The current paper I am using is essentially Varigam with a few modifications - available from JandC as ADOX fineprint. I really like the look it gives as does everyone who has seen prints on this paper. In fact the worst film for printing onto this paper is XP-2 and those of that ilk.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
Originally Posted by df cardwell
A Bentley is very nice but I'd much rather have the new Morgan Roadster - how many cars that look like they escaped from the 1930s can get to 60mph in less than 5 seconds while using the standard Ford/Jaguar 6 cylinder unit?
Is that what Moggies use now? What happened to the Rover V8?
Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
Apparently it failed EU emissions regulations, then Rover went belly up - wonder if it was connected...
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
Sacred blue! But it's still found in Range Rovers (or at least, its derivatives are). I thought Austin Rover had dropped it before they died.
Cheers (and thanks),
I do just that myself. With the most economic, spelt cut-rate, equipment, I get much satisfaction. I know that you tend to go the route of George Hurrell, and that makes sense considering who you are. I am an amateur who shoots oversized dolls, the Gene Marshall dolls who stand at 16", and I shoot them like Alfred Cheney Johnston, who photographed the Ziegfeld girls between 1917 and 1932, the year Ziegfeld died. While Hurrell has sensational lighting at brilliant angles, Johnston, like C.S. Bull, used two sources...a massive key light, almost always a large stage light, and any ambient light that happened across the stage where he shot. For me this is fine. I can use my Victor and for reflection I can close in with a slab of aluminum foil. I can also use flashlights when necessary. And I can handpaint with light since shooting an inanimate object I can shoot te, twenty, or thirty second exposures.
Originally Posted by Mark Wangerin
But I am digressing. The real reason that I am here is to ask you, Mark, when is your book coming out? I spoke to photographer Marcus Ranum and he encouraged me to buy your book when it comes out. When will that be? I am waiting with bated breath!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If a man does not keep in step with his fellows it may be because he hears a different drummer... Thoreau
Gosh, this is a good old thread !
Looking at Dianna's picture that got it all rolling,
there are a couple things that we haven't hit on.
Today, I was working with an 8x10 Portrait Camera,
and I see one thing right off:
If this was made on an 8x10 plate, I'd guess the focal length is about 18" (480 mm).
It looks like it was shot at f/8, or thereabouts, from about 8 feet away.
Maybe a 24" lens.
Maybe there was a little rise on the lens, and maybe a little tilt down,
with the back adjusted to get the image plane corrected.
Not MUCH movement, just enough.
If you shot this on 35mm, a 60mm would be good, but to get the limited depth of field,
you'd need an aperture of (480/8) 60mm. With a 60mm lens, that would be (60/60) f 1.0.
You could back off to 135mm, and shoot at (135/60) f/2.2. Much better. But stopping down to f/4
would completely lose the effect.
Well, that's just cup of coffee after dinner speculation.
Nicole: I'll bring the 135/2 to Toronto...
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Don that's wonderful. I'll want one of these! Not much longer to go. I really should be getting some work done here before the big trip - will return again soon...
What I'm hearin' here is that quite possibly they weren't that purty?