|
Genderfluid posted:Ektar isn't for everything but it's a wonderful film That's fair. For nature shots it's pretty cool, but it's way too saturated and unforgiving for a general-purpose film.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I read an article years ago in Black & White Photography (a wonderful UK photo magazine BTW). It was about how you could make a paper negative and then use a lightbox and a pencil to dodge it by shading on the back of the paper as a way to make a contact print but have more control over the final image.  keenker by OjaiYoda, on Flickr also i just got back three rolls of 220, and have defiantly confirmed that my Mamiya 6's light meter is off, and the result is under exposed negatives. so mad. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
More wet plate / reenactor portraits yesterday. A retired Gunnery Sergeant as General Grant. My teacher's portable darkbox after a new girl trashed it. The fixer is kept outside the darkbox/away from developer in tank like the silver nitrate. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Nondo posted:More wet plate / reenactor portraits yesterday. A retired Gunnery Sergeant as General Grant. Keep posting these they're cool as heck
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
^^ Great shots as per usual, love those old get-ups. I've got all my tin type stuff ready to go, nearly started on the weekend but found I needed to season the silver nitrate bath overnight and ordered the wrong plates. The plates are just big sheets of coated aluminium from a trophy store, and they're going to send some new stuff this week so I can get it all going this long weekend coming up. The brass 10.5" lens I got from eBay arrived, so now I'm just waiting on the wooden tailboard camera to come from Spain so I can get to work on doing some big plates at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
What's the learning curve with wet plate stuff? I'm familiar enough with the dry plate process, but the chemistry for wet plate seems so much more complex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
I don't think it's terribly difficult to learn how to do, and you can get ready made kits from Bostic and Sullivan for a reasonable price (if you're in the US), so knowing in depth chemistry isn't required. But having said that, if you can find a tintype workshop, go and do that. Learn all the tricks, save yourself from a ton of learning pains, and also find out if you actually like the process and the resulting shots before you jump in feet first. I went into the workshop thinking it'll be great to play around with, but not something I would totally get into. But the whole process and the uniqueness of the resulting photo just blew me away and I knew that I had to get into it properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I don't think it's terribly difficult to learn how to do, and you can get ready made kits from Bostic and Sullivan for a reasonable price (if you're in the US), so knowing in depth chemistry isn't required. I've been wanting to get into it for a while, but I'm in Japan and silver nitrate is pretty hard to get (you need like a special license or something)  I'm gonna have like 6-8 months to kill back in America at the end of next year between my contract ending and starting grad school, looking forward to trying it then. Do any of you guys in Australia know how difficult/expensive it is to obtain the chemicals there versus the US?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Do any of you guys in Australia know how difficult/expensive it is to obtain the chemicals there versus the US? WAY harder, health and safety regulations are very strict here, it's pretty much an industry unto itself. In order to ship the tintype chemicals around 100km you're looking at >$200 in shipping for a specialist courier. Ellie Young who runs Gold Street Studios where I did the workshop also sells tintype kits just like B&S, and she's more than happy to drop them off at a Melbourne photography shop for you to pick up. If it wasn't for her I wouldn't be able to do wet plate, it'd be just too much red tape and  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Spedman posted:WAY harder, health and safety regulations are very strict here, it's pretty much an industry unto itself. In order to ship the tintype chemicals around 100km you're looking at >$200 in shipping for a specialist courier. Ellie Young who runs Gold Street Studios where I did the workshop also sells tintype kits just like B&S, and she's more than happy to drop them off at a Melbourne photography shop for you to pick up. If it wasn't for her I wouldn't be able to do wet plate, it'd be just too much red tape and Wow, and I thought I had it bad trying to get 190 proof Everclear in California (can't order online)... For a tub of potassium cyanide you basically just have to show two forms of ID and sign an affidavit saying you promise not to murder anyone. Spedman posted:I don't think it's terribly difficult to learn how to do, and you can get ready made kits from Bostic and Sullivan for a reasonable price (if you're in the US), so knowing in depth chemistry isn't required. I agree, workshops will definitely save you some headaches/money in the long run but they're not required. I have no chemistry knowledge, but everything is broken down for you if you get your hands on a manual of some sort. I have been taking it slow myself, learning from others who have taken workshops with people like Will Dunniway & Mark Osterman while I get my own gear up and running. These guys have been doing it for 5-6+ years and still bounce questions off their friends/colleagues regularly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
I got a Fuji GW690II off of ebay and I'm looking forward to taking it out this weekend. I haven't ever used a rangefinder, though and this viewfinder is kind of weird. It shows the image in this sort of hazy blue color with a yellowish dot in the middle. The goal is to adjust the focus so the dot's image overlaps with the scene itself right? There are also these weird broken bars on the inside of the viewfinder which change when I focus on objects closer and further. It's not a zoom lens so I'm not entirely sure why they're moving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:I got a Fuji GW690II off of ebay and I'm looking forward to taking it out this weekend. I haven't ever used a rangefinder, though and this viewfinder is kind of weird. It shows the image in this sort of hazy blue color with a yellowish dot in the middle. The goal is to adjust the focus so the dot's image overlaps with the scene itself right? Yep, that's how rangefinders work. The weird broken bars are your frame lines - viewfinder parallax error will be slightly different if you're focusing close vs focusing at infinity, so the frame lines move to correct for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
You've picked one hell of a camera for your first rangefinder 8)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You've picked one hell of a camera for your first rangefinder 8) I got a cheap voigtlander on ebay that I was planning to learn on but, as is often the case, 'as is' meant 'broken'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You've picked one hell of a camera for your first rangefinder 8) Yeah, that's like having Gravedigger as your first car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:I got a Fuji GW690II off of ebay and I'm looking forward to taking it out this weekend. I haven't ever used a rangefinder, though and this viewfinder is kind of weird. It shows the image in this sort of hazy blue color with a yellowish dot in the middle. The goal is to adjust the focus so the dot's image overlaps with the scene itself right? Just wanna pop in and echo what others have said, that's like trying to learn how to play video games on a Lynx. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a great camera through and through, and you could have gone weirder (Just thank god you you didn't pick something with bellows), the construction is solid, and the style of shooting is roughly similar to a 35mm, but 6x9 is a weird starting point to have as a frame of reference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
i learned how to use a rangefinder with a 690. it's fine, and simple and lots of fun. love that camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
also here's another shot from the 6x12 back. i uploaded the full res on mediafire so go crazy if you want.  Clock, Scarsdale NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr http://www.mediafire.com/view/?acwmjqy7ommp8q3
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
The 690GWII is a fine camera; I use one, too, and am quite fond of it. But as a starting film camera/rangefinder it has several attributes that are a bit less than fortunate in my opinion. First of all is it takes 120 or 220 film, which is not as commonplace as 35mm. This also means that you can only shoot 8 or 16 frames respectively, which each of these frames being relatively "expensive". Maybe not the best way for starting out. When I started out I shot a ton of 35mm to see what I like, also loving up a couple of rolls/pictures in the process - doing that with 120 would have been more painful/costly. Film loading is also a bit different, and you can't be as haphazard about it as with 35mm. It has these weird pull-out-lock thingies that the P67 also has that people either love or hate. I managed to keep mine not fully engaged, thus loving up film flatness. (There is a steel prong on one side of the lever, if you put it down on that side it won't retract fully into the body reducing the upward push on the film spool. Rotating it the right way around fixes this.) Also it's a large and fairly heavy (by 35mm standards) camera. It may discourage you from carrying it around in situations where you could just pop your 35mm rangefinder into your bag/satchel whatever. At least you got it easier with scanning as getting the most DPI out of your scan is not as critical with MF as it is with 35. That said, most non-photographer oriented labs won't scan 120. To restate, I have one and I love the lens on that thing. It's great. But as learning experience (while not that different from a 35mm rangefinder) this camera may be a bit of a tough sell IMO. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:The 690GWII is a fine camera; I use one, too, and am quite fond of it. But as a starting film camera/rangefinder it has several attributes that are a bit less than fortunate in my opinion. Yeah, I was pretty amazed by its size. This isn't my only camera so I'll end up using this for more planned outings since I already have a 35mm film camera and a t3i with a decent amount of lenses. Thanks for the tips, though! I'm looking forward to forcing myself into a much more methodical and type of photography. I downloaded beecam on the Play Store to use for a light meter. Are there any light meter apps anyone would recommend? Or are they just totally inferior to an actual meter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
The problem is that after a while your eyes will be close enough that you need an actual meter to improve on them. Before that point they're kinda handy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:Yeah, I was pretty amazed by its size. This isn't my only camera so I'll end up using this for more planned outings since I already have a 35mm film camera and a t3i with a decent amount of lenses. Thanks for the tips, though! I'm looking forward to forcing myself into a much more methodical and type of photography. I use this lightmeter app https://play.google.com/store/apps/...G9tZXRyb05hIl0. It is the most accurate one I have found so far and reflected mode will use the rear camera which rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:Yeah, I was pretty amazed by its size. This isn't my only camera so I'll end up using this for more planned outings since I already have a 35mm film camera and a t3i with a decent amount of lenses. Thanks for the tips, though! I'm looking forward to forcing myself into a much more methodical and type of photography. They're okay, but in terms of accuracy and the many different ways you can use an actual meter (studio light, flash, incident, spot) they're better. I even use one with my 5DMK2 when I go out shooting digital simply because I find my hand-held meter more accurate. Beecam is fine if you have recently lost or irreparably damaged your dedicated meter, but given that you're relatively new, don't make this any harder on you than it has to be and get a drat meter, man. You can get used Sekonic L358's for like $150 now, and those things take a beating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:You can get used Sekonic L358's for like $150 now, and those things take a beating. I can only dream http://www.amazon.ca/Sekonic-L-358-Flash-Master-Light/dp/B00007E89K Or get this http://www.sekonic.com/products/l-308s/overview.aspx Or not  http://www.downtowncamera.com/index...uemart&Itemid=2
bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Dear people who want an incident meter, buy a Gossen Digisix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
 Dilmaghani Rugs, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
 Karen by McMadCow, on Flickr Cyanotype print of a paper negative I shot outside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Cyanotype print of a paper negative I shot outside. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:
I... uh... wha... huh? It looks like it was run through a mimeograph on paper towel. I like it, but it's got to be the weirdest photo I've ever seen by virtue of that texture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I like it, but it's got to be the weirdest photo I've ever seen by virtue of that texture. Part of the fun of alt processes is paper textures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
More loving freeways, shot with the GW690ii on Acros stand developed in Rodinal: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
I really really like the second one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
I really like both of them! Lovely tone & composition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Can anyone comment on the performance of Radionar lenses? I know they aren't particularly sharp, but I was looking at picking up a Rolfix someone local is advertising for pretty cheap. I'm mostly curious if it'll have any use at anything wider than f/8.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Can anyone comment on the performance of Radionar lenses? I know they aren't particularly sharp, but I was looking at picking up a Rolfix someone local is advertising for pretty cheap. I'm mostly curious if it'll have any use at anything wider than f/8. Looks like the radionar is a triplet design which would make it a bit soft at wide open but fine stopped down past f/11ish. This is not bad news because using a zone focusing folder is painful at best at larger apertures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
It's the 1954 version which has a built in rangefinder, although I'm not entirely sure how useful it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
 Sending these five Yashicas to Mark Hama today. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
I borrowed my friend's Aptus 54S to use on my Hassy over a weekend and took some nature shots with it. Aptus Test 1 by alkanphel, on Flickr  Aptus Test 2 by alkanphel, on Flickr  Aptus Test 4 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Depending on how selling my car works out, I'm thinking about picking up one of those Fuji 6x9 rangefinders to use as a landscape camera for when I'm out on my motorcycle. I saw an older one at a shop for ~$200. Can anyone talk me out of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 00:46
|
|