|
Greybone posted:So how is this supposed to work: Roman Abramovich zaps snappers with laser shield Firing a laser at the camera? I can't wait for it to zap someone who's using an SLR and burn out their eye.
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2009 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Has photography as a serious hobby ruined casually looking at pictures for everyone else? I can hardly look at facebook snapshots anymore. Also, whenever a friend links me to a babe I immediately try to guess what lighting is used and how to recreate the shot. I think it has, but I never really liked facebook shots to start with. Cranking the saturation all the way up or going to grayscale does NOT turn it into an artistic picture.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
A5H posted:I have an old rangefinder I should pop some film in. But I don't know how to focus Ship it over to me before you hurt it and/or yourself
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Focal length in action! STOP THE RIDE I WANT TO GET OFF (what range is that, like 18mm to 500mm or something?)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:I don't think they make IR flashes, so that'd be the only way to put some more light on a scene without making yourself a target. They actually do make IR flashbulbs (a really interesting set here, mildly  ). Also standard electronic flashes do throw some infrared and if you gel the flash you can cut it down to just infrared. I have to admit I've been really tempted to try taking an Alienbee 1600 and gelling it and shooting some infrared film. You could probably get acceptable range and no one could tell you're strobing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
If they're using your work in products they're selling, gently caress them. You have a right to compensation for your work, or they can pay someone else to do it instead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
Your camera selection really depends on three things: how much depth-of-field you want, how big you want to print, and how good an autofocus system you need. If you need full-frame depth of field, nothing but a 5d* or 1ds* will do (or a $20 EOS film camera and a $120 scanner, don't discount this for low-end bang-for-the-buck). If you need a big print, more modern is better because you get more megapickels. If you need better autofocus, more modern is better but so is a prosumer/pro camera instead of digital. If you just want something to develop your composition with and you will only be outputting JPGs or small prints, a Rebel will do fine.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Dec 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 10:22
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Here's the phrase I use when someone asks me where the rest of the pics are: "Yeah, those didn't come out. Taking pictures with these cameras is pretty hard. You see the big name guys just blazing away at a million frames a second? that's because most don't come out!" And if it comes to them demanding to see something, I show them a totally over exposed blurry shot of the floor or something that I happened to take. Generally speaking I don't think most people get most of their pictures to turn out. If you're a pro, you just shoot more and your skills give you a slightly higher 'hit' rate, and that yields more keepers. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Dec 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
Basically, a shitload of his business has been based upon your publications. Sue your friend's rear end for actual and punitive damages.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I laugh every time I see someone with a NEX because they inevitably are using a lens that makes their camera just as big as my 50D w/ 17-50 and twice as awkward to shoot with. This is because the NEX has a really short register distance, so it can mount virtually any lens ever made. You can get some great lenses for cheap because no one shoots cine lenses anymore, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:AUTO exposure, but manual focus? That's just hosed up. I'm going to guess "no, but she hasn't mastered the fine art of focus point selection, so she missed 50% of the time"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:That's good from you. This is actually a thing people do. If you do it with a real camera, you can use it as Photoshop stock for when you really gently caress up a shot and blow the sky.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
titanium posted:Just to clarify my post I know there isnt a true perfect alternate to film I was just curious if they were selling fancy sliders. I'm aware there are cheap options for those looking to get into film but like I said it's something I dive into later on. Yeah, it's called a Pentax ME or MX. Big rear end screen, great lenses, and you can be shooting with either one for under $100. Get yourself one of those and a SMC Pentax 35/3.5 or 50/1.7 (and later a 28mm f/2.8). It's hard to beat for the price, and you'll figure out the technical stuff within a roll or two.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:It extra sucks when you're doing medium or large format. Every time I release the shutter with film in the holder on my Crown Graphic I'm out $5-$10 dollars. I actually prefer medium format in this respect. There's only 8-16 shots per roll, so I get negatives back quicker. It is more expensive ($1 or so per shot), but that's an incentive to think a shot through fully. I only "see" so many good shots per area/day anyway, everything else is pretty much experimentation and I usually know they aren't that great before I take the picture. You don't really need 36 shots and unless you're trigger-happy it can take a while before you see your results. This way the results can be enlarged more if they're good or cropped more heavily if they're not. Large format is the obvious conclusion to this, but I'm not quite there yet equipment-wise or financially.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:If that's the only reason you shoot medium format, you should just short-load your own 35mm cartridges. I too think you should abandon your chosen medium and/or equipment  As I said up there, there's a variety of advantages. Faster results, sharper images, finer grain, larger enlargements (including the ability to make reasonably-sized prints from cheap V500 scans), or the ability to heavily crop a shot. It's also equipment that produces results I like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
That depends, medium/large format gear has pretty much bottomed and the good stuff has started climbing back up a bit. Last year it bounced big around tax time, and it never quite came back down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Canon has a 'silent shoot' option that primes the mirror so it only slaps down and returns more slowly/quietly. I've never used it, but I think that's the general idea behind it. It's actually a bit more than that. Essentially it combines an electronic first curtain with a mechanical second curtain. quote:Many Canon DSLRs with the “live-view” feature have an interesting feature. They can eliminate the need for a mechanical first shutter curtain by using “a unique high-speed scanning and electronic reset system that accurately mimics the... high-speed mechanical shutter operation. It synchronizes with the mechanical 2nd-curtain shutter to obtain a slit exposure.” In addition, the way live-view has been incorporated in these camera bodies the exposure can be initiated while in “live-view” without any mirror motion. As a result, an exposure can begin with absolutely no mechanical movement at all, and thus no vibration. The exposure is concluded by the closing of the mechanical second shutter curtain. After the exposure there will be some mechanical movement in the camera but this obviously can not effect the exposure (with the possible exception of a continuous “burst” of successive pictures). It provides a significant decrease in shutter shake.   
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
A5H posted:Huh is that post colour or did they have colour film then? Kodachrome was released in 35mm in August 1936. Professional sizes (120 and up) were introduced in September 1938. It's also possible that high-profile photographers (like Hitler's personal photographer might have been) got pre-production film for testing and marketing purposes, although that is nothing but speculation on my part. There was quite a bit shot through the WPA, and much of it is available through the Library of Congress. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:There was also a type of color film in the Russian Empire before the revolutions of 1917, but the technology was apparently lost during the chaos. It's not film and the technology wasn't lost. It's merely a three-color separation on glass plates, which are combined and projected together. The same idea also underlaid Techicolor (with film obviously).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:A comment on one of those Nazi pictures mentioned that it's supposedly an early Agfa color negative film. Take that for what you will. It'd make more sense than Kodak at least. Yeah it's Afgacolor Neu. The Prokudin-Gorskii survey was shot on magic lantern glass plates though, which is a bit different. I looked it up, it's actually not on 3 plates like I thought. quote:Prokudin-Gorskii created his negatives by using a camera that exposed one oblong glass plate three times in rapid succession through three different color filters: blue, green, and red. For formal presentations, he printed positive glass slides of these negatives and projected them through a triple lens magic lantern. Prokudin-Gorskii would project the slide through the three lenses, and, with the use of color filters, superimpose the three exposures to form a full color image on a screen. (For more illustrations of Prokudin-Gorskii's methods, see the "Making Color Images" section of the exhibit, The Empire That Was Russia.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Buceph, email me at  . I need some impetus to get my wet printing setup operational again this summer, and I'd totally be interested in trading.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:There are also economies of scale at work here. Most modern 50mm designs have been the same for decades. The standard double-gauss/Planar type has been around for more than a century actually, it just wasn't as popular until coatings came about. Sonnars, Tessars, and Triplets had fewer air-glass interfaces and would keep better contrast, but were softer.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Spedman posted:It's got me very excited about trying some tintypes, but for the love of god will somebody buy the man a box of gloves for when he handles cadmium etc based chemicals Fun fact: the more toxic a chemical is, the cooler things it can do. Consider: Sepia intensifying film is pretty weak but safe. Selenium intensifying is pretty toxic but pretty effective. Mercury intensification is excellent but incredibly nasty.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
I can only hope the concept remains the fever dream of some magazine editor.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:Is there a dorkroom-approved online print service? they all seem to do about the same thing and i was wondering if any were better than others White House Custom Color has a couple fans here I think. They're oriented towards pros but they'll do stuff for consumers too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:I can't really comprehend - what's the point of this? Some MF lenses are pretty fast, the Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 and 150mm/165mm f/2.8 come to mind. Others are really really good - I've been itching to adapt my P67 55mm f/4, ideally to film or FF digital, because the results are nothing short of spectacular even wide open. You're taking advantage of the very center of the image circle, the sharpest and best-corrected part, and contrary to popular belief those lenses can still develop some pretty good resolution. You can also get a tilt-shift adapter and make use of that larger image circle (albeit at a maximum of slight-wide to normal because of the crop factor). Also, because they're there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Leicas have titanium taints. I only use cloth-tainted Leicas, the titanium taint makes too loud of a clack to be usable for street shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Guy sets up a custom-rig attached to his car to do panoramas in Tuscany. He's angling his camera down instead of using a shift lens, causing perspective distortion. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Most people have a camera phone so I don't see it being a bad thing to use to teach people the basics of photography. Yes, a mandating the use of a device where you have none of the typical creative controls is an excellent way to teach a creative craft. See also: the Program Mode course.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I think basic composition technique will get complete newbies a lot further along than being able to control the aperture. Perspective control (compression/expansion) is a fundamental aspect of composition, as is depth of field and creative shutter control. You're certainly not going to be setting up a bunch of hotlights to take a picture with your iPhone so I don't even get the "lighting" one. "Remove extraneous elements from your composition. Use rule of thirds, except when you shouldn't." There, that'll be $300 plus fees please.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Yeah I mean it's not like reputable art schools start people out with old Pentax film bodies and usually only a 50mm lens, that would be a horrible way to restrict them as they're trying to learn a craft. Half of the people in the Photo I class I took started out with kit lenses (the old film kind), most of the half that started out with primes (myself included) were branching out to some cheap 28mms, 35mms, or 135mms by the end. But even a 50mm will let you isolate your subject with some depth-of-field, which an iPhone will not. Unless I'm wrong and there's some horrible app that gaussian blurs out the background, like with: Shmoogy posted:Says you bro. Steve McScene posted:I do this all the time for my instagram photos??  I mean no one will do that in a beginner's iPhoneography course, it's probably one of the worst tools for the job, and it completely defeats the purpose of a small cheap portable device that everyone owns and you can take everywhere, but hey if people want to buy I guess the university would be stupid not to sell. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jul 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
I have a few older cameras I'd contribute to the cause. I think I have have a few scale focus or rangefinder cameras with triplets/tessars.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Totally different track here. Pop over to the MF/LF thread. Short version: it's a rangefinder, film is $1 a pop, the lenses are pretty good, it has a leaf shutter for fast sync, and it's a little on the bulky side.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'm sure I've seen it mentioned on here before but holding an SLR upside down actually affects the way the light hits the mirror and produces a certain color cast that some street photographers prefer. That doesn't make any sense at all. Even if holding the camera upside down affected the way light hit the mirror (hint: it doesn't, many lenses have part or all of the lens rotate as it focuses which would do the same thing), the mirror is out of the optical path during the exposure. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Aug 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Clown posted:A couple people have messaged me asking if I sell any prints of my pictures. I've never done that before and I don't quite know what to do about it! Generally you take their cash monies and send them arts in the mail. It's probably cheaper for you to get them run off at a lab, over here in the states I'd recommend White House Custom Color but I'd imagine shipping overseas is probably a decent chunk of change. Oh also I loving love that shot, do you sell any prints of your pictures?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It's a Kodak Retina IIa with a Xenon lens, a family heirloom deal (bought by grandpa, has been handed down and is currently in the hands of my sister). She was taking pictures of my other sister's wedding with it, and I got to play with it a little bit. It was pretty cool to have solid metal components used to set up an exposure, though focusing was no fun at all. The rangefinder's probably crapped up with fifty years of dust. Get it CLA'd and it'll be a lot easier to focus. The shutter may be a bit slow, they rarely hit their spec even when new and the springs weaken and the shutters get grimy. As for the lens, if it's a Xenon it's a Planar formula, same as a nifty fifty. It's probably coated (look at whether the lens has a colored sheen), and if so it will quite probably meet your expectations. Schneider pulled no punches on their lenses, particularly the high-end ones (which this is). Overall, both a very collectible and a very shootable camera from the golden age of Kodak. Talk your sister into letting you go blow off some film doing sunny f/16 and I bet you'll love it. Particularly if you get that rangefinder cleaned (which, alone, shouldn't be expensive).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It wasn't hard to see through the rangefinder.. just the task of aligning the two images took some practice. Worse, I always seemed to turn the focusing ring the wrong way when making adjustments. Yeah, that's the problem with old rangefinders. They generally have a half-silvered mirror in there that bounces half the light from the rangefinder window and lets half the viewfinder window's light come through. Over time the mirror tends to desilver, so the rangefinder image gets weak. It'll work fine on high-contrast edges but it gets hard to focus in low light or on less contrasty edges. It's not a hard or expensive fix usually, they just cut a piece of glass to fit and realign everything. A couple of my rangefinders suffer from the same thing. One thing you can do is put a bit of tape on the glass where the rangefinder patch sits, this will block out the viewfinder's light to help equalize things out. quote:My sister said the test roll looked fine.. said everything that was supposed to be sharp, was. She just didn't bring any of the prints along for me to look at. There's gotta be someone in LA. I've always heard great things about Essex Camera in NJ. It sounds like it's working decently now, but it's a 60 year old camera and it's a good idea to do preventative maintenance before things get to be an issue (considering it's an heirloom). The Retina is a really cool camera, it was designed and produced in Germany and unlike most of Kodak's other mass produced cameras was targeted at the high end of the market. As mentioned, the double-gauss design is a really good performer when done well. It's the basis for the Planar/Xenotar design, and actually dates back to the turn of the century. It was one of the few fast designs with few enough elements to avoid losing contrast with uncoated optics. Today it's the dominant design for fast 50mm lenses. tl;dr go sunny-16 some film and report back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Yeah, Kodak is a company full of problems that has made catastrophic mistakes, but the demand for film is way, way down -- not unexpectedly so. I know pro photographers who grew up shooting film and now only shoot digital just for the convenience factor. Demand is down. Fuji and Kodak are both slashing their film offerings. It is indeed very sad if you are a film fanboy. This isn't 1983 anymore. At least when Kodak was loving up in the 80's people were still giving money to them hand over fist for film and development. This is true, but film demand has largely hit its floor for the same reasons. It will decline over time but it's not going to be crashing like during the switch to digital. An absurd amount of the film market is now cinematographers who think nothing of blowing through a couple hundred meters of film or disposable cameras (which are still the go-to in many parts of the world). Neither of those markets will switch immediately, cinematographers who still shoot film are doing it for the dynamic range or uprezzing capabilities and it's not possible to make a $5 digital camera that doesn't suck.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
That's a hell of a deal. Even though everything works, I'm going to recommend that you get the mirror and screen cleaned/replaced if nothing else, it adds a lot to the usability. Also, try flipping the magnifier up and pushing the front of the focusing hood down until it locks. Focus through the viewfinder, then pop up to the sportsfinder to frame and shoot. That feature makes the 'flex the best TLR running in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:Yeah, screen and mirror definitely need a cleaning. I did a thorough strip-down and cleaning of an old Yashica Mat-124G I had, so I imagine the process would be similar for this. Probably similar overall. If it was something I planned to keep, I'd have it torn down partially anyway to check the lens calibration, which is kind of an important thing since what you see is not what you get. Sometimes they work loose or get dropped or inexpertly repaired so the lenses aren't focusing at the same point. Odds are it's good enough, but at least then you know it's you loving up the focus and not the camera. The prism viewfinder is very useful and my favorite feature on the entire camera, it's way easier to shoot moving subjects with some expectation of accuracy. The equivalent-exposure lock on the aperture/shutter knobs is also useful. Rolleis own, everything about the camera just is just dripping with quality and nice touches like that. Treat it well and you can probably pass it on to your grandkids. I expect by that point they'll have figured out how to print CCDs or CMOS onto film to make big cheap sensors and medium/large format gear will be making a comeback 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 23:41
|
|
!!" Seriously, insane cool.