1
Photo Discussion / Re: What’s in your bag.
« on: April 09, 2013, 06:44:19 PM »
That 1.4 30 sounds great for low light portraits; architecture.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Photo Discussion / Re: Autochromes - Turn of the Century Paris
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:53:07 PM »
I spoke too soon. I assumed (incorrectly) that Rhett posted the well-known images of Autochromes that came from the Eastman House(which are on the Eastman House flickr page, incidentally). These are new to me!
http://io9.com/5979628/these-exceptionally-rare-color-photographs-show-paris-at-turn-of-the-20th-century
3
Photo Discussion / Re: Autochromes - Turn of the Century Paris
« on: January 30, 2013, 06:49:23 PM »
I had some tri-chromes up on Flickr but those fuckers wanted another $30 for a year from me and considering how everything is essentially free on the internet now I got shitty on it. I'll put some back up on my website at some point.
Look up James Clark Maxwell....Magic Lanterns....Lumiere Bros..
Autochromes were essentially a commercial version and from my recollection, created by Kodak. They are interesting but I think the work of Prokudin-Gorskii is far more fascinating:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html
These are NOT photoshopped or colorized in the modern (digital) sense. You can tell these images are legit color transparencies because in some of them you can witness what is called the Harris Shutter effect which is a result of different wavelengths of light refracting off of the lens over time.
Pretty lame Wikipedia entry on it but it describes it relatively well (albeit without history):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_shutter
Look up James Clark Maxwell....Magic Lanterns....Lumiere Bros..
Autochromes were essentially a commercial version and from my recollection, created by Kodak. They are interesting but I think the work of Prokudin-Gorskii is far more fascinating:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html
These are NOT photoshopped or colorized in the modern (digital) sense. You can tell these images are legit color transparencies because in some of them you can witness what is called the Harris Shutter effect which is a result of different wavelengths of light refracting off of the lens over time.
Pretty lame Wikipedia entry on it but it describes it relatively well (albeit without history):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_shutter
5
Photo Discussion / Re: What’s in your bag.
« on: January 28, 2013, 10:06:08 AM »I have several hundred cameras (as a collector) but the ones I shoot frequently are:
Nikon FE and FE2's with fixed 28, 50 and 55 (all 1.4) and a 300mm.
Minolta AL-F
Nimslo 3d (3d half-frame)
Canon Dial 35 (half-frame)
Bronica SQ-AI
6
AOM Archive / Re: Green Army Men
« on: June 22, 2012, 08:43:36 AM »
I bought about 100K "army men" about ten years ago directly from China. These used the very same army men (albeit outside of the ones I purchased) to pack the army men. Pretty meta.
These were the ones I "used":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/sets/72157626753872027/
more:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/4082247228/in/set-72157622746557736
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/4191790118/in/set-72157622746557736
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/4081404819/in/set-72157622746557736
These were the ones I "used":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/sets/72157626753872027/
more:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/4082247228/in/set-72157622746557736
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/4191790118/in/set-72157622746557736
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9093035@N06/4081404819/in/set-72157622746557736
8
Photo Discussion / Looking to buy a the Nikon 28 1.4 and need opinions on the SB600
« on: November 06, 2011, 06:24:12 PM »
Subject says it all.
Used 28 1.4 (long shot but). I can afford in the neighborhood of $1000
Also looking for (preferably film) opinions on the Nikon SB600.
Used 28 1.4 (long shot but). I can afford in the neighborhood of $1000
Also looking for (preferably film) opinions on the Nikon SB600.
9
Photo Discussion / Re: Arrested/Detained in Baltimore for Taking Pictures
« on: July 27, 2011, 07:58:50 AM »
Happens all the time in NYC. The Port Authority cops are so paranoid that if you take pictures on bridges or "targets" they'll arrest you. My friend was detained and issued a summons for trespassing walking across a bridge and taking pictures in the city (this was a walking path on the bridge). If he gets in (any) trouble within six months of the summons he'll be arrested.
However, he wasn't exactly cooperative. They asked to see the photos on his camera and he declined. That's what got him into (more) trouble.
In saying that, fuck those cops.
However, he wasn't exactly cooperative. They asked to see the photos on his camera and he declined. That's what got him into (more) trouble.
In saying that, fuck those cops.
10
Photo Discussion / Re: Film/photo scanners?
« on: May 12, 2011, 11:49:37 AM »
I have several film scanners. Generally flatbed scanners will yield inferior results to dedicated film scanners. However, dedicated film scanners are significantly more expensive. So, you get what you pay for.
I have a Epson 4900 photo flatbed which does a terrible job of scanning transparencies. Newton rings, focus problems, you name it. My Nikon LS4000 is a 35mm film scanner that I've had for almost 7 years and I've easily scanned a thousand rolls of film with it. I paid about $1000 for it new. They're probably cheaper now used.
I don't use any processing because it has a tendency to make unwanted changes to the source image. I prefer to scan ultra clean negatives and if necessary, clone out specs using Photoshop. Apply ROC is a definite no-no.
I think there may be a middle ground where you can get a good flatbed/good film scanner in one without paying > $1000. I've heard that the Epson Perfection series (specifically the Epson V700 for about $500) is much better than your average flatbed for scanning negatives and transparencies. Those things scan 4x5 which is a real plus considering the alternative is a 10K scanner or sending it out at $25 per scan.
If your computer is slowing down from scanning then either you (were) using a SCSI interface scanner or your computer was extremely underpowered. USB or Firewire scanners shouldn't put a lot of load on a regular semi-modern PC or Mac.
I have a Epson 4900 photo flatbed which does a terrible job of scanning transparencies. Newton rings, focus problems, you name it. My Nikon LS4000 is a 35mm film scanner that I've had for almost 7 years and I've easily scanned a thousand rolls of film with it. I paid about $1000 for it new. They're probably cheaper now used.
I don't use any processing because it has a tendency to make unwanted changes to the source image. I prefer to scan ultra clean negatives and if necessary, clone out specs using Photoshop. Apply ROC is a definite no-no.
I think there may be a middle ground where you can get a good flatbed/good film scanner in one without paying > $1000. I've heard that the Epson Perfection series (specifically the Epson V700 for about $500) is much better than your average flatbed for scanning negatives and transparencies. Those things scan 4x5 which is a real plus considering the alternative is a 10K scanner or sending it out at $25 per scan.
If your computer is slowing down from scanning then either you (were) using a SCSI interface scanner or your computer was extremely underpowered. USB or Firewire scanners shouldn't put a lot of load on a regular semi-modern PC or Mac.
11
Art Show Reviews / Re: Washington Color Field artist Paul Reed Shows at the Workhouse Gallery in Lorton
« on: February 09, 2011, 12:31:17 PM »
Ya this guy is great. Wish I was there to see that.
Hybrid Noland/Styll
Hybrid Noland/Styll
13
The lounge / Re: any plans for the 4th of july?
« on: July 06, 2010, 10:33:49 PM »
Big Daddy doesn't play with fireworks anymore.
I saw NYC fireworks live. Actually didn't think they were very good.
But I got drunk on vodka and was chased by Hoboken douchebags so all is good.
I saw NYC fireworks live. Actually didn't think they were very good.
But I got drunk on vodka and was chased by Hoboken douchebags so all is good.
14
The lounge / Re: any plans for the 4th of july?
« on: July 03, 2010, 11:11:26 PM »
smoking pot, drinking jameson.
xo
xo
15
Photo Discussion / Re: Interesting NY Times article...
« on: March 30, 2010, 02:42:35 PM »
The state of photography.
1) Get a D40 for Christmas
2) Suddenly think you're a photographer that can make money because you accidentally took a cute picture of your dog looking like it was smiling
3) Email picture to 25 people you know personally, they all say you're an awesome photographer.
4) Post ads on Craigslist advertising pet and wedding photography.
5) Get one response from someone that wants you to do it for free
6) Download photoshop and learn to abuse HDR
7) Get a domain name and put HDR pics of your dog licking its nuts
8> While waiting, knit a sweater that reads "precious"
9) Forget about domain name, use D40 to take pictures of sweaters you're selling on Ebay
10) Forget about camera a few weeks later, sell it on Craigslist
repeat.
I like how you can't use the 8 and a ) up there without making some douchey emoticon.
1) Get a D40 for Christmas
2) Suddenly think you're a photographer that can make money because you accidentally took a cute picture of your dog looking like it was smiling
3) Email picture to 25 people you know personally, they all say you're an awesome photographer.
4) Post ads on Craigslist advertising pet and wedding photography.
5) Get one response from someone that wants you to do it for free
6) Download photoshop and learn to abuse HDR
7) Get a domain name and put HDR pics of your dog licking its nuts
8> While waiting, knit a sweater that reads "precious"
9) Forget about domain name, use D40 to take pictures of sweaters you're selling on Ebay
10) Forget about camera a few weeks later, sell it on Craigslist
repeat.
I like how you can't use the 8 and a ) up there without making some douchey emoticon.
16
Photo Discussion / Re: Has anybody used Ektar?
« on: March 30, 2010, 01:33:05 PM »
AFAIK the slowest speed medium format color print film is Ektar 100. Fuji Pro 160S and 160C are both excellent films, certainly finer grain than Portra. 160S is the finest grain medium format film that I know of. It probably holds its own against Portra. Read the tech sheets for the films but if Portra is giving you too much orange then alternatively use an 80A blue- Red/orange essentially in same spectrum 80A blue should reduce the strength of both. Also make sure your strobe isn't causing the red/orange cast.
I'm not sure the latitude of Ektar 100 but it makes sense as a print film you could try shooting it slower and developing regularly- I wouldn't risk shooting it slower than 64 but I'm sure 64 will hang in there. Read the PDF and Google around, I'm sure other people have had this same question.
In my opinion Fuji makes superior film (in both print and chrome) to Kodak.
(On the other hand I've never shot Ektar in 120 so who knows it could be amazing)
I'm not sure the latitude of Ektar 100 but it makes sense as a print film you could try shooting it slower and developing regularly- I wouldn't risk shooting it slower than 64 but I'm sure 64 will hang in there. Read the PDF and Google around, I'm sure other people have had this same question.
In my opinion Fuji makes superior film (in both print and chrome) to Kodak.
(On the other hand I've never shot Ektar in 120 so who knows it could be amazing)
I currently use Portra NC 160 in my medium format and want finer grain in a color print film. Ektar supposedly has fiiner grain than Portra but supposedly more garish color with a red/orange bias -- definitely a concern for me as I often use a muted palette.
So for those that have used both, is Ektar have better grain than Portra 160? And are the colors a problem? Thanks!
17
Photo Discussion / Re: Instant film source...
« on: January 27, 2010, 06:48:43 PM »
That's pretty awesome but holy shit, pretty expensive too..
19
Photo Discussion / Re: Good Camera for photographing art?
« on: October 15, 2009, 10:14:38 AM »
to his point about repro, a 50mm lens is not going to be a prime lens due to the ccd multiplier. quick google sez 1.5x multiplier so a 75mm lens is the money shot.
for the nerd in you:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d60.asp
for the nerd in you:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d60.asp
20
Photo Discussion / Re: Good Camera for photographing art?
« on: October 15, 2009, 09:58:18 AM »
but seriously, if you're going the digital route I don't think you can go wrong with any camera these days. They're all cheap and they're all generally practical. I'm a whore for Nikon so i'd agree with any Nikon purchase. I shoot product photography with a 6 year old D100 and the thing kicks ass. These days all you're really paying for is megapixels as the sensor is the most expensive part of that shitty piece of plastic. FEW people need a 12 megapixel camera (what, you going to print a poster, really? nah, you're going to dump 72dpi to your fucking facebook more likely)- megapixel ain't quality anymore, it's quantity.