LisaImmarco

Jochen, SCL, and AJG,

 

Wow. Great tips from everyone, thank you. Lots to think about. New to this, street photography is my usual thing.++

 

Yes, maybe sheets- but a roll is nice because after a few times the paper will most likely crease and just cut off a new one from the roll. Shinier paper is a great idea, very reflective for jewelry and I am going to got to Wal-mart and check out contact paper for lining cabinets.

 

Shower curtain, wonderful way to diffuse light. Never thought of it.

 

AJG, will probably end up using a set up something like that. Never thought of battery powered, good itea.

 

Jochen,

 

Can you be a little more explicit about buying a studio look alike for barn doors? Otherwise, I'm going to hop in my car and might end up with something like this.

 

 

 

 

:)

Hi everyone,

 

I am starting to photograph very small items such as jewelry, to midsize items, such as a 1 foot piggy bank, for resale. I am creating my own box for now, before I fork up the bucks for a professional one.

 

Savage has rolls of paper for background as low as 13.99. Would anyone here recommend them or something else?

 

What would be the best desktop lighting I could buy with baffles for the money? From what I understand, I need one for each side.

 

And if I were to ever buy a professional small kit, can anyone recommend one, or is jerry rigging one an OK way to go? Anything else to recommend?

 

Thanks in advance, and best regards,

 

Lisa

I saw this 'upload to cover photo' and it looked like a nice idea. Now I have part of a huge head floating in space and the complete photo itself is missing from my gallery. How do I remove a cover photo, please?

 

No offense, to you good owners of photo.net. But I really can't stand this new site, except for the fact the photos pop out a bit better. Not intuitive, hard to navigate,. I really liked the old style, go to photo admin and just change things around. I am having a real twilight zone experience here.

<p>Thank you so much!<br>

Glenn, Steve, thanks for tips on tools, too. A little tutorial. I agree, background needs to be burned in, thank you!<br>

:)</p>

<p>Lisa</p>

<p>File seems too large to upload here, although it uploaded fine to my portfolio. Here is the link:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18152495</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I am in the process of teaching myself Photoshop. I took this photo, and would like some responses as to potential variations, and potential tools in Photoshop in which to edit the photo. I have 7, and as soon as I finish learning it, will try to pick up CS6 on Ebay (when I can get a decent price!).</p>

<p>I am shooting for dreamlike and mysterious, but want to avoid what I think of as a clichéd, film noir look or clichéd 'sad and dreamlike and mysterious'' feeling Does anyone think that it is verging on that kind of self indulgent sentimentality here?</p>

<p>One way to go would be to increase contrast and I believe it could use some skilled sharpening, but not sure if it even needs it. However, it certainly could use a little more 'punch.'</p>

<p>As you can see, my thoughts keep spinning round and round. Also, any responses on technically improving the photo ins general would be appreciated. In addition, it's a low resolution scanner, the final version will be scanned on a dedicated scanner with high resolution.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

 

<p>Also, I would have liked a little more contrast in the photo I posted. Fluorescent lighting at Wal-Mart, and somewhat flat. I will have to learn to compensate, burn, dodge, contras, etc., in PS.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, this is like a mini-workshop. I have been going over it again and again. Responding late, not sure if you'll get this.<br>

My last roll developed, I send out to a lab, was accidentally 'pushed' one stop. Glen, I know you say Kodak has same instructions for 400 and 800, but the contrast is higher and the shadow has lost some detail, and I like quite like it as it suits the subject. I will check and see what it is that they do.</p>

<p>I studied the zone system a little, a long time ago, and thought I knew it. I do know it in a way better than some people. but as an artist: I had to make over 1000 paint chips in college as an art major. But I see now I only know it in the most rudimentary of ways in terms of photography. I found a fantastic discussion on this, in which you also participated, Glen, on Photo.net in which processing is discussed regarding the zone system, and pushing. It blew my mind:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00dWhx?start=20</p>

<p>By James Daimis:</p>

<p>"... Use of the Zone system should help you to be more precise. To increase contrast in the first photo of the van that you show, here is what you do or should have done. The lightest part of the scene would be the top of the wall as seen outside of the side van door. That would be zone 9. Place it on zone 7 by reducing exposure two stops. Then give the film 50% more development time. This would bring the zone 7 back up to zone 9. The lower zones, 1, 2, 3, 4 would change very little. Zones 5, 6, 7 would change to about zones 6.5, 7.75 and 9. This would result in a greater increase in over all contrast.<br>

In your photo of the van, the right hand wall in the sun in your photo looks like it is made up of zones 4 to 8. The reduction of exposure of two stops would make that zones 2 to 6. The 50% increased film development would make that zones 2 to ~ 8, decidedly more contrasty.<br>

Increased development does not affect the lower zones only the upper zones. Knowing that is the key to obtaining increased contrast while maintaining the same tonal range, zones 1 to 9..."</p>

<p>If anyone knows any books that go into detail like this with the zone system, with actual examples, I would love to hear of them. I have Ansel Adams book, "The Negative." I see more and more that control over the medium gives me more control over the message. Not being a techie, it is taking me longer.</p>

<p>Please excuse my late responses. A lot to chew over. Thanks, Lisa</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's the wrong photo, don't look! Strange, the link was attached to the right photo. Here it is an attachment from my computer:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>This is giving me a lot to chew over, folks. Need to study it, and get back to you tomorrow.</p>

<p>In the meantime, this is the issue. I am starting to troll Wal-Mart a lot for street photos. You know, fluorescent lighting. Very flat. Any suggestions for what speed to shoot film and developers? So far I've been going for a grainy look (Tri-X in D76) which seems to suit the unreality of those kinds of mall-type places, but am open to suggestions. As I said before, unreality is what I am emphasizing. Wal-Mart bardo, lol.</p>

<p>Here's an example of one photo in which the lab accidentally pushed the film by .70. It actually came out better than the other rolls. Tri-X, D76, undiluted, accidentally pushed as I said.</p>

<div></div>

<p>In regards to making creative choices for pushing film, what would be the difference between pushing film in camera and processing to just pushing in processing? And why would one choose to just push the processing alone? I have been trying to find the answer on the web, but the subject that always seems to come up is pushing film in camera for underexposure issues, then pushing with developer to 'match' the speed one used.<br>

For instance, if I shot at Tri-X at 400 and then pushed 1 stop in development, what would be the difference in results between that, and pushing Tri-X in camera to 800 and developing for same? <br>

I also understand one can increase contrast by PULLING exposure in camera, and then compensating in development? What would the difference in that? And creatively, what would be a situation in which one might choose to do that?<br>

Any links to comprehensive articles would be great, or specific photo.net postings. I have been street photographing a lot lately at Wal-Mart with a Contax T3, yellow-green filter and .70 EV compensation. Results have been good but trying to think a little more creatively with the process. What I don't want to lose is rich tonalities and I am getting somewhat good tonalities with D76. But that fluorescent lighting at Wal-Mart is so flat. On the other hand, I don't want a chalk and cinders look, like Jacob Aue Sobol's later work.<br>

Been researching developers too. My head is swimming. <br>

Thanks in advance. I know I have been asking a lot of questions lately and I thank you all for your patience. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gerry, that is so cool, coke bottle, huh? How the heck did you hold the camera and the coke bottle, and push the shutter, at the same time?</p>

<p>Addendum: I really like where he makes the beautiful women look like vampires. He definitely is working some archetypal stuff in wonderful ways.<br>

I am currently photographing a very pretty young black woman, who is not a professional model, who has almost an entire mouthful of gold teeth. So, if I understand correctly, I use a slow shutter speed, with maybe some flash fill. I would also open up the lens, as he seems to, do you agree?<br>

Then later in Photoshop, smudge in addition to possibly burning in between individual gold teeth, etc., for that look. I'm also going to develop in D76 and push to either 800 or 1200 during development. The Contax T3 must be shot at box speed unless you fiddle with it and I'm too scaired, so it will be shot at 400.<br>

If you can think of anything else, please let me know!</p>

<p>Very interesting. Thank you. I wonder when the smudge tool came out because I would image that before that he used that emulsion in hot water technique.</p>

<p>He gives workshops, in fact is giving one in March of 2016, but all these Magnum teachers always say in the description that they are not going to teach you technique, but push you beyond your limits in your personal vision, etc. etc., etc. What I want to do is go up to them and how did you get that shadow there? How did you make this look like this?</p>

<p>I mean, for heaven's sake, I can always take some acid, or not sleep for 72 hours to push me beyond my personal creative limits, for free. ;)</p>

<p>What does your gut say? Photoshop or lens?<br>

And how would you do it in Photohop? What tools would I look up? I'm teaching Photoshop to myself. 7 now, but CS 6 when I have the money, off Ebay.</p>

<p>Thank you all so much for your responses! A very belated thank you and Merry Xmas to all of you!</p>

<p>Lisa</p>

<p>I have been becoming interested in the work of Antoine D'Agata. I am trying to find out how he achieve effects like the one in the link I'm sharing of a man's head. I believe he is pushing his film in camera, and in processing, and often using long shutter speeds, but how does one achieve those distorted head shapes and body parts that are elongated or shaped like one would get in the reflection of a fun house mirror? Some of his photos look like body parts are missing, but it's very organic.<br>

A friend of mine says he might be using a lens baby, but I don't thins so. Here's the link (NSFW) to the photo of the man's head:</p>

<p>http://www.emahomagazine.com/2013/01/enfant-terrible-antoine-dagata/</p>

<p>Any help would be appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi everyone, thanks for all the responses, and sorry for my late response. For future reference, I have an auto-immune problem, and have good days and bad days. So I don't always respond so soon to my responses, but please never think I ask a question and take all these kind responses for granted.<br>

I checked again, and the Bronica is ETRS, and it's definitely a 50mm lens, can can go down to 1.8! The manufacturer is Zenzanon, I believe (not in front of me). There is a box with accessories, and when I start shooting 120 I'll come back and ask what they are, if you don't mind. There is also a hood, the kind you see the pix of old style photographers looking down into, but I can't figure out whether it's for the Mamaya or Bronica. Or how to put it on, lol.<br>

Dave Thomas, I hear you about "I wish someone would give me..." I usually don't have that kind of luck! I usually have to work to the bone for everything so I was shocked! There was also a Canon AE-1, a Canon F-1, step up rings, zoom lenses, a Sunpac, etc. <br>

Of course, gift-horse-mouth-looker that I am, I'm also thinking about the Hasselblad I DIDN'T get 'cause it was sold...<br>

Maybe my luck has changed. That would be so nice....</p>

<p>Hi everyone, thanks for all the responses, and sorry for my late response. For future reference, I have an auto-immune problem, and have good days and bad days. So I don't always respond so soon to my responses, but please never think I ask a question and take all these kind responses for granted.<br>

I checked again, and the Bronica is ETRS, and it's definitely a 50mm lens, can can go down to 1.8! The manufacturer is Zenzanon, I believe (not in front of me). There is a box with accessories, and when I start shooting 120 I'll come back and ask what they are, if you don't mind. There is also a hood, the kind you see the pix of old style photographers looking down into, but I can't figure out whether it's for the Mamaya or Bronica. Or how to put it on, lol.<br>

Dave Thomas, I hear you about "I wish someone would give me..." I usually don't have that kind of luck! I usually have to work to the bone for everything so I was shocked! There was also a Canon AE-1, a Canon F-1, step up rings, zoom lenses, a Sunpac, etc. <br>

Of course, gift-horse-mouth-looker that I am, I'm also thinking about the Hasselblad I DIDN'T get 'cause it was sold...<br>

Maybe my luck has changed. That would be so nice....</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone. I think I'll get one while I wait for the discontinued Zeiss or B+W dark green one. They're almost impossible to find. I just grabbed an old red 30.5mm one off Ebay Germany.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Addndum: The Mamiay is fitted with an 80mm lens, and there is another 60mm lens-not sure if it is for the Mamiya or Bronica. There's also something called a dupliscope?</p>

<p>Hi, all. A friend of mine recently gave me her deceased husband's cameras (except the Hasselblad, which he had sold...sigh...). Not very familiar with medium format, although I played with a Polaroid land camera years ago. There is something called a Mamiya C330 professional. Also a Bronica Zensa, or Sensa (cameras not in front of me, my apologies).</p>

<p>Are they good cameras? What's the difference in quality, if any? And can someone direct me to tutorials for them? There is a hood too, not sure which camera the hood goes on, and how to put it on. </p>

<p>Also, recommendations for favorite medium format film would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I really would like a dark green 30.5mm filter by B+W, but they've been discontinued and I have to wait for one to show up. In the meantime, SRB has one for sale. Is that a good company?<br>

Heliopan makes one, but I was intrigued to find out that in a study years ago, their filters did not perform near as well as their reputation. Actually, Hoya performed better, but they don' make 30.5mm filters.<br>

So, any thoughts? Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Steven,<br>

I compensated at 1.5 EV and the film was somewhat overexposed. Since I don't have the filter compensation guides for older Zeiss Jena filters I don't know whether which system they're using.<br>

I'll just have to experiment. Thanks for explaining.</p>

<p>Steven,<br>

That's what I thought. But I compensated at 1.5 EV and the film was somewhat overexposed. It could be because it was already 3200 ISO.<br>

I'll just have to experiment. Thanks for explaining.</p>