Conversation
Notices
-
So who saw my latest ponytastic photograph? http://fav.me/d471cq9
Saturday, 20-Aug-11 21:50:34 UTC from web-
@celestiaforequestria OMG where did you meet Luna!? :D
-
@celestiaforequestria Like
-
@celestiaforequestria Ugh, school internet censors unknown domains. It doesn't recognize that link.
-
@scribus A printeERRRR-- she quietly drifted down from the starry sky and landed in the pathway before me. Guess I just got lucky?
-
@celestiaforequestria You sure did.
-
@musicssound Did the image uploading here fix itself? Have a resized version! http://ur1.ca/4xx06
-
@celestiaforequestria Looks pretty good, d00d. How much light was there when you took it?
-
@engelhardt A teeenie bit after sunset. Still some light left!
-
@celestiaforequestria Ooh, should do some Luna photo shoots during the next full moon! It just passed, so you'd have some time to think about location and framing.
-
@engelhardt That's an awesome idea! Stoopid question: How would one get both Luna and moon in focus at same time?
-
@celestiaforequestria Photoshop magic.
-
@theowl THAT'S CHEETING!
-
@celestiaforequestria "It's only cheatin' if ya get caught, kid." - Jesus, Mark 18:27
-
@celestiaforequestria Well, if you're shooting at infinite focus, which you'd need for the moon, with a 50mm lens, the near focus would start at 100 feet out, so Luna wouldn't be very big. At something longer, like 150mm, the focus starts at about 1000 feet, which even less ideal than 100 feet. I'd keep a dark background, and do multiple exposures. Do a shot with Luna in focus, a shot with the moon in the background, then do that post processing thing you're always on about to mash 'em together into one shot.
-
@theowl Jesus convinced me, not you.
-
@engelhardt Sounds like a plan!
-
@celestiaforequestria IGNORE WHAT I JUST SAID! I mathed wrong. I forgot to change the f-stop, I was calculating at f4.0. Let's assume you have a 50mm lens that can be stopped down to f/18, and set your focus distance to 25ft, then things from 12.5 feet out will be in focus. f22 would you give you focus from 10 feet out to infinity with the focus distance at 20 feet, but you'd definitely need a long exposure, and seeing as the moon's luminous would lose all of it's detail. So if you want the moon to be in focus, and detailed, definitely going to need two exposures.
-
@engelhardt O.O sounds like fun math
-
@gingersnap When you're setting up a shot you can only get in a specific time frame, you should really do the math ahead of time. If you know what your f-stop and focal length should be, you can set up so much faster, and have more time to take more shots with different compositions when you're in the field.
-
@engelhardt I so wish I had a real camera. I kid around with my 8mp cameraphone some, but it's not too good of a shot. It would be useful to learn this stuff so I could get some cool shots when I go storm chasing.
-
@gingersnap hello there long time no see what's up
-
@theawesomepony not much! i haven't been on too much lately because I haven't had my computer. Right now i'm using my roommate's. XD
-
@gingersnap Go film, man. You can buy an old 35mm SLR body dirt cheap, and a lot of the lenses are just as cheap. You can buy a good camera, a few good lenses, and what you need to develop with $150. You don't need a darkroom to develop, either. Google developing film without a darkroom to learn all about that.
-
@gingersnap oh okay that makes sense so are you in college
-
@engelhardt really? i will definitely have to give this a try.
-
@theawesomepony yep! just got back earlier this week.
-
@gingersnap ah okay what year of college are you in now
-
@engelhardt Have you ever tried developing with household chemicals before?
-
@theawesomepony sophomore!
-
@gingersnap nice well im going into my last year of high school in about a little over a week now
-
@gingersnap Yeah d00d, all the black and white pictures on my photo site (http://www.photo.doctormowinckel.com/) were taken with a Minolta X-370 I picked for $20, the pictures were taken with the lens it came with too, a Rokkor 50mm f1.8. Those don't look bad for a camera that cost $20! They're super grainy, but that's a result of the type of film I shoot with.
Ginger Snap likes this. -
@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.
-
@theawesomepony sweet! senior year is always the best!
-
@engelhardt all of those numbers sound really technical. O.o
-
@gingersnap damn straight it is last year was hard for me i had the most trouble in math and i thought i failed us history but i didnt the test was hard and i got a B on it. on finals week i was sick so i was supprised that i passed any of my finals
-
@engelhardt I mean developing with chemicals and acids from stuff like instant coffee, orange juice and washing soda. It's called caffenol. http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/coffee-caffenol-film-developing/
-
@gingersnap Haha, not really. X-370 is just a model number of the camera. 50mm refers to the focal length, which means how much 'zoom' the camera has. The caveat with focal length is that the longer the 'zoom' (the higher the number), the narrower the field of view. So something like 25mm is going to have a really wide field of view, whereas a 300mm lens is going to have a narrow field of view. The 'f number' refers to how wide the opening at the end of the lens is. It's read as f/x (f = focal length, x = aperture), so f divided by x, but represented as f#. If you have a f1.8 on a 50mm lens, it means the opening at the end of the lens is 28mm. The higher the f number, the narrower the opening, and the less light that gets in, and it changes how the light is refracted. The higher the refraction, the wider your depth of field (area of focus). So f1.8 let's in lots of light, shorter exposure, but narrow depth of field. f22 doesn't let in a lot of light, wide depth of field, long exposure
Ginger Snap likes this. -
@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.
-
@engelhardt Which type of Ilford do you shoot with?
-
@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.
-
@engelhardt Haha nice! Never got the chance to push a roll myself. I need to get back into film photography, I haven't shot with my AE-1 since April and I miss it a lot.
-
@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.
-
★ likes this.
-
@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?
-
@mrbrown Hello. I am talking about cameras. I do that a lot. What are you doing?
-
@mrbrown Ah, ok. Yeah, I apparently took my time getting started, but started reading about a month after I started reading.
-
@engelhardt Oh yeah. The first time I developed film was indescribable. The fact that I had replicated photons into art onto a tangible, physical media was almost overwhelming to me. I had created something real and honestly, it almost ruined digital photography for me. I'd still shoot film if I had access to a darkroom, shooting in black and white kinda ruined CN for me.
-
@gear YOU ARE MAKING ME JELLY
-
@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?
-
@engelhardt I hate lightweight cameras. I can't shoot on any of the entry or mid-level EOS, Nikon, Sonys or Olympuses because they feel too flimsy. I've got a red Pentax K-x that weighs about as much as my AE-1 and I love it to death. I mostly shoot Black and White (when I did shoot), but I've been looking into color. Got any good recommendations on a color slide film?
-
@celestiaforequestria Shooting film, it's an easy feat! And chemicals make it all complete!
celestiaforequestria likes this. -
@gear Aw...Really?
-
@engelhardt Yeah, I stick a lot of my stuff on my deviant art and tumblr. (http://gear9242.deviantart.com/gallery/) (http://agearforyourthoughts.tumblr.com/tagged/365_project_3) I should really post more of my stuff online though, haha. I've got folders and folders full of stuff.
-
@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.
-
@engelhardt Oh my gosh, thanks! Haha. I have a soft spot for shallow DoF. The 50mm on my Pentax is a 1.7 and it practically never comes off. Also, diggin' the grain! Dude, I shot my final project for my photo class with a Mamiya 645 and I fell in love. God, that camera could anchor a carrier, but the resolution on it was ridiculous. Also, if you print on 8x10, you can get un-cropped full print photos.
-
@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.
-
@engelhardt Haha, yes. So awesome. :3 I'm gonna see if I can finagle my way into the film lab at the college, I've got a might of an itch to proces film. And the hipstamatic filter you used? Ilford 3200.
-
@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.
-
@engelhardt I think Kodak makes a a 120 version of Tri-X, too. And damn, that is suuhhhweet. The only thing I regret about living today is that I never got the chance to shoot 120 Kodachrome.
-
@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.
-
@engelhardt Oh yeah, color grain isn't my thing either. This might be the purist in me speaking, but sometimes shooting with black and white is kind of relieving because you focus on the core elements of photography.
-
@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'.
-
