Jump to content

r_david

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>If I may put my $0.02 in ... that guy is a master with lighting and composition and exposure. His stuff doesn't look overexposed to me, either.</p> <p>Looking at his stuff, it's more about lighting and color balance in this shots than anything he's doing with any sort of processing - analog or digital. Those lavender flowers has the pastel look because they take up the whole composition and their reflected light is bouncing off of the white background.</p> <p>I mean, it looks like he's just doing old school color and comp to me. I think he could do what he does with a Holga.</p> <p> </p>
  2. <blockquote> <p>...as long as the chemistry is available.</p> </blockquote> <p>Most of that chemistry is off patent and freely available to mix your own. <br> <br />The APUG guys have the recipes. So, I wouldn't worry too much about processing chemistry.</p>
  3. <p>I tried to use a green light to make sure my reels were loaded properly - nothing that jumped its track and touched another part of the negative.</p> <p>I stopped because it was useless and you had to have the reel on top of the light to actually see anything - even when eyes were adjusted - and I ended up with slightly fogged film if it was ISO400.</p>
  4. <p>Every year, more and more publishers are not accepting transparencies. The publishing workflow is pretty much entirely digital. Even the publishers who still accept transparencies scan them.</p> <p>So, if there are commercial photographers still shooting 4x5 for publication, they will eventually have to scan them before submitting them if they want to stick to that format. <br> There are outliers - of course there is always an exception. <a href="http://thesunmagazine.org/about/submission_guidelines/photography">The Sun Magazine </a>still accepts prints.</p> <p>The thing is everyone's workflow is electronic or will be entirely electronic and analog just adds extra work. And with today's crazy deadlines, any extra quality that may exist just isn't worth it.</p> <p>With 50Megapixel camera prices now below that of a luxury car and incredible gains in digital quality, I don't see 4x5 being used for any other reason than it's just a preferred workflow; there's not much technical or artist advantage for most applications. </p>
  5. <p>What is interesting is that the scratches appear at roughly the same spot. <br> I would compare rolls taken with the same camera and see if the same scratches appear on each roll taken with that camera.</p> <p>So, if rolls shot with the FM3 or Fuji all have the same scratch at the top third of frame or whatever, then you know you got a problem with that camera.</p> <p>Also, check your handling of the negatives during scanning. For example, are you dragging the negatives across a negative holder or something?<br> Are there any sharp spots on the negative holders?<br> Everything is made out of plastic these days and sometimes there is flashing - remnants of the molding process. I have even been cut on plastic parts because they were not finished properly.</p> <p>And there's nothing saying that it can't be all the above, cameras and lab doing the scratching.</p> <p>But the fact that the scratches appear at roughly the same spot, I am guessing that there is one culprit.</p>
  6. <p>Mr. Murray,<br> Perhaps you are right.<br> But I would expect a rehash of Sports Illustrated and B&W photo magazine submissions. In other words, I would be very very surprised if I saw something new and unique. And if it were unique, it would be so outlandish that I wouldn't understand it. Like the trend of photographing crazy angles of just one eyeball. I can't even google that one.</p> <p>That's were Picasso ran into trouble. </p> <p>Where does crap end and art begin?</p> <p>Never the less, I prefer crap to same old same old.</p>
  7. <p><strong>Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do post photos you did not take.</strong><br> I guess it's been all done before.</p> <p>EDIT: I mean no dig at anyone. I am trying to illustrate my point.</p> <p>I am having a problem explaining myself right now. .... it all sounds insulting in my head - let alone what it would look like posted. And it is NOT what I mean. <strong>It's my own artistic angst.</strong><br> <strong><br />Great. (See, message above post. So much for examples.)<br /></strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>I have seen everything before. I haven't seen any unique photos in over 50 years. <br /></strong></p>
  8. I could photograph my tennis partner with a polarizer and print it with a #4 grade filter. What would appear is the - what I think - tired cliché of a B&W photo of an old black guy. Sure HE is unique but the composition and theme isn't. I have been watching "The Mind of the Chef" on PBS. And listening to the chefs creating their own flavor combinations and struggling to find their own voice. If they do what others do, then they are just a cook- not a chef. If I am duplicating what has been done time and time again, then I am just a camera operator and not a photographer/artist. For rock music fans, folks who play like Eddie Van Halen are a dime a dozen, but they are just imitators. They may be playing a original composition, but their sound is imitated. Picasso was quite capable of painting the classics - he could paint someone's portrait like the masters. But he was inspired (some say by photos taken with a camera with a broken camera lens) to do something no one has ever seen. That's the difference between art and mimicry.
  9. I was just about to start a thread with this exact subject. I got a Holga 135 to spice up my creativity and I shot 3 rolls. I got some surprises that looked really good - I have a defective Holga; it takes pictures as good as a one time use camera - I don't have any of the light leaks or crazy lens distortions. But as far as composition, subject and theme; my photos are lame. Technically, the prints I chose were printed quite well - if I say so myself, but never the less, un-memorable. I put together a shopping cart of consumables (paper, film, chemicals), but I am struggling for subjects and hesitating buying them - the consumables, that is. Art is about voice. It is about creativity and not about imitation - I can reproduce any photograph of the greats - like I can play any song by a great guitar player and their solos - but do I have my own "voice" ? I do not. I am a monkey imitating people and it distresses me. Feedback to what I think is original? "That's nice." I do like the process of making my analog photos - although, it is tedious sometimes. But there are times when liking the process or the journey - as some say - isn't enough. Just my opinion of my journey.
  10. I have shot 400 film with my Holga - stuck at 1/100 shutter and f/8 or f/11 apeture - where my light meter says it should be 1/1000 at f/11. I got printable negs. They were a pain to print, though. But, if my whole roll was shot like that, I would have pulled it.
  11. <p>What I failed to mention was that the explanation was made by a Polaroid exec. He talks about their 5 year plan and how they beat their sales projections by 120% - but still had to shut down.<br> And I agree, the film was and is expensive. $21 - $25 for a pack of (Impossible) 10 shots is pricey.<br> I have to say this though, the camera's motor (One Step 'Rainbow') I bought 35 or so years ago still runs. The old film cartridge battery still drives the motor. I may get a pack of Impossible film for the hell of it just to see if the camera still works and takes pictures.</p>
  12. <p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2120160/">Time Zero: The Last Year of Polaroid Film.</a><br /> It is on NetFlix.</p> <p>At about 59 minutes in, you will get an explanation of why film manufacturers stop. And why others, like the Impossible Project pick it up.</p> <p>There are so many variables. And it was an eye opener on how hard it was for the Impossible Project to pick up where Polaroid left off.<br /> The Impossible Project had to reformulate much of Polaroid's chemistry for various reasons: specialized chemicals, chemicals not available because of environmental laws (like Mercury - yeah, technically an element), and chemicals not available because Polaroid were the only buyers at quantities worth making for.</p> <p>But Polaroid's sales exceeded projected demand.<br /> <br /> Enough said. Watch it for yourselves.<br /> </p>
  13. <p>My father once gave me a mint condition <em>looking</em> Rollei Twin Reflex from the 1960s. It was in the back of his closet for years - unused.<br> The shutter was frozen and I found out that it happens frequently with Rolleis.<br> I actually have a repair guy near me who fixes film cameras and he wanted $250 to fix it. The market value was $200 if it worked.<br> I sold it on eBay for $50 "as is".<br> So, if the camera hasn't been used in a while, run a roll of film through it to see if the shutter works.</p> <p>As for price, I would check second hand camera dealers and compare. But 860 - Pounds Sterling? - that would have to be a really nice working camera and include a lens.</p>
  14. I se these old photojournalist shots - with the Tri-X on their negs - that are gritty. Do I get that by pushing - with today's films - to ISO 1,000,0000 :) ?
  15. Thanks Lex. Sometimes these things are so subjective ; it's good to get another opinion. For example, my opinion of HP5. Let me post another question instead of high jacking my own thread.
×
×
  • Create New...