tommarcus

trying to join a photography website, that wants people to post 4 jpeg photos, with a size of MAX 500kb.

WHAT software has the ability to take a 2mb photo and turn it that small? or even a 20mb file?

I don't know how much that has actually been studied.

 

Rodeo Joe speculated on it being the active ingredient, and I did a quick sloppy benchtop experiment that showed it. There's a thread on that somewhere here.

 

With that said, I haven't seen any published formulae on using pure caffeic acid. If you want to go that route, I'd suggest following the published recipes exactly rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

To be honest, with this entire thread, you seem to be doing that, and I suspect when it's all said and done you're going to spend more and have more aggravation and ruined film than if you'd bought some used tanks and reels on Ebay, and then some D76 or the like and got comfortable using that.

 

As for not shipping to individuals, that's true of most chemical companies. I just did a quick check of the big three, and I'm not sure where you're seeing 20lbs, but the only mass quantity I see is 25kg(~55lbs) from Spectrum through VWR. That's $13K logged in with my institution credentials, which is typically a pretty decent cut of retail(VWR is who the higher ups tell us should be our preferred supplier). The other two typically sell 5g-25g quantities at various purities, and a typical price I'm seeing is $200-300 for 25g. Again, that's our contract price through work, and not necessarily what someone else would pay. The most common use I know of for it is as a matrix for MALDI-MS, which you need both high purity and small amounts.

ive seen it listed as a advanced research compound for anti cancer research. Even seen it listed as being used for experimental cancer treatment already. I cant even get companies to give me a price on it.

the acid content isnt a given with instant coffee. its why the volume is so much.

i think it depends on the following....

1. accuracy of the meter system being used

2. how the film gives best results for your individual meter system and camera. ie, if it gives best results by keeping the match needle in the bottom half of the circle, keep it that way.

3. the ideas of the lab that does the development and printing. that is were the over exposure goes from "acceptable" to "jesus christ on a stick, even ray charles would yell about that"

If you can find a copy of the "Cinematographer's Handbook" of that era, it explains how optical effects were created "old school"

 

BTW, "Mixed media" usually refers to mixing two or more media in a single piece, like painting on a photo print, or doing impasto over a bas-relief sculpture.

Ive seen alot of work, referenced as mixed media on the internet that was one of the following:

1. live action film, with hand drawn cartoon charecters in it. "who framed roger rabbit" is the best example, the old film "bed knobs and broom sticks", and the cartoon "Bobbies World".

2. the mindless and endless drivel of photo shopped creations of naked women super imposed into a different photo or with unicorn and rainbow pictures skattered all over.

currently use a 256 gb one, rated for 4k uhd video. At the cheapest quality jpeg setting and small file size, i can get 16,000 images.

Trying to find a source for low cost, smaller sized memory cards. So many companies slap "high speed" and "extreme" on cards, its a joke trying to figure out what is what speed wise.

Is there a good part number to hunt down.. or just make sure it says "4k UHD video rated"

my

Double exposure? No. Composite? Yes.

 

These require two images and a mask/overlay. To do it well, you need to carefully match the lighting, color and shading of the two images. Then you mask off everything except the model in the live image and lay it over the model image.

d7500 can combine up to 20 images into a standard "double exposure" type image. I was thinkin just 2.

I understand the "keep the lighting the same for both images." I even understand the "keep the light coming from the same point for both images" trick.

Went looking at lego sets.... Man it was bad. just avengers and some ninja crap.. What happened to Lego town?

Did find a wierd toy for little kids.. Some kind of female robot kid charecter.... with a flying jockstrap as an accessory toy.. Still cant figure that one out.

FWIW,

A couple of years ago I was in B&H and got to play with the Tamron, the Sigma and the Nikon in that zoom range. I liked the Nikon best; it felt better in my hands and the quality "felt" better. Admittedly fuzzy and subjective, I know. I could only take test shots in the store (on my d810). I was looking for something that could be used for solar eclipse shooting. I remember thinking that if and when, they were all good, but I preferred the Nikon, even with 500 vs 600. Point is that if the OP has access to a shop where he can try on all three, making a decision after handling would be a lot easier.

I live in michigan, and there really isnt any sort of actual camera shop.

There are a few places that have 1 or 3 camera bodies in stock, but they operate just like at meijers,,,, it stays in the case until its SOLD.

Ask to see a lens... nope, You open,,, you just bought it.

And the ones that ADVERTISE as having cameras and lenses in stock.... they take your money,,,, THEN they buy the camera or lens for you.

As a

The illustrations I've seen of developing roll film in trays show "see sawing" through the tray. Bear in mind that many of these were planned around roll film(120 or other sizes) which are usually ~3ft long. 35mm-36ex is around 5 feet, so you have a fair bit more to handle.

 

It CAN be a handy trick if you're trying to develop ancient film in an oddball sizes for which you don't have a reel, but then the cheap little Yankee Clipper tanks and some other adjustable size plastic reels can often be modified to work with an odd size.

 

Tanks and reels are cheap and easy to use. Even a simple Yankee Clipper(which is not my favorite tank despite being my first) is serviceable and with current film prices, a few messed up rolls developed in a tray would pay for it.

 

Also, I'll give the same advice I often give with caffenol and other home-brew developers. When you're learning to develop film, IMO you're much, much better off with a commercial developer. A packet of D76 is around $10, and dissolved in a gallon of water will develop a lot of film, A bottle of HC110 syrup is more expensive, but will last you forever(both in terms of how little you use and the infamously long shelf life of the concentrate). These two developers are so ubiquitous that you can find developing times for virtually any film you can imagine.

 

For your own sanity, get your developing process down with a known good, repeatable chemistry. When something goes wrong(it most likely will sometime in your first couple of rolls) fresh, good chemistry can rule out a lot of problems.

 

Once you've done that, experiment with alternative chemistry to your heart's content. They're fun if you like doing that, and even more fun if you understand the chemistry behind them and understand how all of them affect the developing process. I'm a chemist, so enjoy the first and am slowly building my knowledge of the second.

As a chemist can you name one company that sells to private individuals Caffeic Acid? I can find places that sell 20 pound containers of the powder to LABS,,, but not private individuals. As thats the heart of caffenol... thats where the actual research needs to start.

I made a sort of slime that turned into a sort of glue. I used bergger pancro.. i did get developed film, but i got a crap load of stuck frames. Sadly i used the wrong method, i used agitation. All the bergger and caffenol remarks i see NOW, afterwords only mention stand development

going to try caffenol. and well you can make huge amounts of that all you want for little.

i still need to get reel and tank stuff, but i got alot of trays floating around the house.

LOL!

And there's an alien base on the dark side of the moon.

They get mad if you talk about that base. Last time i told anyone about it, all my beer got replaced with......... diet walmart brand cola.....

Its the oldest way, hold an end in each and and sweep back and forth. Not the greatest if you use film that cant use a safe light. And length of time to boot.

How much complication does it make if you use classic SHEET film practice to develop roll film in a tray? IE just lay it in, and fill with developer and once in a while use something to swish the film around?

double exposure has been used to do lots of interesting things. The MOST common is the over done, over wrought "person trapped in a glass" and "person trapped under a jar" type stuff. Or to make a photo of someone dressed up in charecter as say an elf, and then put them into a macro shot of grass and weeds to make them super tiny elf...

What i am curious is, can standard double exposure work be used to combine a still shot of an action scene with a scene of a model?

In The Dollhouse - The English Group

Take a look at these, these are posed people. The makeup in a few is a give away and the hand movement in 1 says real model. However my idea is, how HARD would it be to take a close in shot of a doll house dining room, and place out two live models on a black screen and black objects spaced out to be in the dining room chairs, and then combine them as a double exposure?

or would that necessitate the use of photo software to do correctly? Yes before anyone asks, I am a fan of the original Star Trek special effects. Sometimes balls of multi colored plastic film wrappers with tiny lights shot through can out do modern cgi.

This is a fun question, and is based in theory on how some special effects were done for a movie called star wars. IF you have older versions of the original films on tape, you can SEE the effects bleed through in the final product.

Heres the thing, I have an idea for a fun little photo project and i need to use these examples to help make it easy to get the idea across.

In Empire, during the snow speeder versus giant walkers, ILM simply used a simple masking matte of the forward view of the snow speeder as an overlay on the pass through shot around the walkers to show the movie goer the view of the attacking pilots. In most of the scenes you can see they used a thin transparency and the walkers are slightly visible through the mask.

Is this something that can be done by say going online and printing out/buying a transparency of say a ww2 nose gunners view and sticking it on the end of the lens...

or would it have to be done as a double exposure or would i be forced to simply use light room?

how does the developed film come out though? Thats the question to ask onself.. at least with cameras that use the bubble on a stick with a balance needle, you have slightly more exposure latitude. youll be within a certain range of "acceptable" EV if you keep the stick inside the bubble. With my cannon FTb i learned that some films in some situations need the stick in the top half or bottom half based on how bright it is outside.

I think its why SOME of the european brands of black and white film have been getting a resurgence among film users. ONE of them, i know offers a range of 10 stops of exposure correction if you use their proprietary developer.

I agree that mini-lab scans are not worth the money - low resolution, poor quality JPEG with exaggerated color. There are alternatives to paying $15 and up for custom scans. I and many others produce good results digitizing film and slides with a digital camera. They are as good or better than scans made on a dedicated film scanner, and take a fraction of the time. I can say this because I have a Nikon LS-4000 scanner for 35 mm and an LS-8000 for medium format.

 

At some point you ask yourself, "If digital cameras are that good, why do I need film?" I have many years of unscanned film and slides, and using a camera for digitization is the only way I can hope to finish. I haven't bought nor used film for nearly twenty years.

Alot of the scanners you can buy online arent that great quality wise until you hit the magic level of 800$ going by reviews... At that point one wonders because ONE of the places i used with bad scanning results used a professional scanner that retails for 3200$.

The use of a lens mounted film scanner set up is wonderful until you see the price on them, and that at least the one sold by Nikon only works with two lenses they make, and each lens costs 8-1000$ on top of 5-600$ for the attachment.

Alot of places make the bulk of their film developing by charging and arm and a leg to scan it for you. The scanning is just like the development, no guaruntee that it will look good. In fact most of the scanned images i have gotten, were worse then the scans i did myself with a 10 year old film scanenr with a 5 mp output..

Example one famous spot charges you 10 dollar a roll for 35mm c41. then charges you that much to scan it, UNLESS you pay them 6 dollars for a single print sent of photos, then scan is only 6.99

Asked them about it, and they really did believe it was a savings..

When there are PROFESSIONAL places that scan film for 20$, 20$ minimum. And they have the nice big fancy scanners that let them adjust each image if neeed.... Some of these scanners are the nice big ones that can scan an entire reel of 35mm movie film in little time.

The one I remember was a Yashica Electro looking body that had "cartridges" that would fit into it.

 

Best as I could tell at the time, it was just a conventional low-end digicam. The "cartridges" essentially programmed the camera to give a specific type of output(B&W, high saturation color, muted color, funky instagram filter color). It was no more a film camera than a Fuji XT100, but was inferior in every single way to a even a $100 digicam.

It might be the one im thinking of, but this was in the last 18 months that i saw that company web site. Just a go fund me thing i believe, with a rather nice product photo, nice video. It did seem wierd to have a special memory module when a cheapo one can be bought for nothing at walmart these days, and not have all the expense of specialized shapes....

If I recall correctly, this was a rehash of the scam from years ago when an exactly similar system was announced, but never produced.

the item the OP here linked to on b and h, was an actual product, it even had a review about 2 years ago on the film photography project website.

But the product i mentioned was an actual camera, digital from the get go, but used a wierd oddball memory cartridge shaped like a 35mm canister