Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
That's a lovely timed shot; the way you've got all three faces (especially the duck) showing and the focus on the dog's face is brilliant too. Works well in black n white too.
I've just acquired a 35mm SLR; it's nothing special, just pocket money priced and it came with two lenses, one of which is now a Korean made paperweight (also a flash and a retro camera bag):
I've ordered a small battery (for the camera's light meter) and a roll of film from ebay, and I plan to have a play.
It's about 20 years since I used a SLR with real film.
I bet the results come out really disappointing!
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
Stop being so modest, @Tosh. You and I know that it's hard for someone with a good eye to take bad shots! heheh
@silver said:
Stop being so modest, Tosh. You and I know that it's hard for someone with a good eye to take bad shots! heheh
I'm okay for a n00b to photography, but when I go to sites like flickr and I look at some of the photos taken by people with exactly the same equipment as myself, or worse, with equipment a lot more inferior, then I know I've a lot to learn yet.
I'm enjoying it though and that's the main thing.
3
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
I say each photo is like a child and that they're all not equal - obvious talents and pluses make some look better than the next one - I personally hate to judge them that way.
@Tosh I bet the results come out really disappointing!
My artsy friend raves about the differences in light interpretation and blurryness with colours in film.
And instant photography (read: not polaroid) is wonderful, but cracking a fortune cookie of physical world film sounds like so much fun! Please post as soon as you can, I can't wait
I tried the film camera for the first time yesterday since I had to wait for a battery to arrive for it's light meter to work.
At first I thought the camera's light meter didn't work, so guessed the exposures for a few shots, but then I discovered there's a little button you push and the light meter works; it's a little needle in the viewfinder which tells you if you're under or over exposing.
So all good. I tried to get Mrs Tosh and/or my daughter to model for me, but they both gave me the 'middle finger' (they're lucky I'm nearly a Buddhist), so I resorted to old faithful, my dog, who will do anything for cheese and I've just about used up the roll.
One thing I did notice was the camera's limitations; it's fastest shutter speed is 1/1000th which meant to prevent an over-exposure in the bright conditions I was in, I had to stop down the lens, giving me a greater depth of field, which I didn't want.
I'll have the roll in the post on Monday and post up the results when I get them back (as long as they're not embarrassingly terrible).
Oh, I bought a cheap 2nd hand Canon powershot from ebay; I want a small camera to take running with me and this one has fully manual controls (which is what I wanted).
For such a small camera, I think it gives a pleasing result:
There's not much in the way of a shallow depth of field though; I think that's due to the small sensor size.
I like my filtering. Here is my first and maybe last digital double exposure. Combining a Qiqong practitioner and sunrise pic. Won't be using the 'free' app again as it was spam-ware; that is more ads than app.
Anyone know of a free without adverts Ipad app (never bought an app yet) that can blend two shots?
I don't usually stick my camera in Mrs Tosh's face because she threatens stick it up my bottom, but I nabbed a couple of cheeky ones when she was occupied with the cracks.
@Tosh said:
Oh, I bought a cheap 2nd hand Canon powershot from ebay; I want a small camera to take running with me and this one has fully manual controls (which is what I wanted).
For such a small camera, I think it gives a pleasing result:
There's not much in the way of a shallow depth of field though; I think that's due to the small sensor size.
Ahhhhh!!!
Puppy !
That's just like my favorite photo of the year.
I get the small sensor, but you sure took advantage of it in the sunlight, even if your options for preventing overexposed pics was limited
I took my friends kids out a few weeks ago and shot like 20 good pictures that were overexposed
I cant imagine the rage if my film came back overex
I'm glad you have your stuff together. Kids these days DO have it so much easier.
I've just started developing my own film negatives using a Caffenol developer (cheap coffee, washing soda, and vitamin c).
This was my first attempt and I'm pretty pleased (even if I did rush it and was sloppy in the process because I thought it wasn't going to turn out well):
Film Kodak TMAX 400, taken with a Yashica FX-3, 50mm f/1.9 lens.
@Tosh said:
I've just started developing my own film negatives using a Caffenol developer (cheap coffee, washing soda, and vitamin c).
This was my first attempt and I'm pretty pleased (even if I did rush it and was sloppy in the process because I thought it wasn't going to turn out well):
Film Kodak TMAX 400, taken with a Yashica FX-3, 50mm f/1.9 lens.
*Cry
Tear
Sniff
Can you be my uncle/aunt?
Seriously it's so pretty and damn the pure um, rough and tumble of the actual process and authenticity and its effect
If I had a printer I'd print it. I'll wait till I start class in a week and print it. Beautiful.
I've been playing around some more with an old (about 60 years old) Voigtlander Vito B:
It's very heavy, the build just feels like quality and it's a really tactile camera; when you rewind it or depress the shutter you end up with a dopamine hit; it's that good. It's in perfect condition; £20 from ebay too.
It's fully manual; not even a light meter on it; and being a rangefinder you have to judge the distance to focus it, which is easy close-up or when things are far away (like a landscape, but I find the middle distances difficult).
Anyway, I put a roll through it and developed the negatives myself (I'm getting pretty confident at it now; 3 rolls in):
They do look a bit 1940s.
Developing and scanning your own black and white negatives is very easy - and cheap - to do.
A rangefinder camera uses a split prism to superimpose a secondary image over the primary in a small rectangular patch in the center of the field of view. You focus it by aligning the images. The Vito B lacks this feature and so is called a viewfinder camera, or guess-focus camera.
I've been playing around some more with an old (about 60 years old) Voigtlander Vito B:
It's very heavy, the build just feels like quality and it's a really tactile camera; when you rewind it or depress the shutter you end up with a dopamine hit; it's that good.
I fell off my chair. You get it lol .
Yea there is something about the way it handles light that is distinctive, although I can't put my finger on it yet, but I bet after a few rolls you must be able to identify the use of similar cameras on other people's work, even if you are self developing.
2
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
I don't usually post anything tech-heavy here, but I do dream about having my Nikon back (35mm) but I know that's not gonna happen, but I stumbled upon this article that I thought you may drool over, like I sorta did...
@silver said:
I don't usually post anything tech-heavy here, but I do dream about having my Nikon back (35mm) but I know that's not gonna happen, but I stumbled upon this article that I thought you may drool over, like I sorta did...
I wouldn't say no to one, but DSLRs are pretty hefty things that I don't really want to lug about. They can also draw attention to you too, or maybe that's just my perception, which isn't great if you like to do candid street photography. That's why I use mirrorless digital cameras; they're still very powerful, but they're smaller.
I also think modern lenses are brilliant; they're super-sharp with often great contrast and what problems they have optically, it's often fixed in-camera, with the clever software; they beat old lenses in every area with the one exception of character (I think).
And maybe this is where 'Buddhism' can creep into it, but I also enjoy using 30-40+ cameras; it really makes me slow down and think. I use a handheld lightmeter to calculate the exposure (a Lenningradpro4 from the 1950s), sometimes I'll use a tapemeasure to measure the distance (if it's a close up shot and no-one is looking), and I take time to compose because I can't 'machine gun' 60 shots off in five seconds when I'm using film.
The process seems to be just as important as the result; it really keeps me in the moment too.
These 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' are only visible part of the day. They will be totally gone by 30 Sept. They also are invisibly under the Thames most of the day only visible to crayfish.
I saw it on opening day and there was a lot of filming and photos, I initially thought it was a film set. The actual name of the piece is 'The Rising Tide'. I instinctively felt it was meant to be the 'Four Horsemen' as have others. The horses are all partly 'nodding donkeys' used in oil extraction. The irony is very profound ...
Here is something a little more traditional. Trees growing on river boats. (Good plan - floating parks ... mmm ...)
Skyline includes left to right: St Pauls, Tower Bridge, Walkie Talkie, Tower of London (nestled in buildings), Cheese Grater, Gherkin ...
Like it. Beautiful and... yes it's balanced. The volume of the city is just enough stronger than the totally grey and cloudy sky. Soothing, too, although it has those electric blue glowings that tease a bit my nerve endings.
@Pöljä said:
Like it. Beautiful and... yes it's balanced. The volume of the city is just enough stronger than the totally grey and cloudy sky. Soothing, too, although it has those electric blue glowings that tease a bit my nerve endings.
As an ex-publisher (still editing) I would say something like that, with that kind of style and colours, would be a nice cover for a book of science fiction or modern fantasy.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"Modern fantasy"...? Oh...you mean 'Romance'..... Yeah, gotcha......
@ThomB said:
I'm still into film. I have a couple old Nikons, a midformat Mamiya and just bought, drum roll, a 4x5 Grafix. Let the fun begin.
I don't even know what that means, midformat Mamiya is some sort of Judo throw? To me film is like using vinyl for music. Charming and emotionally pleasing no doubt ...
Midformat = medium format. That means it's in between "miniature " which is what 35mm full frame used to be called, and large format, which is 4x5 and up.
My medium format camera is a Mamiya M645 1000s. I have the meterless head and also a WL. And many bricks of chrome down in the freezer that I'll never use.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Smart; I'd love to see some of your photos from this.
I'm quite getting into black 'n' white film photography. I've been ordering the film in bulk, loading my own reels, and developing my films in cafenol, though I've just ordered some kodak developer to see what the difference is.
I really enjoy the process; film photography really slows me down. I can't just machine gun 70 shots on my dog catching treats, like I can with a digital camera. The process seems more fun than the actual result.
I have a negative scanner to upload the photos from the developed negatives.
Taken with a Voigtlander Vito B (around 1950 camera); a viewfinder, so the only way to focus is to judge the distance, which I've been practising.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I have always loved black and white; to me, it strips away distraction, and simply leaves the image to hold the attention... Colour is wonderful; sunsets, butterflies and flora would be a poor imagery without it; but certain shots lead to contemplation, they calm the mood and focus the viewer on discerning the subject, without having to digest superfluous information...
Comments
My duck attacking my dog with my cat watching from above
.
That's a lovely timed shot; the way you've got all three faces (especially the duck) showing and the focus on the dog's face is brilliant too. Works well in black n white too.
I've just acquired a 35mm SLR; it's nothing special, just pocket money priced and it came with two lenses, one of which is now a Korean made paperweight (also a flash and a retro camera bag):
I've ordered a small battery (for the camera's light meter) and a roll of film from ebay, and I plan to have a play.
It's about 20 years since I used a SLR with real film.
I bet the results come out really disappointing!
Stop being so modest, @Tosh. You and I know that it's hard for someone with a good eye to take bad shots! heheh
I'm okay for a n00b to photography, but when I go to sites like flickr and I look at some of the photos taken by people with exactly the same equipment as myself, or worse, with equipment a lot more inferior, then I know I've a lot to learn yet.
I'm enjoying it though and that's the main thing.
I say each photo is like a child and that they're all not equal - obvious talents and pluses make some look better than the next one - I personally hate to judge them that way.
I ran a water station at the weekend with Mrs Tosh and some others for a 10k road race and took a few snaps;
I think I like this one best; it was a panned shot:
Really nice shot, @Tosh ...it almost looks like 3D. Is that with your new camera?
(more, more, more!)
My artsy friend raves about the differences in light interpretation and blurryness with colours in film.
And instant photography (read: not polaroid) is wonderful, but cracking a fortune cookie of physical world film sounds like so much fun! Please post as soon as you can, I can't wait
I tried the film camera for the first time yesterday since I had to wait for a battery to arrive for it's light meter to work.
At first I thought the camera's light meter didn't work, so guessed the exposures for a few shots, but then I discovered there's a little button you push and the light meter works; it's a little needle in the viewfinder which tells you if you're under or over exposing.
So all good. I tried to get Mrs Tosh and/or my daughter to model for me, but they both gave me the 'middle finger' (they're lucky I'm nearly a Buddhist), so I resorted to old faithful, my dog, who will do anything for cheese and I've just about used up the roll.
One thing I did notice was the camera's limitations; it's fastest shutter speed is 1/1000th which meant to prevent an over-exposure in the bright conditions I was in, I had to stop down the lens, giving me a greater depth of field, which I didn't want.
I'll have the roll in the post on Monday and post up the results when I get them back (as long as they're not embarrassingly terrible).
Oh, I bought a cheap 2nd hand Canon powershot from ebay; I want a small camera to take running with me and this one has fully manual controls (which is what I wanted).
For such a small camera, I think it gives a pleasing result:
There's not much in the way of a shallow depth of field though; I think that's due to the small sensor size.
I like my filtering.
Here is my first and maybe last digital double exposure. Combining a Qiqong practitioner and sunrise pic. Won't be using the 'free' app again as it was spam-ware; that is more ads than app.
Anyone know of a free without adverts Ipad app (never bought an app yet) that can blend two shots?
^^^That looks to me like someone ducking down from a fiery explosion.
Do you think that's some kind of Rorsch Test answer where they'd work out I'm a psychopath or something?
I have been covering a few jazz shows as of late...
[Kyle Eastwood Quintet 4-14-15 Burlington, Iowa](livegigshots.com "Kyle Eastwood Quintet 4-14-15 Burlington, Iowa")
Kyle Eastwood Photos
Did you take the photos...?
I'm still into film. I have a couple old Nikons, a midformat Mamiya and just bought, drum roll, a 4x5 Grafix. Let the fun begin.
I just googled to see what a Grafix is. Nice. Medium format too (I see you already use that). I'd love to see some of your photos.
I don't usually stick my camera in Mrs Tosh's face because she threatens stick it up my bottom, but I nabbed a couple of cheeky ones when she was occupied with the cracks.
@Tosh, She is very pretty.
That's the skill of the photographer.
Don't tell your wife that... it's the radiant natural beauty of the model, please...
With a bit of skill the depth of field might have included sharper dried flowers ... still Buddha is Happy ...
... as an exercise, I just sat and took pics from where I was, this was one of the results ...
When I gets my future silent drone camera, this sort of shot might be more feasible. For now have to look down from a bridge ...
Ahhhhh!!!
Puppy
!
That's just like my favorite photo of the year.
I get the small sensor, but you sure took advantage of it in the sunlight, even if your options for preventing overexposed pics was limited
I took my friends kids out a few weeks ago and shot like 20 good pictures that were overexposed
I cant imagine the rage if my film came back overex
I'm glad you have your stuff together. Kids these days DO have it so much easier.
I've just started developing my own film negatives using a Caffenol developer (cheap coffee, washing soda, and vitamin c).
This was my first attempt and I'm pretty pleased (even if I did rush it and was sloppy in the process because I thought it wasn't going to turn out well):
Film Kodak TMAX 400, taken with a Yashica FX-3, 50mm f/1.9 lens.
*Cry
Tear
Sniff
Can you be my uncle/aunt?
Seriously it's so pretty and damn the pure um, rough and tumble of the actual process and authenticity and its effect
If I had a printer I'd print it. I'll wait till I start class in a week and print it. Beautiful.
Thanks, Roots; you're too kind, mate.
I've been playing around some more with an old (about 60 years old) Voigtlander Vito B:
It's very heavy, the build just feels like quality and it's a really tactile camera; when you rewind it or depress the shutter you end up with a dopamine hit; it's that good. It's in perfect condition; £20 from ebay too.
It's fully manual; not even a light meter on it; and being a rangefinder you have to judge the distance to focus it, which is easy close-up or when things are far away (like a landscape, but I find the middle distances difficult).
Anyway, I put a roll through it and developed the negatives myself (I'm getting pretty confident at it now; 3 rolls in):
They do look a bit 1940s.
Developing and scanning your own black and white negatives is very easy - and cheap - to do.
A rangefinder camera uses a split prism to superimpose a secondary image over the primary in a small rectangular patch in the center of the field of view. You focus it by aligning the images. The Vito B lacks this feature and so is called a viewfinder camera, or guess-focus camera.
I fell off my chair. You get it lol
.
Yea there is something about the way it handles light that is distinctive, although I can't put my finger on it yet, but I bet after a few rolls you must be able to identify the use of similar cameras on other people's work, even if you are self developing.
I don't usually post anything tech-heavy here, but I do dream about having my Nikon back (35mm) but I know that's not gonna happen, but I stumbled upon this article that I thought you may drool over, like I sorta did...
http://cameras.about.com/od/nikoncamerareviews/fl/Nikon-D810-DSLR-Review.htm?utm_source=zergnet&utm_medium=tcg&utm_campaign=zergnet-test-606529
I wouldn't say no to one, but DSLRs are pretty hefty things that I don't really want to lug about. They can also draw attention to you too, or maybe that's just my perception, which isn't great if you like to do candid street photography. That's why I use mirrorless digital cameras; they're still very powerful, but they're smaller.
I also think modern lenses are brilliant; they're super-sharp with often great contrast and what problems they have optically, it's often fixed in-camera, with the clever software; they beat old lenses in every area with the one exception of character (I think).
And maybe this is where 'Buddhism' can creep into it, but I also enjoy using 30-40+ cameras; it really makes me slow down and think. I use a handheld lightmeter to calculate the exposure (a Lenningradpro4 from the 1950s), sometimes I'll use a tapemeasure to measure the distance (if it's a close up shot and no-one is looking), and I take time to compose because I can't 'machine gun' 60 shots off in five seconds when I'm using film.
The process seems to be just as important as the result; it really keeps me in the moment too.
These 'Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse' are only visible part of the day. They will be totally gone by 30 Sept. They also are invisibly under the Thames most of the day only visible to crayfish.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/02/underwater-sculptures-thames-london
Outside MI6 building if you want to swim by ...
Great sky too, Lobster.
"The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" outside MI6....?
The irony is indescribable..... (I'm assuming it's deliberate....)
I saw it on opening day and there was a lot of filming and photos, I initially thought it was a film set. The actual name of the piece is 'The Rising Tide'. I instinctively felt it was meant to be the 'Four Horsemen' as have others. The horses are all partly 'nodding donkeys' used in oil extraction. The irony is very profound ...
Here is something a little more traditional. Trees growing on river boats. (Good plan - floating parks ... mmm ...)
Skyline includes left to right: St Pauls, Tower Bridge, Walkie Talkie, Tower of London (nestled in buildings), Cheese Grater, Gherkin ...
My new baby. 4x5.
Just wow, @ThomB, my dad had a camera that looked an awful lot like that one!
Like it. Beautiful and... yes it's balanced. The volume of the city is just enough stronger than the totally grey and cloudy sky. Soothing, too, although it has those electric blue glowings that tease a bit my nerve endings.
Hey Silver, they were the press camera 30's - 50's. The famous flag raising on Iwo Jima photo was taken with one. Love real film.
I expected to see a big foot coming down on something in that one.
My dad's step-dad was a newspaper photographer, it probably belonged to him, come to think of it.
As an ex-publisher (still editing) I would say something like that, with that kind of style and colours, would be a nice cover for a book of science fiction or modern fantasy.
"Modern fantasy"...? Oh...you mean 'Romance'..... Yeah, gotcha......
I don't even know what that means, midformat Mamiya is some sort of Judo throw?
To me film is like using vinyl for music. Charming and emotionally pleasing no doubt ... 
Bring back the steam train!
Midformat = medium format. That means it's in between "miniature " which is what 35mm full frame used to be called, and large format, which is 4x5 and up.
My medium format camera is a Mamiya M645 1000s. I have the meterless head and also a WL. And many bricks of chrome down in the freezer that I'll never use.
Welcome to the 'double-Dutch' zone.....
I ment fantasy.....not in the pseudo...medieval Tolkien-like world.....But in the modern world without Tolkien copying.......
Yes, I know. I was just making an attempt to be amusing....
Smart; I'd love to see some of your photos from this.
I'm quite getting into black 'n' white film photography. I've been ordering the film in bulk, loading my own reels, and developing my films in cafenol, though I've just ordered some kodak developer to see what the difference is.
I really enjoy the process; film photography really slows me down. I can't just machine gun 70 shots on my dog catching treats, like I can with a digital camera. The process seems more fun than the actual result.
I have a negative scanner to upload the photos from the developed negatives.
Taken with a Voigtlander Vito B (around 1950 camera); a viewfinder, so the only way to focus is to judge the distance, which I've been practising.
I have always loved black and white; to me, it strips away distraction, and simply leaves the image to hold the attention... Colour is wonderful; sunsets, butterflies and flora would be a poor imagery without it; but certain shots lead to contemplation, they calm the mood and focus the viewer on discerning the subject, without having to digest superfluous information...
Lovely shot of Mrs Tosh...