StarDestroyer.Net BBS

aerius wrote:

phongn wrote:Low-resolution, unprocessed scan of a sunset taken with Fortia SP, f/2.8 1/20 sec on a 645N (there are some dust specks and Digital ICE artifacts that need to be removed at some point)

That's some funky circus colours there. According to a quick google search, Fortia SP is said to make Velvia look dull, they ain't kidding about that one.

I showed those slides to guys at the camera store I frequent and they all were going "holy shit" at the ultra-saturation. Skin tones are surprisingly not too shabby either.

Apparently Fortia SP ("SPring") is intended for flower photography - and especially the cherry blossoms. Anything else and it does, uh, interesting things.

Anyone remember that Box-Tengor 56/2 that never quite worked? Yeah. Turns out it does. It took some cleaning and dismantling, and it's still not pretty, but it's been upgraded from curiosity to user camera.

For those that don't know, a Zeiss-Ikon Box Tengor 56/2 is a bargain box camera. It's got a simple lens, two shutter speeds ("manual" and "probably around 1/30"), a surprisingly sophisticated array of fine-tuning options (three apertures selectable via slotting a tab into a groove) and even a three-step guess focussing system. Composition is done through a very squinty, very blurry, left-right reversed finder. There's one on top for portraits and one to the side for landscape.

Truth be told, for a box camera this is about as well-featured as it gets. You get cable release, a tripod mount, double-exposure prevention, a carrying strap, and even a protective shield over the frame counter in the back. It's also surprisingly small and easy to handle.

None of that changes the fact that it's still a box camera with settings that are approximate at best and take some experience to get the most out of.

(All images shot with Fujifilm Pro 160S, with some cropping and resizing)



That's not a starry night bleeding through on the right, it's dirt (possibly on one of the aperture lenses that slot in front of the main lens) and light leaks.



Close focussing is marked as one meter, but my uneducated guess would be to double that at least.



Indoors it all sorta comes apart; I'd hesitate to use this camera in anything but bright sunlight for best effect. I'm surprised this picture even came out the way it did.

I might give it another go now that I've at least confirmed it's in working order, even if takes a better eye than mine to really make it sing.

Oh, I might have something interesting Saturday: images from a Kodak Brownie 127, if the modifications hold and my assumptions about frame spacing are halfway correct.

Bounty wrote:Close focussing is marked as one meter, but my uneducated guess would be to double that at least.

I think the 'universal' minimum focus distance is in the ballpark of 1.5m/5 feet, at least across my lenses and old cameras. I've seen longer minimum focus distances, but few if any shorter ones.

Since I still haven't a reliable B&W developer anywhere nearby, I'm putting a roll of Reala through my Zeiss just to have a result in-hand. That poor old roll of Bergger will just have to wait.

What Zeiss is that?

So I'm watching my gf's house while she is away and I watered her plants and one of them did a good job of holding the water.


And this is one of the many bike paths that are around here. I like how this one came out.


This one looks like it belongs on adult swim to me. I can see it saying [adult swim] just out of focus near or replacing where it's labled vodka

3 pictures from my trip to Japan:

Butcher's knife


Parallax shift anyone?


Tycoon eye's view of Tokyo.

RRoan

[snip seaside pic]

I really, really like this one. Especially the tiny couple in the distance. There's a lot coming together in this image and it works splendidly. Was this a spur-of-the-moment shot or did you plan it?

---

Now. The Kodak Brownie 127.



It's a bakelite box with a simple plastic lens. There's only one button on the whole thing and it makes the shutter snap at 1/40... ish. There are no aperture controls or any form of focussing. It's probably the most basic camera this side of a pinhole in a shoebox. Mine's a pristine 1952-1955 example.

It also takes 127 film, a format that cleverly combines the limited number of frames per roll of 120 film with the small negatives of 35mm, and which is today virtually impossible to order and even harder to get developed. If only there'd been some sort of Kodak Brownie 135...

Well, there is. The supply-side cavity is just big enough to cram in a 35mm cartridge, and the top connector for the spool can just about slot into the top of said cartridge. The bottom end can be secured by a pin, the leader fits onto the take-up spool with a few small snips. The optics don't care about the physical size of the film, so theoretically, it should work.

And it does. I taped a piece of black cardboard over the red window, taped up the seams, marked the "12 o'clock" on the film advance dial, made a rough chart to figure out how to space the frames, and shot a roll of bog-standard Fujifilm 35mm ISO 100 film.

The results were... impressionistic.





Most of the roll was a mess of blur and frames bleeding into each other. Still, it works, so if you ever come across a $2 Brownie 127 and are just itching to feel that plastic-lens magic, now you know you can at least give it a go. I'd use black-and-white though - colour is not this camera's friend.

Bounty wrote:I really, really like this one. Especially the tiny couple in the distance. There's a lot coming together in this image and it works splendidly. Was this a spur-of-the-moment shot or did you plan it?

This was completely spur-of-the-moment. I just happened to be at the beach when there was that break in the clouds, and there just happened to be some people (complete strangers, BTW) where I could work them into the shot. I'm really, really glad with how well it turned out, since the image quality on my point and shoot camera tends to be very... unpredictable.

It's really, really good. You can easily imagine it being a painting.

Flower pic....

The man of the hour....

The god of thunder - Thor!

G - Comiccon? Great light, though Thor could use some hammer space

Air India Flight 182 Memorial

Fermilab's CDF.



(Rebel XTi, f/1.4, 1/30, 30mm, ISO 1600)

Muse, Phong - cool pics, nice perspective

A few pictures from nearby beach, now mainly owned by English people who come here for the summer.
Stone at sunset:

EDIT: It's not edited. (WB/colours/saturation)

D, that first one feel a little Ken Rockwell-ish in terms of being oversaturated, and I'm not really sure what the subject of the photo is supposed to be.

The second photo is a good composition and is an interesting subject. However, if I had to give a critique, you feel little underexposed and you're lacking shadow detail on the boats. I'd like to see just a bit more detail on those boats, since they're not quite silhouette.

Technically, that third photo is fine, but it really has no subject and it makes the picture hard to look at. There's no place for the eye to rest on it and you've given the building and the guy losing his umbrella equal weight. Maybe it would have benefitted from getting closer and maybe a wider focal length.

Anyway, here are some more photos from SDCC. You can check out the rest at my trip report thread.

3 more pics. (Facebook is oddly useful, tiny resolution aside ):

The Prime Minister of Israel: Darth Netanyahu.
Subject: "We will have Peace!" (well, not really).



Sniper (one out of 3) watching the INDC graduation ceremony. It's a good thing I was inside the area, otherwise I suspect he might have taken umbrage at my pointing a long black shiny object at him .


I like the composition of this shot in terms of shapes (pity about the woman's head on the far left). Yay marines!

Yes, I know these were in the Bigwigs thread, I didn't post them in this thread so they're fair game .

Instant Sunrise wrote:D, that first one feel a little Ken Rockwell-ish in terms of being oversaturated, and I'm not really sure what the subject of the photo is supposed to be.

It's a wall at sunset on the beach. It's unedited, and I liked the funky (natural) colours.

Instant Sunrise wrote: The second photo is a good composition and is an interesting subject. However, if I had to give a critique, you feel little underexposed and you're lacking shadow detail on the boats. I'd like to see just a bit more detail on those boats, since they're not quite silhouette.

On the camera screen it was a silhouette shot, and a lot more orange. It worked better that way, damn highlights..

How to Shoot an Abandoned Playground:

1. Find an abandoned playground.
2. Get pea-soup fog.
3. Hipster cliches optional.

Bounty wrote:What Zeiss is that?

My Nettar 515/2. I'm two frames down and six to go (gotta love 6x9), and I have to say that scale focusing without any kind of hyperfocal reference is a pain in the ass.

Note to self: I need to come back and shoot this again when there's no leaves on the trees.

A couple more shots of CDF.

Simple - Love that fog. (Beats my damn sunshine ).
Phongn - What's the minimum focus distance on that lens of yours? Pretty damn strong lighting for an indoor computer . (I like the wideangle, reminds me of the Cray I saw and shot in DC)