what do you see like: 2012

Third one down is great!

agreed - obviously it's great subject matter but you nailed it on composition and exposure.

lovely shots, seandalai

I've been messing with some diptychs lately for the hell of it, since realizing that so many shots exist in a couple useable variations. I dunno, and I dig the way they look I guess. I guess I've established two tiers of photo finishing now, with the stand alone color pictures on one level and the uncropped untreated stuff on the other (series stuff, diptychs, and b&w).
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7107/7482923398_d111bd3c85.jpg http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7263/7463748864_2d76acb504.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/7457474964_0b81a5b7ab.jpg

Haven't been out to shoot much, but one of my gf being annoyed that I have the camera out again.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8282/7517838486_a470136bab_b.jpg
UNTITLED by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

Was happy with this, taken when out flying/postering a gig.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7133/7523620754_6c39ced14d_z.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8001/7540061378_910fb12c1c_o.jpg

old

had sorta forgotten about the person in the LLQ and now i'm feeling p terrible. dude was right there.

how have you liked the 25mm on your E-M5, milo? I've read some people complain about chattering aperture blades.

I picked up the tiny 14mm prime for a song and have found that it's better than it has any right to be, for the size and price.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7257/7542531706_6ffabed3a7_z.jpg

that's lovely, gbx. muted like a painting. you were shooting digital then, right?

The 25mm is great. It's been quiet for me most of the time but after I mounted it on a tripod, it chattered a bit. I think it's because the camera went to sleep or something.

If it chattered that loudly all the time it would be unusable IMO, but as long as its a random thing nbd.

thanks, schlump! and yeah, digital. was going through old stuff for a presentation last night and (i hate talking like this about my own stuff but) was surprised that yeah, it really did come out painterly. lots of draped cloth. "classical" subject (doctors attending a patient) but with an intrusive cameraman (my bro)

also for real i did not remember that there was a guy on the floor, grasping at the doctor's coat

or is that his, i can't tell tbh

It never ceases to amaze me how difficult photographing food is. You need just precisely the right highlights, the right fill, the right white balance (if the meat looks blue, or even naturally lit, you're just going to gross people out), the right everything. These are very lovely strawberries, but I still count this as a lucky shot.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7132/7525833264_dc432b776f_c.jpg

or is that his, i can't tell tbh

― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 10 July 2012 16:14 (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ha ha i figured it was his! i hope so. i think we can probably figure this out by mimicking his stance & observing (just not in the mirror, it'll get more confusing)

btw i just broke a development drought & am gonna bomb this thread & my log as soon as i've spent an evening glassily scanning

http://i.imgur.com/8Gwb5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/eobPd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/420r5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/wfU7h.jpg

accidental self-portrait:
http://i.imgur.com/VQafa.jpg

successful self-portrait:
http://i.imgur.com/eoiFD.jpg

rad! your phots are so distinctive, clean & sharp.

Checking out the forum for the first time because I just returned from vacation with family at a underwater macro paradise just after my digicam flooded, and now I've got camera lust. The other diving parties were taking down $6-$9k kits, and I had a cheap rental digicam with no RAW, no IS and an AF that insisted on targeting sand behind the subject. Just a few keepers, like:

http://i49.tinypic.com/9qfakg.jpg
Uranoscopus sulphureus at night.

Ended up picking up a Olympus XZ-1 as my new compact/UW tool, which has a nice 2.0-2.5 lens, but after my research I've got O-MD E-M5 lust. Nice camera, expensive/but nice m 4/3 lenses. The chatter from the 25mm 1.8 prime (according to other forums) for m 4/3 is from aperture searching in auto. Shoot aperture priority or manual and you won't hear it.

The chattering on various bodies/lenses comes from the lens changing apertures to suit light conditions via the EVF or rear screen (so that going from dark to light or vice-versa wouldn't overwhelm the sensor/screen).

It was a big problem on the XPro-1 and 35mm to start with, they updated with a firmware change to slow the aperture shifts. Olympus could conceivably do the same on all their bodies (only the Panasonic fast lenses seem to chatter with Olympus bodies) but they don't have a real incentive to suit people buying lenses from Pansonic, I suppose. Except for the gaping hole between 24mm and 90mm equivalent from them.

The OM-D is boss, BTW. Only gripe right now is that I want the grip to make it easier on my hands and that only comes with a battery extender that I don't want/need, so it's a $350 grip.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7539774104_36be8f4aca_z.jpg

my dude

Giving my eyes a rest and aggravating my tinnitus with this...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7275/7569867574_e05fae1f6b_z.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7578532436_e268a904ef_c.jpg

In a graveyard in St Andrews. Surprised it's held up so well to whatever they cut the grass with.

I like that!

got my 5-Dizzle-III

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgin/sets/72157630594529560/

Photo wang friend of mine commented that he knew I got a new camera bc of the flesh tones and how true the colors are right out of the box. I don't do much w/ PS, so this was nice confirmation (I'm color blind fyi, but they seemed "better" to me than not)

Lovely, as ever. What were you using before? And what lenses do you tend to use? I know you're the master of the ultra-wide front-of-stage shot.

What struck me about the 5D2, when I borrowed it for a weekend, was how it seemed to just get stuff right - like tricky metering situations or bounced flash. A camera that's cleverer than I am. I need one of those.

beautiful, michael lambert.

http://i.imgur.com/s4xFg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3G3rg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PVtFe.jpg

Thanks guys!

The colours in that first photo are very nice, more NPZ800?

thanks!

no, its Provia 400x, cross-processed.

despite being hella expensive ($12/roll, plus professional developing+scanning since drug stores won't do it for you) its still my favorite way to shoot color-- ive posted a few other examples upthread i think.

man yeah they're lovely. there's something so funny w/slide, with the colours obviously looking too full on and vivid to be realistic, but also being really evocative of the texture and variegation of surfaces. the surf in the first picture, &c.

recent phots: not embedding because i think they're kinda big:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-tSUR8dbUpuE/UARkqDS6liI/AAAAAAAAAKA/GbnIwH4yvgI/s0/530.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-nya1rU7MTWs/UARkpxWKqtI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/VfZeqpBnyQw/s0/684.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yAohmFQTtE4/UARkoBMdz_I/AAAAAAAAAJ0/-oJ_v6RbuhM/s0/554.jpg

(the last of these is kodak extra-colour, e-6 processed)

one more, same roll, more surf, less dude:

http://i.imgur.com/q0lzq.jpg

(pulled that off of facebook since i'm at work, so the quality might be a little bit shoddier)

A few more things I'm happy with, hope no-one minds...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8023/7578015304_5814e5253e_c.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7585848960_36f5121d96_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7133/7585848106_c04164ee12_c.jpg

gr80 the one of the dude w the heart tattoo is mad ill

"What were you using before?"

5D vrs 1. the 2 came out about 9 months after I bought my 1 and I tend to go every other generation w/ my purchases.

"And what lenses do you tend to use?"

16-35 almost always. I have a 24-70 but I find it... unextraordinary. I'm looking at the 70-200

If you're interested in 5d3 video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlpZCKYLvZk&feature=g-all-lik

70-200 is such a lovely lens. heavy-ass pita, but lovely and sharpness up the wazoo, at least the 2.8

yeah I know... it's like a 'why do I REALLY want this' kind of purchase

gr8880 i love the bw beach stuff and the colour. i got some provia 400x today and damn it's expensive
and i got two rolls of the 120 version thirty bucks a roll! insane

real bad. i was looking through photos yesterday & found some that looked nice, checked the negatives & saw they were Reala - was psyched to be so pleased by a readily available film before checking & finding it was discontinued, i think a year ago or something?, i hadn't heard. between that & the ^^^ expense of nice colour film it is getting p depressing.

telling you guys, this is why I just stick with the cheap stuff. it's all fuji superia or kodak max here. messed around with chromes for a bit but there's no way I'm going to spend that kinda money on film + processing! and def not gonna spend ~$6-8 a roll for portra or whatever either! the rolls I got back in portra or whatever never even looked all that much better than my superia stuff.

anyway...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8026/7601419628_78716cdcea_c.jpg

"portra or whatever" is my go-to reference point for expensive film I guess.

I mean to me...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8160/7451776660_9a7a5ae37b_c.jpg

this looks pretty good for a $1.79 roll of film!

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2193030/fujifilm-discontinues-two-professional-films ;_;

it really does!, china, fwiw. but i just like the variety. there are times when it's great to be ready to shoot something & have the option to control the texture and feel of what you're gonna get back, like obviously with slide to be able to veer away from faithful depiction & into hyperreal stained glass colours, less representational photography. film has so many weird, brakhage-esque possibilities, separate from its original, documentative purpose, & i think they're an arm of the discussion about what using film means now, a tool - either in the kinda reductive way of using film to connote something based on its previous uses, like using a word in an old language we're already familiar with; or just to find a way to compellingly render what we see, like idk alex webb or robert bresson or whoever chose to figuratively, non-literally represent life as they saw it.

am really feeling the new deluxe american subsurbx credo on this, ft. szarkowski: "sometimes these new subjects are extensions of ideas that exist in latent form in the work of exceptional photographers of an earlier generation. Sometimes they are genuinely primitive ideas mothered by a new technical breakthrough or a new market demand."

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/6884/253wg.jpg

all of that said i am with you about using cheap film. (those phots are real nice). having used nicer film i have become surprised whenever i use agfa vista or colorplus* & get something good. but i'm sure a bunch of my nicest stuff is nice because it goes a little further, again usually away from the real, or in prettily rendering changes in colour.

* https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q-Qe_QSVHg8/UAgvl4K3cmI/AAAAAAAAANE/cL98MgA4Ras/s0/689.jpg

guess I just think 'nicer' expensive film is pretty overrated. good exposure + good scanning will get very nice results. but I suppose I'm really setting this up as cheapo films vs. portra/ektar/fuji pro stuff etc. since I see dudes rave about those films and then their pictures look... kinda... ok? just can't see where the money is going with that.
as for having "the option to control the texture and feel of what you're gonna get back" this is where controlling exposure and scanning comes in!*

*except that chromes do look and work 100% differently but that's all just a cost issue for me.

also slides are super hard to scan!

ha ha this is gonna be a i pay $2 more so i can fuck up the exposure thing. kinda sincere, here; i think the difference between a roll of superia & a roll of ektar for me is that i get back ten nicer photos on the ektar roll, but i can't tell the difference between those and the nice superia ones. i just had to work harder for it i guess. i'm still learning to be thoughtful about all that stuff.

most of the thing above was just In Defence Of Slide really; i think it's def sad when any of the big poles of varieties-of-film are compromised.

i usually get slide developed for prints, which have always come out fine, so this hasn't been an issue for me, but my scanning's pretty primitive, so.

I think I tend to go into auto anti-expensive film rant mode pretty easily. probably not a good look, and probably just due to a perceived cult-of-fine-films thing that likely doesn't exist.
if slide film was cheap and I could actually make a decent scan of it I'd def use it more, but I spend like $20 or something per roll!

and by the way, that color plus photo is *beautiful*