photo-breezing

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

that little glitchy black dot in the middle

transit of Venus imo

my guess is its the annoying automatic red-eye correction that drugstore scanners add to files when they give you a CD-R with your negs

I'm more concerned that the world through the front windscreen is mirrored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAxOTY5NzI1Nw==&mid=2649953157&idx=1&sn=c6fbda98ecc253f1b0287e7bedfddac3&scene=2&srcid=04165oojVHc8JIekOEy7mEOd#rd

so rad to look through these thinking 'this is a modern thing' while not being able to say 'this is a modern thing i can neatly slot into a category of trite contemporary tropes'. really lovely & hey i forgot abt this site

i like that the encouraged background music is shoegaze

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/magazine/the-digital-afterlife-of-lost-family-photos.html?smid=tw-nytmag&smtyp=cur

Thought-provoking. I've been working on some family photos, all taken by the no-longer-living. There are certain related, if less super-thorny, questions about privacy and how people choose to define and represent their own lives. Right now I'm dealing with a (woefully incomplete) binder of negatives my mother compiled in the 1970s, before I was born. Did most of these never get printed because they were crummy exposures, because she didn't like them, or because they just didn't have time to futz around with the darkroom stuff after my brother got born?

There's also an amazing letter, in a different box, where she describes to her sister her first, partially botched, experience with loading film onto a reel, with her and my dad seated on the edge of the tub in a blacked-out bathroom, with the closed toilet for a shelf. Just like my first reels thirty years later, she ended up with some frames touching each other, big blobby undeveloped areas. My delight in recognizing this moment as a crummy little stressful incident that my mother and I both experienced in our respective youths is commingled with my wanting the negatives to all be just fine and perfectly preserved. Nothing so heavy as what this article is dealing with, but interesting to think about. Meanwhile I just wish I knew what had become of all my grandmother's slides...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK19vsJCMBM

http://i.imgur.com/nGS20jQ.jpg

need 2 cop

http://shihlun.tumblr.com/post/146626203984/hsieh-chun-te-1968-69

wd love to see-
http://imaonline.jp/exhibition/sentimental-journey-the-complete-contactsheets.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/04/magazine/where-have-you-gone-robert-frank.html?pagewanted=all

this '90s frank profe rly on a part w/ beloved leiter interviews in chronicling Peak Grouch
so juicy

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/loneliness-belongs-to-the-photographer?mbid=rss

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIF0P00jGfA/

feel like maybe the photo editor who commissioned martin parr to photograph trump voters shd be executed

I really love looking at photog's contact sheets. It's like hearing the demos of songs or something; reminds me too that not every shot's a keeper for them either. (Except Capa, the bastard — his sheets are like hit, hit, hit, hit, alternate take, hit)

https://shop.magnumphotos.com/collections/contact-sheet-prints

https://67.media.tumblr.com/9a54c5b1ec3d8eb26677d9f3abaa36b8/tumblr_o7crj6wBye1tdmbcso1_540.gif

Beautiful!

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/11/15/apple-hardbound-photo-book/

lol

http://www.bjp-online.com/2017/02/ren-hang-leading-chinese-photographer-has-died-aged-29/

Shot a roll last night before I realized my exposure compensation dial was at -3

D:

“Rain is like a cheat code for photography”

rain is 50,000 dollars worth of free special effects

Anyone have experience with shooting in color and transposing to b&w in post, vs. shooting in b&w? (Talking digital, not real film). Wondering if it makes any difference. I should just try it out …

Unless you've got a Leica M10 Monochrom, you're always shooting in colour - pre- vs post- is just a case of letting the camera's image processing do the B&W, or doing it after the fact. With the former, you have far less to play with - there'll be stuff you can do in the B&W conversion on a computer than you can't achieve in-camera - but that's a good restriction to have. I particularly like setting a mirrorless camera to B&W, and seeing the world like that through the EVF. You end up shooting interesting things you were blind to because of the colour distraction. Whereas most of the stuff I make monochrome in post is to "save" it (or to change up a sequence of samey colour shots).

You can have your cake and eat it, and shoot RAW+JPEG, with camera set to B&W. The RAWs will still be colour, should you wish to process them differently.

Ah yes, good idea. Thanks Michael

if you remember how filters work w/ black and white film you'll have fun w b&w conversions just make sure you remember the difference between b&w film and color film wrt contrast

I'm with Michael on this. Really enjoy setting my camera to monochrome so I see the world in mono through the EVF/rear screen, for all the reasons he mentions. I find that I meter differently and my eyes are much more drawn to areas of light and contrast than they otherwise would be. Shooting RAW, there's really no downside.

Sometimes I deliberately switch to JPEG only so I’m forced to make the images look good in-camera. I do this quite a bit on the Fuji: set to 1x1 or 16x9 or Velvia or some kind of weird bleached pre-set and just deal with that all day. Wifi to the phone, stick a couple on IG as is.

And then, days later when I’ve dumped into Lightroom and the Flickr “SOOC” groups are calling, I can’t resist scratching that editing itch and tweaking a bit, even with the reduced latitude. So they’re neither one thing nor the other.

“ It’s the forecast that I might keep clicking even if I lost clear vision. I’ll be unable to see what I’m framing, and I can’t take them visually into my brain. But it’s supposed to be photograph. It has to be the fact that the shooter got a truth from each click with certain emotion though it’s not visually seen. Not for showing to public. Focus and resolution is not my thing now. If I can remember the fact in detail or not, is the condition of if I took the truth. Losing focus is literally rather meaningful in that point. Another essential value of photography is revealed to me. It’s fun changing game. “
-f7

“ It’s the forecast that I might keep clicking even if I lost clear vision. I’ll be unable to see what I’m framing, and I can’t take them visually into my brain. But it’s supposed to be photograph. It has to be the fact that the shooter got a truth from each click with certain emotion though it’s not visually seen. Not for showing to public. Focus and resolution is not my thing now. If I can remember the fact in detail or not, is the condition of if I took the truth. Losing focus is literally rather meaningful in that point. Another essential value of photography is revealed to me. It’s fun changing game. “
-f7

Can anyone recommend a service to convert rolls of film to digital ?

Where are u on earth

New York

kodak gold 1815 yen a roll. basic fuji was 200 yen more. just slightly more expensive than this second hand konica mg/d. i haven't bought film in a while. i spent the afternoon trying to find the most credible analysis of film price jump. settled on it being artificially cheap + supply chain as the most credible.

https://storage.googleapis.com/urbo11/urbo11/dasak1.jpg

Wow that’s pricey. Make each shot count !

It's all wildly expensive now. I have a briefcase full of 10-years-expired film; I'm not likely to get good results out of most of it, but I'm not going to buy any new film either.

People were giving analogue/manual stuff away 15-20 years ago. Everyone caught on to the vintage lens thing pretty quick; I'm hunting for a Canon FD mount wide angle (to adapt to EOS R body) and the prices are a little too high for me (and very high if you want 24mm).

not a canon FD expert but i've seen some of the SSC marked ones go for four figures. my understanding is that cine houses buy them to convert to cine lenses that they can rent out. they will pay top $ for wide angle fast lenses.

i've got a olympus om 21mm/2 that has sold for as high as $3-4k on ebay recently... i'm very tempted!

also, it seems like prices right now are not that far out of line compared to pre-digital prices. seems like prices took a real dive after digital took off.

https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/

here's a price list from 1995:

1995 Film Prices (April 1995 Popular Photography Article)

In the April 1995 issue of Popular Photography, the magazine declared this to be the “Golden Age of Color Photography” with more options available than ever before. With such a huge selection, picking which film was right for each occasion was likely confusing, so the magazine put together a five-page comparison of 101 different color films.

Lets stop for a moment and think….wow, 101 different color films! That’s not even including any black and white films. Boy, times have changed.

A majority of the article is in chart form, separating Color Print and Slide films in different sections and the available films sorted by speed, slowest to fastest from ASA 25 to 3200 color print films, and ASA 12 to 1600 slide films. Prices are listed next to each, although they don’t state where they come from and do not include processing. All prices below are 36 exposure 35mm unless noted. Emulsions from Kodak, Fuji, AGFA, 3M, Polaroid, and Konica are listed and a short sentence of each film’s strength is given in the right most column.

Here are some highlights:

Agfacolor HDC100 – $6.79
Fujicolor NPS 160 – $7.84
Kodak Vericolor III 160 (predecessor to Portra) – $7.84
AGFA Optima 200 – $8.11
Kodak Gold Super 200 – $7.57
Fujicolor 400 HG – $8.19
Kodak Royal Gold 400 – $8.82
Fuji Super HG 1600 – $10.56
Konica SR-G 3200 – $12.00
Kodachrome 25 – $11.31
Fuji Velvia 50 – $12.22
Kodak Infrared 50 – $23.09
Kodak Ektachrome 64 – $11.34
Agfachrome RS100 – $12.05
Fuji Provia 100 – $12.55
Kodachrome 200 – $13.86
Fuji Sensia 400 – $14.00
Kodak Ektachrome P1600 – $15.83

you don't need an inflation calculator to see it's in the same ballpark as what film costs now

A three-pack of Kodak Gold 200 is £55 at CameraWorld (UK chain, branches in SE England).
That was the absolute bog-standard film back in the '90s, £2-3/roll - often issued free when you picked up your prints if I remember!

You may well be right about the more exotic transparency films, but the most basic of negative colour film is about 6-8x as expensive as it was 20 years ago. I guess lots of things are...

And I can well believe digital cratered some of the prices above; certainly wasn't paying (equivalent of) $12/roll for Velvia 50 last time I bought it new 11-12 years ago.

Ah, and good to know on the Canon cine conversions!

The SSC stuff is pre-1979 (all "new" FD - the bayonet mount without the floating ring - was multi-coated anyway, without that designation), so in theory should be cheaper, but who knows.

Bit of a hole between 16mm and 50mm after selling a lot of stuff... a nice cheap 28 would be fine (ideally a fifth of the price of the one I sold :) )

here I was thinking I'd try to get into film photography but I don't think I can if it's this pricy...not to mention developing and turning it into digital so I can uhh use it?

just thought of the photo breezing thread since my brother's renewed interest in cameras has caused me to 1) take out my leica, load it up, and start shooting again, and 2) finally develop about 15 rolls from 2016, a mix of color and black-and-white. I'm relieved to learn that my scanner still works, after a software update that has forced me to relearn how to scan. might post more once I have some good scans. it's funny, since I've shot many many thousands of photos in the intervening years, but nearly all digital (and often work-related), now remembering how I shot 8 years ago, and getting the feeling back with the leica. holding it, I really do feel inclined to take very different kinds of photos! I also had no clue that film had gotten so expensive, and was happy to discover a bag of about 15 or so unused rolls, mostly Kodak Gold, Portra, some Ektar, and Tri-X etc. I can't believe how expensive this would all be if I were buying new rolls, paying for scans, etc.! Why do the kids do it??

the thing for me on film cost is that's the only barrier. it's jarring to come back to after not buying film but not to the point that it puts it out of reach if not ripping wildly through it. otherwise i don't mind. i don't have much to compare it to since i never got an updated digital camera. so apart from my phone, if necessary i still use a canon eos from the very early 2000s. it's good but it does require some effort to operate and make good pictures (less than shooting on film and developing, since it does just plug into a macbook still, but with more room for error and the chance of taking pictures all day and coming back with nothing).

70mm zoom lens is my business … and business is good!