|
unleash the unicorn posted:Heinrich Heidersberger: Jesus. Not only do I absolutely adore the architecture in this shot, but I feel like I could cut myself on those edges. What did he shoot with? What kind of film? I can't see that kind of sharpness coming from anything less than a 4x5 with tech pan, or something. Was his camera screwed into the bedrock? orange lime fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Mar 4, 2010 |
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:Benoit Paillé is doing more good work these days. Lately, I have been watching his candid portrait series: This is way too much contrast for a girl with freckles. VVVV I get that he's trying to accentuate it, but I still think he's pulled it up too much. Look at her eyes -- they also have that oversharpened Topaz Adjust (tm) (r) look to them (yes, I know he didn't use Topaz Adjust). orange lime fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Last week I came across a couple rolls of K64 in 120 on eBay and got kinda excited (expired in the mid nineties, but I shot some non-refrigerated K25 a few years ago that came out alright). After some Googling I realized it would be impossible to get it processed anywhere; Dwayne's can only accommodate 35mm Kodachrome If they can bring Polaroid film back from the dead, there's got to be someone out there who'd do the same for Kodachrome. I know that if I had millions of dollars to donate to charity I'd spend at least a couple million buying up old film production machines and recreating the Kodachrome production line/processing facility. I'd have my own little baby Kodak facility, supplying and processing Kodachrome in any size you liked. Imagine shooting it with a 20x24 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 05:18
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I was talking to a photojournalist today and I think he mentioned that the problem with Kodachrome isn't just that the development process is so technical and difficult, but that the chemicals required are being clamped down on by the (insert government agency here - fda?) because they are dangerous or toxic. Quick google search shows nothing of the sort but I was sure he said that. I dunno -- in the USA you can acquire nearly any chemical you want, right up to things like dimethylmercury and highly active radioisotopes, as long as you have the right permits and dispose of waste properly. Whatever Dwayne is currently using can't be *that* bad if places all over the country were doing Kodachrome processing for years without any bad effects. Photographic chemicals certainly aren't good for you, but you don't hear of "darkroom disease" or anything. It seems to me that Dwayne's was doing good business processing Kodachrome, so there's a market for it. The only reason it's disappeared is because the small shops didn't want to deal with the process, so consumers bought E-6 film that they could get developed locally, so Kodak couldn't sell enough film to keep the lines open.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
I just think it's pretty.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I'm eagerly awaiting the "selective color.. OH NOES!" responses. The quality of the lighting looks like everything might actually BE that color. There's nothing in those shots you couldn't do by painting a lot of props and setting up the scene -- it would just be a lot easier to do in Photoshop. I hope it's the former. [e] the two with the foxes and squirrels look more fake than the ones with the fish and cats.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
spog posted:If the photographer was aiming to capture an emotion, he should have just included the girl and the pool, so we concentrated on her and thus were more likely to empathise with her. Personally I hate the tension at the point where the pool railing bisects the girl's waist. Maybe the photographer aligned it that way intentionally, but to me it's like a finger twisting at the back of my neck. Just unpleasant to see.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
brad industry posted:You dislike things for the weirdest reasons. Not all shadows need to be exercises in subtlety. What does "micro contrast" even mean, it's just contrasty light + a curve or whatever. I dunno, I agree with PIMM. Look at the left side (our left, her right) of the woman's shirt -- it fades from light to dark, then suddenly it's white at the division, and then fades back to a more neutral tone. I find that hard to look at. It's how all sharpening algorithms work, but when you use too large a frequency your eyes stop seeing the edges as sharp and instead see them as areas of light and dark gradients. The "microcontrast" he's talking about means providing areas of high contrast without changing the overall contrast of the image, which CAN be very effective, but if you overdo it you end up with...this. What I see when I look at those images is an unpleasant dirty-looking mess of light and dark. It has that same shiny-dirty look that you get when someone goes in way too aggressively with the dodge and burn tools.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2010 22:12
|
|