|
Yea, something along the lines of this: http://blip.tv/mn-original/chris-faust-6190686 6x17 120 film.
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
I was out shooting this sunday, around the lake, and saw the same type of person - standing on a board and paddling. Wtf is this type of sport I don;t even know
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
So I really kind of want to dick around with a Hasselblad Xpan. Seems pretty cool, and it takes away form the pain of photomerging.   
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Yea, on Keh they go for $1900 for the kit. Plus 6x9 is on 120 film, that's a huge plus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Basically forensics. This is great. How hard is doing C-41 home development compared to BW?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Thanks for the info guys, here's some gently caress ups from the roll I mangled. Yeesh, finger on the trigger + loaded bullets. You must really trust your friend not to sneeze! ha.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Seconding recommending these. Mine is loving brilliant and I will never go back to the stock canon holder (8800F) I like the betterscanning holders but I found one thing - with some rolls, they're out of shape enough so that they sag down (imagine a slight U shape). I found that putting the film right on the glass and topping it with the betterscanning ANR glass flattens it out without loss of detail. If anything, the photo looked better since it was flatter. (V500 btw)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:So in that case you're not even using the glass holder? I am using the glass piece without the plastic holder, it keeps the film flat. I guess Epson's DOF is good enough to catch the film right against the glass as well as at the height of the betterscanning holder.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I shot some expired 1600 fuji super HG film. At 1200. This turned out pretty good I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I made a box to scan film using my OM-D instead of borrowing my sisters scanner, and I dunno. seems a bit better (or maybe i'm just not cranking contrast to 100 anymore) , but I really need a better way of holding the negatives or something. I'm doing this too, as soon as I get a macro lens and a light table (I sold my flash). The photos look much better. I wonder how easy it would be to stitch a medium format shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Good point, I've heard good stuff about photomerge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I used photomerge to stitch this together from 3 120 scans, just letting photoshop handle all the settings. Painfully easy to do. I clicked on the photo to fav it, and I already had. Good thing I upgraded my POS computer so it can handle 3 120 scans hopefully.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
E: too much effort
bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 21:10 on May 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Did any other Toronto goons to go the photography fair this sunday? I usually go there to load up on expired film because it's cheap, but this time (and the last) I think they're raising the prices a bit too much for 5+ year old film. $3 a roll or $4 a roll of "pro" films, where it used to be $2 a roll for whatever. The $4 rolls were some Ilford Delta 100 - this is nearing the non-expired price of about $5. I still got some film though cause why not 2 boxes of Fuji NPH400 (exp. 2003), 1 box of TriX Pan (I push it to 640 with great results), 4 rolls of Delta 100 (exp. 2005), 1 roll (the only roll) of HP5. Total was $65-ish  I walked around some tables and noticed a good condition mju:ii and I thought sweet I can finally replace my broken one, but then I though crap he will probably over charge me. He was selling it for $25 but the rear window was missing so I got the price down to 10. Put some electrical tape over it and I'm good to go! 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
I've been really wanting to get a Rollei 35, they're just so cheap (25) that I can't justify not getting one. How's the quality of that little lens?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:I have the 2.8 Sonnar version and it does the job. That's a sharp lens. I like it. Quantum of Phallus posted:Where are you seeing them for this cheap? When I went to the photo fair here in Toronto last week. They seemed in top notch shape. Not every table was that price, but that is the lowest I saw.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
VomitOnLino hit the nail on the head. Why discredit one technique over another merely because that is the way _you_ do it? As a community, we must embrace the differences/shortcomings of all processes and all artistic outputs - there are a million ways to create a million visions, pick one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
What do you guys reckon is an okay amount of time to have exposed but undeveloped rolls kept in the fridge? I have like four 1 month old 120 rolls and like six 2 year old 135 rolls that I need to stop hoarding.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Good stuff. I'm pretty curious what I have on the older rolls, its almost like opening presents. I'll develop them as soon as I move to the apartment in a week. And a new apartment means I can finally set up my dorkroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Ha, some rolls I've shot are from a camera I haven't even seen the results of yet. I wonder if it leaks...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Is there anything that Portra can't do? I've seen it be processed and shot all kinds of ways, it's pretty great.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I believe so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Yea I would be disappointed. However lab scans are know to be poo poo, unless it's a pro lab. And when it's a pro lab, you will pay accordingly. Speaking of scans, I just bought a light table to use as a part of my new scanning process - lightable + macro lens. I expect each MF "scan" to be 2 digital full frames, good enough for prints and a poo poo ton better than my V500 scans. A couple of quick contact sheets  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
A 5 pack of Protra 400 (120) comes out to $45ish here in Toronto  And when you throw the development on top of it..
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Sweet, I'll buy from there! Edit: 400 shot at 3200 and pushed only 1 stop? I've been underestimating portra. 
bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
I feel the same way - v500 has no trouble scanning slides and most of the time little post work is needed to make them look presentable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Another option is buying a macro lens for your DSLR.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
That sounds pretty neat though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Looking at all the cool camera swag you people got it makes me sad that all I got was 2 rolls of portra
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
If it ain't light-leakin, it ain't lomo
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Squish it between big art books. That way to art seeps down into them. And here I was thinking that art osmosis was an urban myth
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the first shot is the better one anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
So is this a bad scan or did the lab do a lovely job? I converted to BW and turned the highlights way down on the curve, the markings are more visible that way. The colours look very distorted when seen with a normal tone curve
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I just picked up a Epson 4990 for $40, pretty drat pleased with that, all night 8x10 scans here we come. How do you guarantee the flatness of the sheet? Do you put it flat against the glass? Wouldn't that give you newton rings?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Shellman posted:This is gonna be your answer I'm amazed that this is still making the rounds. It's a solid tutorial. That was one of my first MF photos
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Speaking of prints, how do you guys frame them? Or do you frame them at all? What style frames? How heavy are they? I have lovely apartment walls, so I can't hang anything too heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Yes, I'm so down (to participate  )
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Here is a French dude in Beijing who buys old discarded negatives by the kilo, and has made a project out of everyday photos taken by Chinese between 1985-2005. My favourite parts are the buying bags of film, and the Chinese guy scanning 18000 negatives a month on his little Canon scanner hooked up to a beige box with a little CRT: I was seeing his images all over the new Yorker Instagram. The video is very nicely done, and pretty interesting. Edit: those are intense eyebrows. bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
PushingKingston posted:I forgot about Acros. Yeah, that's a good medium format B&W but I rarely shoot B&W so I've got a box half used still just hanging in the freezer. Did they stop doing E6 in any format or just large? I have a couple of undeveloped MF e6 in the fridge somewhere
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 21:46
|
|