Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZoetica
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2010
     (7334.1)
    Moments of pure metal and pure joy, both brought to you by the X Japan concert on Saturday here in Hollywood

    IMG_8000

    The show begins
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2010
     (7334.2)
    Zoetica, wonderful shots! Out of curiosity, what camera do you use?
    •  
      CommentAuthordispophoto
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2010
     (7334.3)
    last weekend's photoshoot of deaf sports tourney in Montreal. was asked to rush the basketball pics, so here's what came out of it...

    ODSA & ASSQ basketball
    ODSA & ASSQ basketball
    ODSA & ASSQ basketball

    i'm not much of a sports person, but i enjoy a challenge...
    • CommentAuthor256
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.4)
    DSC_0375-KL-C-A


    DSC_0073-C-KL


    DSC_0062-KL
  1.  (7334.5)
    (i'm sorry I've no pictures to add - my sickness has limited my photo taking to self portraits only)

    @oldhat-
    Couldn't you, at least in the beginning and getting used to things, bring a DSLR with you when using your SLR? I mean, take a few shots and see which settings work, and then apply it to the SLR? Maybe after doing that for a while the repetition will sink in. A light meter would still be preferred, but maybe you could at least learn how to better estimate ballpark notion of things?

    For everyone knowledgeable in matters of film and digital:

    Film is expensive. So, if I were to use a film camera, but when bringing it to get developed I only requested the pictures on a CD (can they give you RAW format from film?), or some other digital medium - then decided those few images I wanted to properly print out, and used the digital files to print the image from... would the resulting image be of equal quality and tone as though first printed from the actual film, or would there be degradation in the image quality?
    •  
      CommentAuthordispophoto
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010 edited
     (7334.6)
    @rachel

    funny you should ask, i started shooting film again, and the two rolls i did i had scanned to CD. my gf still has the neg & cd with her in Montreal, so i can't say how much difference it is in quality until she brings them when she comes down in a few weeks.
    here's one of the pics from the CD scan she emailed me just now:
    tunnelin' about
    there's two others in the self-portrait thread also.

    EDITED to add:
    just checked the metadata in the images: Metadata

    it apparently used one of these: Noritsu Lab
    and according to the company site, they're capable of doing RAW scans, so you might just need to request the scan for RAW, not the default jpeg. will possibly cost more, obviously, but just ask.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZoetica
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010 edited
     (7334.7)
    @oldhat - I use a Canon 5D. The top image was taken with a giant zoom lens, the lower one was taken with a 35mm 1:14 lens.

    @256 - Beautiful.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMunin
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.8)
    @Zoe: I dont know what it is about Japanese rock bands, but they are so much fun to shoot. A lot of japanese performers seem live for the theatrics and fan service.

    @Rachel: If cost is an issue, I would shoot black and white film, and develop it yourself. For about 30 dollars you can get all the gear and reagents you would need to process a metric crapload of rolls. And the process itself is very simple. Black and white film is also rather cheap, and you can get rebranded Tri-X 400 for about $2 a roll. As for the scan quality, it would depend on the people and equipment used to do the job, but I am not sure if the resulting files will match your negative, as different hardware and software interprets data differently, and some tweaking might have to be done in post to match the tones exactly. And then there is also the old school of thought that you should always print from negatives to preserve that fresh film feeling...
  2.  (7334.9)
    I don't miss messing around with a darkroom much to be honest - (or the pseudo-darkroom I had in my bedroom) the ruined carpets, the chemical induced headaches, the wasted paper, the incessant problems with dust or watermarks on the negatives, the test strips. Don't think it's that much easier or cheaper getting good prints digitally, but at least it's dry and doesn't smell... do admit that real prints are lovely though.
    •  
      CommentAuthordispophoto
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.10)
    @jonCarpenter
    it isn't art unless you suffer for it ;)
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.11)
    I can't wait to take the darkroom workshop again later this year and finally clean up the family's darkroom so it can be used. Such a great experience and with the right music I could totally imgaine myself in there for hours and hours.
  3.  (7334.12)
    You can't get real RAW format from film.
    RAW includes camera data that gives the programme your'e using a benchmark to work from for any post-processing.
    Best you get with film is RAW format but with no data to work from with regard to exposure etc. Still, at 16 bit, its a lot more malleable than JPEG
    Other issue is that CD will only hold roughly 14 RAW images, at 8 Million Pixels ( 6x4 print size) the files are around 56 Megs each.
  4.  (7334.13)
    @dispophoto I suffered... oh yes I did... so did my girlfriend and flatmates... so did my wallet, as I had to replace the carpet that got ruined by several gallons of developer...


    Gibraltar from the Sierra Bermeja road, Andalucia

    Gibraltar

    Gibraltar from Sotogrande, Andalucia:

    Gibraltar
    •  
      CommentAuthorZoetica
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010 edited
     (7334.14)
    Angel City

    Angel City glow

    Ghost

    Ghost
    •  
      CommentAuthorMunin
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.15)
    @Jon, I find that shots done on film possess a very distinctive quality, that is very difficult to accurately achieve with digital.
    @Zoe, shooting at night with filter on?

    City of Brotherly Loooove:

    DSC_1856
  5.  (7334.16)
    @munin I don't disagree... I love transparency film, and there's something magical about seeing a picture appear in a darkroom, there was also a lot of ballache involved though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZoetica
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.17)
    @munin - no filter, no post!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMunin
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.18)
    @Zoe, cool. Usually I get the inverted reflections of overexposed areas of the frame when I keep my UV filter on my lens at night.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZoetica
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.19)
    @Munin D'oh. You're right. I actually did have my filter on! Good eye, dammit!
    • CommentAuthorProgenitor
    • CommentTimeJan 13th 2010
     (7334.20)
    Wain

    sunn

    ens

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.