zfgauthier
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by zfgauthier
-
-
Strobes all the way. I was sick of f/5.6 at 1/30th with a thousand watts of very hot lights. Got a set of speedotron brownlines and couldn't be happier. I know a lot of people say at least "high number of watt-seconds," but honestly I get by with my 200ws power pack absolutely fine. And that's rating my film at 50. I'm usually around f/11 depending on what kind of modifiers I'm using. YMMV of course.
-
I'd just like to clarify that I didn't really "push" my film. Since the rest of the roll was exposed normally, I decided to process normally. With normally being what was recommended by the massive dev chart for hp5 at 400 in d76 1:1. 13 minutes. Since then however, I've found 13 minutes to be a tad hot. Now my time for hp5 in d76 1:1 is 11 minutes at 20c. So I guess technically the film did receive a small push. But I would guess the increase in contrast while printing is what brings out these neat skin tones. Would the tones do the same thing if I pushed the film so it printed at grade 2? How would it be different? I would like to find out.<br><br>
I'm definitely going to explore this technique further. I'll be TAing for a photo class and running the college darkroom all summer. All the D76 I could ever want. Planning on trying the same technique with 6x7 as well. Should be interesting with less grain. For good measure, here's <a href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/leah/reflex1.jpg">another example</a> of the same "technique" from that same roll.
-
Thanks Russ. Oh yeah, that old brownie works just fine. A little lighter fluid and I had it working like the day it was made. It takes 620, but trimmed 120 spools work just fine. I've run quite a few rolls through it. The underexposed image is on HP5 in D76, while the normal image is FP4 in PMK Pyro. I attribute a lot of the low key look to the underexposure just totally dropping any tones in the dark background. <a href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/leah/leahkey.jpg">Here</a> is one from that same roll(as the first photograph) exposed normally. You can see a bit of tonality in the background there, plus the skin tones are <i>totally</i> different.
-
By accident, I came across what I think is a rather neat effect. A while back I
was working with a model and accidentally underexposed a shot by a stop(or
two?). As expected, the resulting negative looked thin and lacked good shadow
detail, but I liked the shot so I tried to print it. It's now one of my favorite
negatives. It looked nice to me at around grade 3.5. The interesting part is
how... different skin tones look when printed like this. The pale caucasian skin
of my model took on an almost metallic kind of appearance. Neat! I've never been
able to reproduce skin tones like this exposing "normally."<br><br><br>
Here are two examples. Both models' skin tones look very similar to the human
eye, but the first photograph was underexposed and had the contrast bumped up.
<br><br>
underexposed with normal development<br>
<a
href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/leah/reflex2.jpg">http://zack.loseby.net/images/leah/reflex2.jpg</a>
<br><br>
normal exposure, normal development<br>
<a
href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/bridgetlaugh.jpg">http://zack.loseby.net/images/bridgetlaugh.jpg</a>
<br><br><br>
If you ask me, the first image isn't "wrong" in any way... even if it was by
accident. I think it has a real dark and moody feel to it. Even being
underexposed, and in the prints especially, it looks to me like the skin still
maintains an appropriate range of tones. I'd like to get the opinions of others
on this. Has anyone else tried a similar process? And I realize my comparisons
here are far from scientific.
<br><br>
Any input is appreciated!
-
I LOVE the Pentax SMC 135/2.5. Its build quality only compares to the old screw mount takumar primes. Among the nicest handling lenses I've ever used. I recently did an entire shoot with just that lens. Sharp sharp sharp sharp. Also beautiful bokeh. Picked mine up in mint condition for $200.
<br><br>
Examples:
<br>
<br>
-
I still use my father's ME Super he had in college. I have had some work done on it recently. Check the mirror damping foam at the top of the mirror box. Mine started turning into goo about a year ago. This is a really easy/cheap fix. I've never really liked the mode dial. At one point it got stuck in bulb and I had to disassemble the dial to get it working again. I wouldn't call either of those serious problems. That ME Super is built like a tank and definitely one of my favorite bodies.
-
Confirmed. I've got one right next to me. The self timer starts by pulling it down and then nudging it to start.
-
I know this is an unusual combination and my prior research didn't come up with
too much, so I'd like to share my results. What I did was expose a roll of Kodak
Tmax P3200 at 800 and process it for 25 minutes in Microdool-X 1:3, 70F, five
inversions every 30 seconds. It worked. I actually think it worked really well,
but see for yourself. Below are some scans I made from the recently processed
negatives. They all have some light sharpening, but that's it.<br><br>Zenitar
16mm Fisheye<br><a
href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/radar/1.jpg">http://zack.loseby.net/images/radar/1.jpg</a>
<br><br>Pentax SMC-M 50/1.4<br><a
href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/radar/3.jpg">http://zack.loseby.net/images/radar/3.jpg</a>
<br><br>Zenitar 16mm Fisheye<br><a
href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/radar/4.jpg">http://zack.loseby.net/images/radar/4.jpg</a>
<br><br><br>
As expected the grain is a little coarse, but I was really pleased with the
amount of shadow <i>and</i> highlight detail I got out of it. I hope these
examples are useful to somebody. Thanks for looking.
<br><br><br>
-Zack
-
Perfect.
<br><img src="http://zack.loseby.net/images/pindecoration.jpg">
<br><br>
Who ever said photography had to be serious? Whenever you look through the viewfinder all you see is a smiling face. I could redo the pinhole and paint it all black after this first try, but I love the random halos and weird blurs. It's really fascinating to me that this little thing I threw together produces such unique images. This machine is the embodiment of my day spent walking between junk stores and sorting through the recycling bin. Not only are my compositional choices reflected in my photographs, but also every choice, mistake, and miscalculation I made during construction. It is a camera with flaws and unique, unpredictable traits. Just like a human being.
-
Thanks guys. Yeah the panoramas(technically just crops of the brownie's full frame) are because I loaded it with 35mm. The vertical lines are due to the image being longer than a standard 35mm frame and the plastic of my negative carrier getting in the way of scanning. The exception to that is the crooked photograph of the steeple of a church and the tops of buildings. That one was taken with 35mm loaded into a Polaroid Model 95 Land Camera. I've since given the pinhole a spitshine and made a more proper shutter. Pictures to come at lunch.
-
Hi Everyone,<br><br>
Just thought I'd share the results from my first pinhole camera undertaking. For
two dollars I picked up two plastic point-and-shoots and a metal developing tank
at the thrift store. I took apart one of the plastic bodies and replaced the
lens assembly with a piece of a doctor pepper can with a very small hole. My
shutter is a piece of black construction paper taped over the hole. It's nice
using a 35mm body like this because I can just shoot, wind, and get 36 exposures
of pinhole.
<br><br>
Here's a picture of the beauty.
<br><img src="http://zack.loseby.net/images/pinhole.jpg">
<br>I'm going to give her a cosmetic overhaul once I find some electrical tape.
<br><br>You can see the images I produced <a
href="http://zack.loseby.net/bad/">here</a>. The first seven photographs are
from the pinhole. Overall it only took me a few minutes to throw together and
has been a very rewarding experience. I'm loading it up with some HP5 as I
speak. I hope you enjoy.
<br><br><br>-Zack
-
I noticed the film was curling at the edges while loading the 95 earlier, so I built a mask. Now all it needs is a new paint job.<br><img src="http://zack.loseby.net/images/masked.jpg">
<br><br>
I've taken four exposures with the new negative sleeve system so far. The pretty bellows draw quite a crowd when I'm out on the street. I had a nice conversation with an old man named Andrew while making a twelve minute exposure last night. He'd been processing his own B&W since he was 14. It's great to see so many people interested in this kind of thing. The guys at the local photo shop are interested to see the results as well.
-
Ah perfect! The negative sleeve idea is great. I had previously thought about doing something similar with construction paper, but the sleeves are even easier. So easy in fact that I've already got them installed on the plate. The results may take a few days this time. It's a lot of work lugging that thing around, taking one exposure, going back and unloading in my darkroom, back out, and on and on and on. I suppose I could process one strip at a time, but I don't really want to waste that much developer.
-
Rangefinder? On the 95? You sure we're talking about the same camera? Mine just has a little fold-out viewfinder, no fancy mirrors or yellow glass anywhere. I used one of my rangefinder cameras to find how far away things were and transferred that to the polaroid.
About the black lines... I only have a 35mm negative scanner, so the vertical bars are where the plastic of the negative carrier overlaps the exposures. After scanning each frame I've been just throwing them next to each other in photoshop. I figure since I wasn't going for perfect images in the first place, it wouldn't hurt to toss in another fun variable. Once the local college opens up their darkroom I'm going to print some of these on their 2 1/4 negative carrier. That way you'll even get to see the image around the sprocket holes.
A funny thing happened while taping film to the polaroid's pressure pate. I was in my bathroom/darkroom in complete darkness, and when I started pulling the scotch tape off the spool, the room lit up! I guess there's some kind of static thing going on when you peel tape. It makes a cool green glow.
Oh and thank you Suzan; I'm having a blast with this whole thing. Many more old-camera-new-film shots to come! For my next polaroid exposure I'm going to try two strips of 35mm negatives on the same pressure plate. They fit when I can see; the darkroom may be another story...
-
Hah! I just noticed; check out the tape on the polaroid negative. At least it held it flat. Awesome.
-
Got my negs from the 95 all developed and scanned now. I ran a roll through the brownie again too. It's all <a href="http://zack.loseby.net/bad/">here</a>. <br><br>
You were totally right about the 95 having a sharp lens. Look at the top left window on the steeple in this image <a href="http://zack.loseby.net/bad/images/polaroid1.jpg">here</a>. <a href="http://zack.loseby.net/images/polaroidcrop.jpg">Here's</a> a 100% crop of it. You can see that strip had a little trouble in processing. I tried to cheat and slip it on the same spool as my brownie negs. It fell out. I processed these in Microdol-X 1:3 at 70 degrees for 18 minutes.
-
Interesting idea. The Brownie flash is on hold for the moment though(however, my local camera shop does carry old flashguns). I'm almost done light-proofing the bathroom, got my chemicals, and tomorrow I'm loading the 95 with some fomapan 100.
-
Just looked into the flash a little further. I put my flash inside the brownie and my eye right over the taking lens. All I see is a faint light when the shutter/flash fires. Looks like they're not lining up. Also checked into a bulb modification. Seems possible, but not sure if it's worth it.
It'd probably be easier for me to rig up some kind of delayed relay between the body and the flash. Then there's always some 3200 B&W.
-
B... maybe with the Polaroid, but that brownie is 1/40th only, no bulbs about it.
-
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention. For the 95 I plan on taking it into the darkroom and just taping two cut strips of 35mm next to eachother on the pressure plate. After my one exposure I'd take it back into the darkroom, untape them, then process those strips. After all that I'd probably do something similar to what I did with the brownie negs in photoshop.
-
I read about that flash delay issue and I'm really not sure how it's going to work with this brownie. The shutter is very simple and it seems like there's no delay between the shutter beginning its movement and the shorting of the flash contacts. Even if that's so, the 1/10,000 of a second of electronic flash is still quite a bit different than the 1/30th(?) of a bulb.
<br><br>
Even if I could get the flash to fire exactly when the shutter is fully open, it'd have to be a deadly accurate timing as the one shutter speed seems to just slide across the opening of the aperture. Regardless I'm sure it'll lead to more of the abstract images I've already come to love.
-
Aaaand now with flash! That's not lightning, but the wires I used to attach the flash to the brownie.<br>
-
Thanks! My next project is 35mm in a Polaroid Model 95 Land Camera. Now THAT should be interesting. You can do anything with a little creativity and some tape.
<br><br>
<img src="http://zack.loseby.net/images/old.jpg">
-
I was in a bit of a pinch for cash and I got that itch for a new camera. So I
dug out my grandfather's Kodak Brownie Reflex 20 and managed to shove a roll of
35mm Kodak Max 800 into the thing. I had to guess about how much winding to
do... so the results are very abstract. So abstract in fact that my local lab
didn't even charge me for processing!
<br><br>
Since the images are wider than a 35mm frame I had to stitch multiple images
from my scanner together. Here's a couple I made.
<br>
<a href="http://zack.loseby.net/bad/">http://zack.loseby.net/bad/</a>
<br><br>
You can see light from the (even closed)red door got through and fogged the film
a a little. Since scanning these I've patched up the door, figured out exactly
how much to wind, and made a mask so the 135 is curved like the 620 was.
<br><br>
This was a real fun little project for me and I hope some of you enjoy looking.
Choosing an old film camera
in Pentax
Posted