Replies to theironpony, page 23
-
@gear good luck.
-
@gear somepony is happy in that pic
-
@gear You are the ummmm I lost count on how many ponies said that today.
-
@gear thank you very much im going to be contacting a few groups i know like i said any ideas are welcome. we want sort of a list of things we can do and although i already have some basic things we can do i would love to extend this and get some full on activities.
-
@gear thats cool currently im looking for locations in La that would be willing to hold us the best way to do this is tell them that its a meetup and it will draw in a bunch of people. another way to do this is to find a studio that would be willing to let us stay. in essence the first thing we need is a space and then we can start planning everything else. Along with that if you are present in any other forums that have a socal presence then please talk about this there
-
@gear Hecks yeah! Get an old 4WD 5 speed Justy, put some good brakes and suspension on there, and find a way to mount a decent engine in the bay and get a good transmission to go with it, you would have a pretty darn good rally car.
-
@gear Alright, very tankish.
-
@gear It's built like a tank, right?
-
@gear Petter! Named after Petter Solberg, the last WRC driver to win a championship for Subaru.
-
@gear Name it Granny Smith.
-
@gear Shiela.
-
@gear Yep. Black and white is about light and contrast, and photography is about the capture of light. Even the word photography translates to 'drawing with light'.
-
@gear Oh, huh. I guess Kodak does make some 120 film. I know dick all about shooting colour, it's not my thing. If someone still made 25 iso colour film, I'd be interested in it for long night exposures, but if I'm gettin' grainy, I really want black and white. Black and white works for what I shoot, too. My pictures wouldn't be the same if they were in colour, heck, I don't think they'd even look good if they were in colour.
-
@gear Even medium format is nutty, check this shot out; http://www.flickr.com/photos/30029820@N03/5402236666/sizes/l/in/photostream/ I know it's a low resolution picture and it's been scanned, but it's super sharp. I really wanna get into medium format photography. 35mm is dirt cheap, but medium format cameras are the opposite of cheap. At least Ilford is still making 120 film, and it only comes out to about 50 cents per exposure.
-
@gear Yeah. Have you ever seen the resolution of a 4x6 negative? It's nutty. You can not match the resolution you get from 24 square inches of silver halide atoms. I've been wanting to get into enlarging, I'd need to buy an enlarger and somehow devise a darkroom, but I know if I did, hipsters would totally buy framed prints of this shot; http://www.doctormowinckel.com/photo/?portfolio=ashtray-2 then ask what Hipstamatic filter I used to make it.
-
@gear Some of those are pretty gewd, d00d! You OBVIOUSLY like shooting with a shallow depth of field. So do I. Give me 1.8 and I will use it! I just started a photo site thingy, it can be seen here; http://www.photo.doctormowinckel.com/ Some developing anomalies, but some of the shots are good. And I don't shoot colour, so I can't recommend colour film. Lately I've been wanting to get into medium format photography, was looking at $200 Minolta TLR today, really wanna snag it.
-
@gear You don't need a darkroom to develop film. Google developing film without a darkroom, you can buy everything you need for about $50. And yeah, for me, taking pictures in digital is just taking a picture, but film, you make a picture. That picture is yours and you own it, nothing can take away from you, and that's an awesome feeling. Do you have a portfolio anywhere online?
-
@gear YOU ARE MAKING ME JELLY
-
@gear I do like those AE-1s, they're freakin' tanks. Those cameras can double as a hammer. Do you shoot colour, or black and white, or both?
-
@gear If I'm shooting something that isn't a throwaway shot for a social networking site, I'm shooting film. Not because I think it's better than digital. Film isn't better than digital, and digital isn't better than film, but because film forces you to be a better photographer. When you have 36 exposures, you really think about your shot. And the anticipation that builds when you take a shot you know is awesome, when you develop it, take it out of the reel, hang it up, see it, and it looks good, that is way more satisfying than chimping your shot on a digital camera.
-
@gear 3200 and 400. I usually end up pushing the 3200 to 6400 'cause low light candid and street photography is what I'm into. 400 goes in my daytime/evening body. I have a third body I'm not using that I might start rolling 125 into. I've yet to do it 'cause I never shoot during the day, it'd take me like six months to burn through all 36 exposures.
-
@gear Oh, no, haha. I wouldn't want to risk my exposures to something like that. When I shoot, I really want to see those shots, I'm not going to take any chances losing them. I buy Ilford film, it's expensive at ten bucks a pop, but down the line, I can definitely see myself buying some cheaper film, something that's like $8 for three rolls, and trying out some of those developing methods.
-
@gear You mean making my own chemicals from scratch, or developing at home? Right now I'm looking into making my own developers and fixers, 'cause I shoot really really high iso, and I'd like a developer with more acutance (acutance refers to fineness of the film grain) than what's readily available on the market. But I develop at home on a regular basis.
-
@gear what brony are you gonna meet ?
-
@gear hey what's up david
-
@gear I would love to have that O:
-
@gear so many hd pony stuff O: just the epsiodes?
