|
big scary monsters posted:Oh god I bought a 4x5 camera what have I done. Holy crap, you outbid me on that by £1! You sonofabitch! 
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Yeah, that was me. I felt stupid for not setting my bid higher and protecting myself from snipers since I was actually willing to pay more. I put an offer in on another one, so we'll see if it works out. I'm going to shoot my next project on large format, so I want to have my own gear for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Well, good luck. I really like a lot of the stuff you do, looking forward to seeing what you get up to in LF. Were you looking for that camera in particular or just any decent 4x5? Thanks! I was looking for a monorail with a portrait lens. I put an offer on a field camera, though, because it has movements. I don't need crazy amounts of movement, but I wanted to be able to scheimpflug eyes if I'm shooting close in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Well my offer was accepted on an MPP field camera with 184mm lens. I didn't want to say which one I was putting an offer on, lest some Goon snatch it away! I should be able to try it out in the studio next week.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
I just shot some paper negatives in my 4x5 for a pretty awesome result. I'd definitely recommend trying it sometime if you're into getting an antique feel. The ISO is ~4, though, so get ready to shoot long and wide open.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I'm guessing you used the Harman positive paper? Is it just like regular paper processing? Nope, I used regular old Ilford RC paper. It comes out as a negative. You can even put it in an enlarger and print it. It's a pretty awesome way to get the feel of a legacy process without going all in for new chemistry and materials. EDIT: I'll post the results when the prints are dry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
 Vintage Margarita by McMadCow, on Flickr That's my final print from the paper negative. I had to shoot wide open and I did a tilt to isolate her eye, but drat is that one sharp eye. The final exposure time on the enlarger wasn't bad at all, but doing a split filter print was pretty useless, as it takes a #5 to get good contrast through the texture of the paper. I stained the paper with tea to age it. I really love the results though, and I'm looking forward to doing more with this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Wait you... you used paper as a negative, and then enlarged it ONTO paper? Did you actually enlarge, or could you theoretically shoot a paper negative and then make a contact print onto another paper? Yeah, that's an enlargement. It's an 8x10, but I could have gone mural sized if I wanted to. The texture of the paper negative appears in the print so it's not as clean as a cellulose negative, but there's no grain at any size, and the amount of detail is unbelievable. And yes, I believe you can make contact prints with paper negs. That was how calotypes worked, after all. I've never tried it, though. It's pretty easy to use a regular enlarger, aside from not having any grain to focus on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
^^^ As a negative! The print is fiber.  squidflakes posted:Fuuuuuuuuck! That's beautiful! Yep. Ilford pearl RC. I'm sure glossy would work just fine as well, and may print a little more cleanly. I metered at 4 ISO, so the speed is the only real issue. I shot this in a studio under 3600 w/s combined, so I didn't have to do a long exposure. Did have to shoot almost wide open, though. Out in natural light you're looking at a second+ exposure for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Well thank loving God, I thought you had lost it and were pissing in jars and printing on RC paper a la Howard Hughes. The thing is though, it is better suited for this application because it's thinner and it dries flat. So that makes it easier to put through an enlarger. An enlarger that is pointed at some luscious fiber paper.  squidflakes posted:How did you determine the ISO of the paper? I had done this years ago in class. The instructor told us to run tests on it around 1 or 2 ISO and go from there. This time the negatives looked best at 4 ISO. You're going to arrive somewhere in that range. 8th-samurai posted:It's not a great deal, but tessar rolleis are great apart from the dark focusing screen. $200 is a great deal for a Rolleiflex. At least where I'm from. It might be a little pricey for a Rolleicord.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
 Karen by McMadCow, on Flickr Cyanotype print of a paper negative I shot outside.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I like it, but it's got to be the weirdest photo I've ever seen by virtue of that texture. I painted the emulsion on to watercolor paper. It's a pretty cool process.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Put some regular film in my view camera this weekend. This is a 9x12, but I think I'm going to print this one really big if I can get the fine art paper in a super size. The Cadet by McMadCow, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Bros, 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Lots of missed opportunities here, in my opinion. Can you talk a little about what you were going for here and why this one made the cut? Because right now all I'm seeing is a shot that isn't even attempting to accomplish something. I'd really like to hear your thoughts before I say anything more than that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:By all means give me advice as I need it! I really liked the framing between the trees and the lines leading up from the steps. I still have a lot to learn about posing and directing the people I shoot as I don't know the first thing about doing it (which probably shows) and a lot of times I end up just saying "stare at the lens" and hope I like the expression I am getting. This was also while wandering with my girlfriend so it was pretty spontaneous. Please feel free to tear it down and rip it to poo poo, as I respect the hell out of your work and can't get better without some input. Well I'm not trying to say it's crappy or anything, but there's nothing going on. It's pretty much like what D-Rex said. I kind of disagree with him about the setting. I agree that it's nice, but you're not using it to make anything photographic with the subject. I really don't feel like you're using the power of your MF camera, either. The DOF is somewhere in the middle, but still not really finding or isolating anything in a way that makes me care about what's going on. I don't really feel like you've used the square format to full effect in the composition, but that's pretty subjective. There's little to no consideration given to lighting. And yeah, your subject just isn't doing anything. You obviously posed her, but to do absolutely nothing. Honestly, if I didn't have an idea for this particular setup, I'd just distract the model with some chitchat and then grab the shot when I thought she was unguarded. At least that could have the potential of showing an interesting spontaneous moment. Otherwise, pose the shot as if you're catching something as it's happening. If you're having trouble thinking in the square format, look for some inspiration: Richard Avedon Lillian Bassman Irving Penn Vivian Maier All excellent square format shooters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Crosspost from the portrait thread. These are printed on 12x16 Ilford fine art paper. The tooth of the paper is really pronounced and it has a slight gloss to it. So the scan looks a bit rough, but the quality in person is just amazing. I'm hurting bad, though, because it's 3BPS a sheet.   The Cadet by McMadCow, on Flickr  The Cadet by McMadCow, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Spedman posted:He is one striking looking dude, are you getting those deep blacks with lots of burning? It's the way I print. Yes I burn the borders to vignette the scene, but the blacks in my printing come from using split filters, which means I can get the blacks as bold as I want while essentially still keeping the whites as they are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
I have an MPP field camera and it has all the movements. It's actually pretty great, I can't think of any situation where I'd want a monorail camera over it for my work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Wouldn't color paper not have an even color response because it's made to work with color negatives that have that orange base? Anyway, the colors may not be right, but you're getting cool results. I don't know if color paper is completely neutral, but you correct for the orange base in the darkroom.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:No, don't shoot an RB67, it's a boat anchor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:The dorkroom must be filled with tiny people. The RB isn't that big, and it's a good size and shape for carrying. It's not a matter of it being too big and heavy. It's too big and heavy for its function. It's a waste of the space it takes up in your bag. As someone else mentioned, it's designed to be a studio camera. I already carry an MPP 4x5 press camera in my bag, my Hassy is a much lighter and compact package for my 120 needs. IMO there's nothing the RB/Z offers to justify the increased weight and space out in the field.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:
What do you mean? Dust exposes black on negative film.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Dust physically on the negative is black and gets inverted to white. But it isn't. Dust blocks light and therefore the negative beneath it is clear, which prints as black. White dust happens on negatives AFTER exposure and blocks the paper/scanner, equalling white. I mean, I think we're both saying the same thing here, but my point is that if that dust isn't black, why hasn't Saint Fu just cleaned his/her negative or spotted the dust in Photoshop? Why bother telling us?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:But seriously why does anyone tell anyone on a forum. We should only post pictures and let the pictures tell their own tale, whatever that may be. Not at all, I think stories and statements that accompany pictures can be great. I just don't get why he was complaining about a problem that is 100% fixable but remained unfixed by choice. It gave me the impression that it was misidentified as something that couldn't be corrected (dust during exposure). Mr. Despair posted:Because art. I don't see any boobs in that picture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Rad. I'm teaching a class at a community center and I'm talking about different types of cameras right now. I'd love to use this as an example of homebuilt technology. Would you mind if I saved these pics and showed them in class?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I wouldn't mind at all, heres some higher-res versions if you need them: Awesome, thanks! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:gently caress it, I bought a Hassy. This is how it's done. It took me going through 3 inferior MF systems until I finally just sucked it up and laid down the cash for a Hassy. There are a lot of nice 6x6 cameras that are durable , versatile, and really excellent at certain functions, but a Hassy is excellent (the best) in basically all the categories. I got mine right before I moved abroad and was desperate to save money. I looked at just about everything else out there trying to save a few bucks and eventually just said to Hell with it and got a 500C. Everything else felt like a compromise. If you're really serious about using the best tool for the widest range of jobs, you'll never be unhappy with buying the best.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Just a heads up to Brit/UK large format shooters, I'm selling my MPP plus a dozen holders and a Polaroid back in the gear thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&pagenumber=172#post425344440
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Sorry to see you have to let it go. Where are you moving to now? Back to the States. East Coast for a month and then back to San Fran. I don't want to sell it and I'm just going to buy another one when I get back across the pond, but my move is quickly becoming a nightmare and putting it and all my plates in my luggage is going to put me over the weight limit before I even start.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Tesla Was Robbed posted:I'll pay for shipping to me and then shipping to you in San Fran if I can rent it until May/June. Where are you located? We may be talking hundreds of Dollars or Pounds for international shipping.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Crosspost from the portrait thread, but I suppose this belongs here. 8x10 paper negative, sepia toned print. My love letter to Lady Clementina Hawarden. Eva at the House by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Dropped a roll of film into a puddle of water. Paper backing got stuck to the emulsion I guess... That happened to me one time, except that I was caught in a rain storm and my exposed rolls got all waterlogged. I thought everything was ruined until I saw the negatives.  Static 1 by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Another paper neg shot with the 8x10. The print is 16x20. I love shooting with paper so, so much. S in Her Studio by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
I thought poor printing was an art bonus! Did I miss the latest art memo...???
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Continuing my paper negative shooting with an homage to Anne Brigman. At The Bulb by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
 Faith by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Continuing with my Pictoralist-inspired shooting.  The Picture Wall by Jason, on FlickrEDIT: Make that two shots.  The Scarf by Jason, on Flickr
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:you'd hate henry peach robinson I thought Robinson stitched his negatives in the printing phase?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Yo eff your stilly gimmick color film. 8x10 paper negatives bitches. I'm working on an ongoing project about early portraits and I had to ape me some David Octavius Hill.  Lenny the Deckhand by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 03:02
|
|