|
Spedman posted:I recently saw a show where 8x10 negs were wet printed to that kind of size, and if you got close you could start to easily see the grain etc. Check it out if not, great work.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
rohan posted:Matthew Abbott at the Fox? Yep that's the one, ridiculously good. somnambulist posted:I recently sold a print of this at 30"x60" and the ice looked "pixelated" a bit when printed at that size. The reason why I asked what you shoot was more to do with if you'll get more out of say better lighting gear for your portraits, or travel to somewhere totally new to you for landscape shots, etc How often are you actually printing those size prints? Do you actually want to printing your work that size anyway? I think if you want to go more mega pixels than the 5Ds you'll have to shell out a lot more than $10k to make it worth while
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
You might want to consider the Hasselblad multishot cameras as well: http://www.hasselblad.com/h5-system/h5d-multi-shot
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Clearly the best answer is to talk to Hugo or Keith, get an actual 30x60 camera made, and do everything as contact prints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Clearly the best answer is to talk to Hugo or Keith, get an actual 30x60 camera made, and do everything as contact prints. Uh the best answer is to go full on Clifford Ross and make terrible art out of the highest resolution images ever created.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Have you actually considered just shooting MF film? The barrier to entry is pretty low right now
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
case in point  
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
 Parc Olympique tower, Montreal
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
   This reminds me of Todd Hido eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
TACTICAL SANDALS posted:
I'd fave this on flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Trying some different stuff... Kurnell by Michael Garbutt, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
That's cool.k-zed posted:case in point This is cool, did you do it with LF movements (probably not, since you're referencing MF), or a shift lens? Or you were up in another building?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
nice posting station
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Really nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:That's cool. It's just a 180mm lens and some cheating (a bit of lightroom perspective correction)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
I think my photo place cut the first two frames off all of the rolls I just got developed (11 total). There are about 8 developed frames on each roll. One end of the roll has a small fraction of a seemingly well exposed image, and the other end has a blank space, enough for two frames. I shot the rolls with the GW670II, which seems pretty precise about roll start and end points. It seems like they just hosed up, and didn't realize where the start and end points of the roll were (though I can't be totally sure obviously). Is that possible? Obviously there's nothing I can do about it now, but I'm upset. If they did gently caress up, I lost 22 frames, more than two full rolls. I scanned 2 of the rolls before realizing, but have the others. Is it worth going back and asking what happened and trying to get some money back?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Why would your lab cut your 120 at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Why would your lab cut your 120 at all? I get the "whole" roll back, and then I cut them in order to scan them. The rolls do look like they've been trimmed (in one case, it cuts off in the middle of a perfectly exposed image with no obvious light exposure or blotching like it was hosed up as part of developing the roll or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Here's a couple examples, sorry for the poo poo quality. Perfectly good image cut in half:  Untitled by spike mccue, on FlickrFull roll, with a lot of space on one end and a chopped image on the other.  Untitled by spike mccue, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Don't know what kind of a lab error would cause that, looks more like the film wasn't loaded properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Don't know what kind of a lab error would cause that, looks more like the film wasn't loaded properly. I mean that's totally possible, too. Maybe I didnt advance it so the arrows on the film lined up with that of the camera before closing the back? I don't know. (I mean, user error is much more likely here, I'm just not sure how that would have happened). Awkward Davies fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I mean that's totally possible, too. Maybe I didnt advance it so the arrows on the film lined up with that of the camera before closing the back? I don't know. Or your camera is out of alignment, the frame spacing doesn't look consistent on the strip you posted. If the camera is eating up extra space you would end up with half a frame at the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
I almost always get a half-frame on the end of each 120 roll. I put it down to my camera being hilariously badly put together. I don't know how half a frame can actually end up in front of the shutter unless only part of the film is coated with emulsion and I'm just hitting the boundary for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Here's a couple examples, sorry for the poo poo quality. This looks wrong to me. Fuji numbers their 120 1-16 (for 645), so their spacing is not the same as Kodak's, but there should be way more lead there than the image suggests. If nothing else, there's a bit of tape holding the "front" end of a 120 roll to the backing paper, to ensure that it feeds together properly. Even ignoring the numbering, if this were just a loose nut behind the viewfinder or an alignment error, you'd see its shadow left in the image. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I never had any issues of that type with that camera either. Are you sure you're lining up the arrows on the film to the orange dots?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:I never had any issues of that type with that camera either. That's probably what happened I guess. Lesson learned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I've been scanning a lot of film this week  edit: redid white balance eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I've been scanning a lot of film this week Your colours are fairly off. Seems to be lots of red/purple
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
deaders posted:Your colours are fairly off. Seems to be lots of red/purple Thanks, I redid them is it better now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
That's cool. What's the story there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:That's cool. What's the story there? That's the large format forums hq, dukeku bravely took a photo as we all got banned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:That's cool. What's the story there? It's on the Bonneville Speedway. I showed up (coincidentally) a day after races were held, saw a blip on the horizon, drove towards it, and found toilets a few minutes before the trucks came to haul them all away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
I shot some expired ORWO NP22:  
The Claptain fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Doctor Bombadil posted:I shot some expired ORWO NP22: i especially like the middle one with the roof. what camera did you use?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:45
|
|