Quake3World

what r the things on the tree

Thanks for the comments guys. :icon25: Here's one I shot of my little boy this afternoon.

[lvlshot]http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5021/babymason1hq6.jpg[/lvlshot]

Is teh B&W film, prince? I'm doing a project and I'm trying to decide if I want to push the Tri-X I have or get some Ilford Delta 3200 or Tri-X TMAX 3200

-SKID- wrote:Thanks for the comments guys. :icon25: Here's one I shot of my little boy this afternoon.

[lvlshot]http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5021/babymason1hq6.jpg[/lvlshot]

Did you selectively color the eyes with an in-camera filter or did you do it in post processing? I've always been amazed how good some cameras will do on their own without photoshop.

ctrlnuke wrote:what r the things on the tree

whats left after a cicada molts.

id love to go here:

Dave wrote:Is teh B&W film, prince? I'm doing a project and I'm trying to decide if I want to push the Tri-X I have or get some Ilford Delta 3200 or Tri-X TMAX 3200

no digital @ 1600.

i would go with tmz if i couldnt get my hands on fuji's 1600. ilford films are flat in general and pushing tri-x 3 stops isnt worth it if you have access to higher rated films.

Dave, are you going for the hard gritty look? Pushing Tri-x 3 stops is a hard one, IQ suffered quite a bit even when I tried pushing it 2 stops. Also are you developing yourself? I personally love Tri-x but for higher ISO, ie 3200 I use TMAX3200 with good success.

Oh yeah, got a little impulsive in the past two days and ordered me-self the Voigtlander 12mm along with a Bessa-R3m/50mm F2 Heliar. Can't wait to shoot Europe with it next spring...Halleluyah!

no grit, just low light. I thought the TMAX 3200 was called Tri-X TMAX 3200, so I wasn't going to push Tri-X 400 that far. If I push it will only be to 1600

Forgot to mention with film nowadays I cheat and shoot everything in colour(velvia 100/provia 400NPH). Photoshop is so handy that I can achieve the B&W look I want so I don't bother with the hassle of developing B&W film.

Dave wrote:no grit, just low light. I thought the TMAX 3200 was called Tri-X TMAX 3200, so I wasn't going to push Tri-X 400 that far. If I push it will only be to 1600

hmm..if I remember correctly, Tri-x is fine grained and Tmax is super fine grain, plus Tmax is bias in terms of contrast with highlight areas and lower in the shadows where as Tri-x is the opposite. I've always like the classic look of Tri-x vs the newer improved TMAX.

I could push the Tri-X I have to 1600, but the 3200 might be easier to handle and give more detail. I'm going to shoot a high school basketball team documentary style, so I forsee light being an issue. I'm not going to shoot plays during games where high shutter speed is a key, but I am looking for DoF. I could always use a flash, but I want to avoid going that route if at all possible unless the flash adds to the look. For instance, I like to zoom the flash to 105 then shoot in 28-50mm range.. that makes some interesting effects.

why are you shooting film over digital? are u printing everything yourself?

just go with tmz (tmax 3200)

first shot in daylight of the 70-200 f4 l. messing about at the farm.



100%

prince1000 wrote:why are you shooting film over digital? are u printing everything yourself?

just go with tmz (tmax 3200)

It's for class, I don't have any choice... But I really do like shooting film. It doesn't have the instant gratification of digital, but it really adds to the experience. I'll probably try a roll of TMZ, but I hope I can get away with Tri-X at 400 and a flash

Doombrain wrote:first shot in daylight of the 70-200 f4 l. messing about at the farm.

Piss them off and get them to attack you.. that can be fun

i'll piss it off when i'm eatting it at christmas

ha

mac wrote:

Grandpa Stu wrote:

Dave wrote: I was going to make it into wallpaper, but I can't figure out how to crop it without getting rid of someone...

edit: i was just playing around with the image a bit and doing an even crop on both sides isn't all that bad...however it does kinda unbalance things a bit and a lot of the focus is then directed towards the background/cieling of the picture. it really just needs to be left in the wide aspect ratio it seems :icon26:

i gave it a try too, croped lady no.12 cause she is standing in front of another player whoose arms are visible. makes her look odd on the first glance. also tilteld the image a bit to the left so 7&1 are roughly on the same height on each border. noticed then that the players heads form an V similiar to the pipes on the ceiling..

[pic]

good crop bad crop, dunno


@birds: lol, first i thought WTF are the birds doing there at the wall of the building.. then opened the big version to see that they are fake one hehe, nice image

OK crop, I just didn't want to hack anyone off. I think I'll just do letterbox style black bars like FX suggested

your injoying film now i see

its great fun.

i could not believe the diff between cheap film and costly film.

i went to the pro shop in town and bought a couple of each of the most costly'est films.

just kodak and fuji , i kinda agree with prince about ilford.

i find i usually prefer fuji overall tho

TehChozenTwo wrote:

werldhed wrote:

TehChozenTwo wrote: Yep, Minnesota, where are you from?

Aye, same. Minneapolis, though... which by the look of it, you aren't remotely near.

shaft wrote: heh, I was just about to ask that same thing.

Well I'm somewhat near, go up 65, or 35 a little ways.

That could be just about anywhere.. . Blaine, Bethel, Isanti, Cambridge... I'm going to guess from the look of the picture that it's near Bethel...
(don't worry, I'm not trying to stalk you)

btw, I was driving past your neck o' the woods this morning -- driving home from Mora on 65.

Man, I'm bored today...