll? Are the edges square, like they were originally sheets, or are the corners a little off-square, like maybe they were cut by hand? Kodak had some ridiculous number of roll film sizes in the early days, at least partly because enlarging was not very good and everything had to be contact-printed.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2016 16:39 |