shortscale photography thread.

Brandon W · Post by **Brandon W** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:22 pm

photos are unreal! Wow.

I have a few very cool photos but they aren't even close to this quality. I'll post a few anyways. Thanks.

Brandon W · Post by **Brandon W** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:57 pm

Who the fuck else plays blues with a guitar like this? Awesome! This is T-Model Ford and the show was such a blast. He played one chord all night and it was effective as hell. His wife, Mrs. Stella, gets up there and dances sometimes. We got T-Model and Mrs. Stella smashed. It was a night to remember. He kept telling me to go check on his guitar. I said it's there, why you worrying about it and he said it's the ugliest one up there but it's mine and it's the only one i have! ha! He had me sit next to him and take peoples stuff to him to sign and he would say ask them how to spell their name. I would and then he would put a big black line on the record or whatever he was signing and tell me to give it back to them and have them check the spelling! haha. He can't write but he made a joke about it and it was just perfect. It felt like i had known him my whole life. He told me so many stories about the juke joints in the old days. I love him and i can't wait to see him again.

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:17 am

Hurb wrote:Here is that link

http://claudiamoroni.wordpress.com/2011 ... 1-at-home/

there are other links in the blog post but it is really all about the video(although it is full of wankers the technique looks really easy)

ok this is awesome. I have developed B&W before (in high school) but like you said I have always been afraid of color. I think I may buy one of those tetenal press kits and try this out. seems no more complex than poaching an egg. there's a procedure to it and a technique and once you get that down you should just be able to regularly knock it out.

I can think of so many benefits to this. it's way faster and cheaper than going to a photo lab (which are becoming fewer and more expensive all the time). the convenience of it is huge. if you have a film scanner you have the whole setup. you can go out for the day, take pictures, come home, develop, dry, scan, and bam you are done.

Post by **Hurb** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:37 am

Mages wrote:
Hurb wrote:Here is that link

http://claudiamoroni.wordpress.com/2011 ... 1-at-home/

there are other links in the blog post but it is really all about the video(although it is full of wankers the technique looks really easy)
ok this is awesome. I have developed B&W before (in high school) but like you said I have always been afraid of color. I think I may buy one of those tetenal press kits and try this out. seems no more complex than poaching an egg. there's a procedure to it and a technique and once you get that down you should just be able to regularly knock it out.

I can think of so many benefits to this. it's way faster and cheaper than going to a photo lab (which are becoming fewer and more expensive all the time). the convenience of it is huge. if you have a film scanner you have the whole setup. you can go out for the day, take pictures, come home, develop, dry, scan, and bam you are done.

plus you can take pictures of your winkie and not have the embarrassment of having other people see it!

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:44 am

oh absolutely!

question: scan negatives or prints? it seems like both ways have their pros and cons.

Post by **Hurb** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:49 pm

Mages wrote:oh absolutely!

question: scan negatives or prints? it seems like both ways have their pros and cons.

negatives

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:12 pm

I've only managed to shoot one roll of film since getting back from New Zealand. I've taken the camera out a few times but I can't see things to take photos of. There are plenty of nice buildings in Belfast and I keep nearly taking photos of them, but I'm not that interested in photos of buildings because it usually seems like the interesting thing in photos I take of buildings is the way the building looks, not the photo. Similarly I can always seem to take nice photos of Tanya, but then she's nice, so that's not surprising.

I think that maybe because there were loads of places in NZ that I hadn't been or walked through without a camera, then it was easy for me to take loads of pictures. I could shoot two rolls on one half hour walk. Here, everywhere I walk is somewhere I've walked for years for other reasons, so it feels like there's a block or something.

Maybe I need to go places that I've never been before or go looking specifically for things. I quite like animals and nature, and quite enjoyed taking photos of ducks and pigeons and stuff. Maybe I ought to find something there. I really don't want to become a birdwatcher though.

Anyway, some photos from before I left NZ and since I got back:

I like the Skytower one.

Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr

Pigeons by P Rodgers, on Flickr

Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr

Post by **Hurb** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:19 pm

I haven't shot for ages. Too much real life getting in the way.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:24 pm

It's true that my job and other stuff are getting in the way of most things. I've noticed I've had to start working very hard it being involved in music again. I suppose it's sort of expected that other sort of secondary arts or hobbies won't get much of a look in if even music is being pushed to the periphery.

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:24 pm

This cat has been making itself at home here recently... don't know where or who it belongs to!

Post by **Hurb** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:42 pm

took some pictures the other day with my bronica etrsi tele(can't remember of hand 150mm I think) lens and close up filters.

here are the results, quite boring but I need to get back taking pictures!

and these are the last pictures I took before my long period of nothing!

Taken on a little nifty 60's toy camera called an empire junior(basically works like a Diana but made of metal)

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:04 am

Nice one Hurb! I am in the same boat... haven't taken any for a long while. Need to get back on it.

I took this today with my iPhone though, think it turned out ok for a phone:

► Show Spoiler

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:08 am

I've finally assembled all the stuff for color developing and will try it tomorrow. will see if anything decent comes from it. I only have an oral thermometer but I think it should be fine.

Post by **Hurb** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:50 am

Mages wrote:I've finally assembled all the stuff for color developing and will try it tomorrow. will see if anything decent comes from it. I only have an oral thermometer but I think it should be fine.

Awesome let us know how that goes!! I really need to do this this year!

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:09 am

ok, so I've developed four rolls now. I'm starting to get the hang of it now. now I just need to learn how to properly scan color negatives. I didn't even think about it but dealing with the orange cast of the color negative film is a whole vast topic, inevitably involving all kinds of digital processing.

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 am

here is how the negative comes out straight from the epson 500 with all auto-bullshit turned off:

massive blue cast right (because of the orange mask inherent in color film)

auto tone in PS:

looks great right

I find it massively frustrating though because I just want to see a faithful representation of what's really on my negatives, which neither of these are.

Post by **Hurb** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:03 am

Mages wrote:here is how the negative comes out straight from the epson 500 with all auto-bullshit turned off:

massive blue cast right (because of the orange mask inherent in color film)

auto tone in PS:

looks great right

I find it massively frustrating though because I just want to see a faithful representation of what's really on my negatives, which neither of these are.

I think the thing is different films need different tweaks, if you look on line for the film you were using you mind find help there?

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:18 pm

That looks pretty good to me. It might not be exactly what's on the negative but no one could tell. To someone who hasn't seen the negative the colours look pretty realistic / accurate.

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:08 pm

yeah I know but I just want to maintain some of the character of the camera and film I've used. if I'm just going to adjust all the colors on photoshop in the end anyway, it makes going down this route all seem a bit pointless.

well I've basically figured out what you need to do. it's something to do with there being too much magenta and yellow in the dye layers of color negatives. so you essentially have to adjust the levels to take out that excess. I have to learn and experiment with different methods of doing this.

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:30 pm

Hurb wrote:I think the thing is different films need different tweaks, if you look on line for the film you were using you mind find help there?

so far it seems difficult to find this information because it seems like the vast majority of people just use their scanner software's auto settings which just runs everything through a bunch of unknown digital manipulation. I really dont like the idea of running my pictures through somebody else's auto-correct secret formula.

I'll see though, I'm still looking around.