• LAVA Moderator: Mysterier

Photography Photography Thread vs. BL Shutterbugs unite!

damn, hydro, you make me want to fill my fridge full of film :D

what film would be good for 35mm b&w? there's some 100 ISO stuff on amazon, mostly Kodak and Fuji, wouldn't know what to do with anything as fancy as that p30 stuff
 
oh boy, you should definitely play with some bw 35mm.

my two blank and white favorites are ...

ilford delta 100. has a really fine, professional look. this is daylight or with flash film. great for portraits or smooth landscapes. if you showed prints from the options i'm talking about and asked 100 random people which was the nicest, this would be the overwhelming pick. also comes in 400, which is still very smooth and sharp looking.

and kodak tri-x 400. has more noticeable grain. gives a cool student film look. only for portraits if you want that gritty look; it can make a pretty girl's skin look so so. it's really an outside or flash speed also, but you can get away with using it inside if you have a normal to wide lens, good trigger pull, and still subject.

there's also ilford hp5+ 400. this is like ilford's version of tri-x. i haven't used it or cannot specifically remember using it. i've seen photos from other people and there's nothing bad about. it's got the cool grainy look as well. tri-x is slightly more contrasty. majority opinion favors tri-x for this look. only reason to pick hp5+ would be if you like a lighter look.

if you want to shoot inside without difficulty, ilford makes a 3200 version of delta. it's grainy.

i know nothing about fuji's bw film. they're known for vibrant, saturated color films. doesn't mean neopan isn't good.

black and white negative film is all pretty forgiving. looking forward to seeing what you shoot if you go for it.
 
toothpastedog, your post makes me think of photographers posting photos of sleeping homeless people. thefuck. i'm not hating on the photographers too much though. pretty sure it's the result of being oblivious in the pursuit of artsy. photographing the disadvantaged is certainly an area that requires a high level of cognizance and consideration.

on the note of photography and ethics: http://www.highsnobiety.com/2017/02/08/jonathan-leder-emily-ratajkowski-nude-interview/

super lame of him to give that interview -- at least the way he did, calling her intelligent an awkward number of times like it's evidence against her, commenting about how comfortable she was with her body, and talking about how intimate the shoot was like they're friends -- but i think this one is pretty black and white. she posed for those photos knowing they were being created as content to be shared. they're his for non-commercial use. this is not commercial use, even though the book is being sold for profit it is editorial just like a magazine sold for profit. that said, i wouldn't want to display photos the subject wasn't also happy with. i also don't make my living through photography. she has them posted on her website. seems like a money or career image thing. for both of them.

the brooke shields case is way more interesting. a minor photographed nude questionably says she wants to rescind her legal guardian's release signature years later. the court ruled in favor of the photographer. there are specifics involving money in this case as well.

Brooke Shields returns to court to prevent distribution of nude photos, upi, feb '83
BROOKE SHIELDS LOSES COURT CASE, nyt, march '83

writing on the case that goes into more detail suggests it is brooke shields' mother attempting to prevent further distribution of the photos as brooke had gained significant celebrity and her mother was not receiving further compensation for the ongoing use of the photos and/or it was distracting from brooke's then current career -- much like above with the polaroids. maybe brooke's claims did not originate genuinely, but it seems like a person should have some recourse against their stupid pimp parent indelibly selling their right of publicity. understandably, society seems to struggle in creating laws and norms that account for outlier parents not having their children's best interest in mind. a tricky thing to compensate for.

it's the same agency in both disputes, ford model agency now known as ford models.

one of the brooke photos remained controversial, later being in an "appropriation artist" copyright dispute. and then in 2009 an obscenity controversy at tate, which actually targeted the appropriation artist's photo of the photo.
 
Last edited:
loving this polaroid macro 5 slr with orchids ...

tumblr_olgadmIVsI1w68zzco1_540.jpg






was used by dentists and jails. think i only paid $20 usd including shipping for it. came in a nice camera bag worth about $20, and included all original manuals and paperwork. when i grabbed it a second ago for the above phone pic, i accidentally pressed the shutter release. costing me a little over $3. fucking film.
 
thanks! craigslist and ebay. i hear people rave about goodwill, but all of them in a 25 mile radius of me just have broken digitals. craigslist for rock bottom prices. ebay can be good too if you know what's up and don't mind tracking and hunting, and then returning 50 percent of purchases. always search sold listings in advanced search to know what you can really get an item for, because most active listings are bullshit. my ebay game is on point, though i just lost two auctions in a row because of slow internet connection at work. i always bid in last four seconds at home. make that 10 seconds at work going forward. i don't care about one, but i lost a mint 50mm nikkor f1.2 to someone who won at base bid. because mine didn't go through. fortunately today for a steal i got a 105mm f1.8 original owner, late serial number, in box, minty looking and described as "immaculate" without even internal dust from a 100% rated seller including for other lenses described steeply. i love ambient light, and this is so fucking fast for a portrait lens. i've seen pics of no-flash girls at night with city lighting as the background with it. shipped to the office to avoid harsh porch weather. arrives thursday. can't wait. i'll replace with some results in a few weeks, but from the listing in the meantime ...

s-l1600.jpg


people swear by the 2.5 version of this lens, responsible for that National Geographic cover of the girl with crazy beautiful eyes ...



i have 2.5 version in my camera cabinet right now. imagine how much steve curry, the photographer, could or did get for the exact lens that the light passed through. mine's sold and going in the mail tomorrow to make room for the above 1.8. fast is pertinent to my style. 1.8 to f22 at 105mm. fuck me.

if you click the photo you can see the full size with overdone unsharp mask. i recently took my unsharp for digital publication skills to the next level. high amount, really low radius, and a good bit of threshold. reduce image size by 1/2 util you're at display, adding an unsharp with reduced radius and amount each time.

and i sent my first two rolls of super 8 for processing and scanning yesterday.
 
Last edited:
I've been enjoying following this thread hydro, your passion shines through and is inspiring :)
 
dope sky shots on the previous page, Kittycat.


some street photography of old ladies ...


35mm provia 100f through olympus xa. through a dedicated dedicated lab scanner -- happens to be made by fuji, but does well with all stocks of film so far -- which is the only way i will scan going forward. cool sweater, yo.

tumblr_om547pykGU1v9quoao1_1280.jpg

35mm ilford delta 100 through olympus xa. scanned on my epson v600.

apparently i don't have too much issue with unaware participants. on the roll it's a succession of four photos getting closer and closer. from sidewalk, from her yard, from her porch stairs (the one you see), and then from the top of the stairs.
 
really inspiring work hydro, the shot of the clothing on the hanging line is both highly visually stimulating and calming to me at the same time. makes me want to figure out how my film camera works ;p
 
thanks, Mysterie!

to those saying they are interested in film, you are in a special time and could easily follow through. film is still extremely accessible. from individually purchased 36 shot 35mm roll to digital copies and/or prints for the price of lunch. you do not need to touch a single piece of darkroom equipment or chemical if you do not want to. for any household that doesn't already have a decent one lying around, the world is littered with working, high-quality, unwanted analog cameras due to digital dominance. things are changing rapidly. the line between operational equipment and non-operational antique is eating up the last few decades of good easy to find, easy to use stuff. before then, film will become prohibitively expensive and require lots of home chemistry or use of high minimum order labs intended for professionals.

if you are willing to play with chemicals in the basement or a community darkroom, you can still create true silver gelatin prints.

also my first reel (two three-minute cartridges of b&w reversal) of developed super 8 arrives this friday! i have a working bell and howell projector and screen to play it, plus it comes with my hard drive with the hd scan for digital sharing. in some weird file, because you do have to use pro labs for cine film but i have adobe premiere at work to export as mp4. i think it's going to be mostly over exposed because i'm not used to a fixed and so slow shutter speed. plus it's random stuff like people unchaining their bikes or just holding the camera out the car window. i'll be thrilled with whatever. that the charge is on my credit card means it worked well enough that they decided it was scannable. which means my camera is at least exposing a discernible image. once i see the film and how much to compensate for best exposure (and probably some other things i messed up), i can focus on the shots i want.
 
Last edited:
Great photos. I've been thinking about street portraits since hydro you posted about that last week and I don't think I could approach someone on the street and ask for their photo. Confidence I suppose.

I've had my new camera for a year or so but still using the auto settings, no editing even. It takes pretty good pics as it is :)

This morning overcast and raining -

33200239135_dce39e3f13_b.jpg


Sony Cybershot RX1 which I fully intend to learn how to use properly one day. Any pointers about how to clean the lens? Just with a soft cloth like a sunglasses cleaning cloth? That's something I haven't done yet and it's a bit grubby. I've seen these lens cleaning pens that have a graphite powder but they are more for big lenses

32817748460_9937b39210_b.jpg
 
microfibre cloth for the lens, Klue

thanks for showing off the ilford look, hydro :) should have my f90 but bloody left it at my parents place :\ still have to remember how to work the thing. Nat Geo always pumped the Nikons, i have the Afghan girl issue along with most of the issues from 1960 through 1990, the photography is pornographic 8o
 
Thanks thujone. I looked them up and saw some nice fancy zeiss ones that were 18 bucks but probably worth it
 
i have the Afghan girl issue
nice. i often hunt for back issues for single articles or photos. i want the nan goldin's "James Is a Girl" issue of NYTM so bad ...



every time i find a lot of old nytm, this issue has always already been picked. i've never seen it on ebay, but i imagine the price would be stupid.

f90 is a good camera. love nikon.

always breath on the lens before wiping, Klue; don't run dry microfiber on it. wipe gently and, it sounds like don't have this problem but, not often. zeiss makes great lenses and likely not their own microfiber cloths. but i wouldn't fault you for splurging and buying one. nice, deep color in that photo. awesome how small the camera is.

I don't think I could approach someone on the street and ask for their photo.
it makes me so nervous for the briefest moment. i hate it, kinda. knowing how happy i'll be once i get the roll developed helps. also having done it some and knowing the worst is a "no, sorry" that seems more awkward for them. it's situational. i would not approach and ask someone downtown in the city i live during the work day. it would be like begging for bus fare and likely would not result in a response.
 
Last edited:
got test rolls of super 8 back ...



that's shot on a canon auto zoom 518 with kodak tri-x 7266. which is actually a reversal film for super 8. shoutout to cinelab.com for developing and scanning.

so now that i've learned enough to adjust playback speed (filmed at 18fps, scanned as if filmed at 30fps), cut, and export in adobe premiere, it's time to move on to how to run the reel through a bell and howell projector. i also began figuring out how to play with levels in premiere, which the above video needs, but that's the kinda thing where you look down, then look up, and it's five hours later -- so i'll save that for another day.
 
Last edited:
hey Klue or anyone else who uses a camera without a viewfinder. how's that work out for you? are snapshots more difficult? do you find yourself taking multiple photos to get the framing right? is glare a big problem? do you guess at it and check after or do you use that screen to compose? thanks!

edit:
guess it would be like a phone, huh. i'd still like to hear about how it is to use, as i don't often use my camera phone like a dedicated camera.

ferrania p30 pre-orders opened today. doesn't ship until april 4 though, assuming i ordered quickly enough to be included in the first batch. there are 4 additional new stocks of film announced this year. analog's having itself a little deadcat bounce.
 
Last edited:
I used to have the same camera as Klue. I did have issues in some situations where it was all trial and error, but frankly that particular model, while the lense and overall functionality is great, is of limited shall we say "experimental" value IME. Then again, could have been I just didn't spend as much time as I could have learning to use the thing. A great camera for backpacking or traveling nonetheless.
 
reviews describe that line as a powerhouse with inaccessible controls. i am surprised to see that if you want a digital camera that fits in your front pocket, options are limited and the technology is barely there. it's the same with film.

check this thing out ...



sony mavica prototype from 1981. it's not digital; it's magnetic video. like a camcorder used to create a still image -- quality. a .28mp sensor. images magnetically saved as analog scan lines on a "mavipak" 2-inch floppy disc to be viewed later on a television set. models that looked very different actually went into production from 1987 to 1992. in 1997 they started up in what appears to similar technology but saving in some sort of digital image as a 640x480 pixel, ~31kb jpeg. still on then 3.5" floppy discs.

i was hoping to find a video of a tube tv projecting the the analog image, but best i can come up with is sample images from the zoom lens '97 digital model ...



from this thing ...

tumblr_omyq9metOd1u9yecko1_540.jpg


here's a sample image from the first commercially produced digital camera (not counting a 1975 kit that took advantage of a memory chip with light-sensitive data), the 1990 logitec fotoman / dycam model 1 ...

tumblr_omymihGPgx1u9yecko1_400.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top