awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
|
Awoo - that's so cool that you got to shoot your SX-70 with Lou O'Bedlam! Which reminds me, I must re-visit my Flickr account too... it's been too long. hey thanks! lou was great, he was using an sx70, i was using my digital at that point when shooting with him, it was that that got me into getting a pola - still yet to get any film but i asked for some for my birthday so fingers crossed. this was one of the pics i did when shooting with lou Awoo thats the exact kind of effect i've been wanting for ages, even using vintage cameras it seems to bring out a modern imagine. But thats just perfect. thanks! its really easy to do, just get one of these - cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=310236238984and reload the film into that canister backwards, so when its loaded into the camera yo uhave the brown matt side showing. it exposes the other side of the film so more redness shows up. dependant on your exposure the more or less red shows through! more on it here - www.flickr.com/groups/redscale/ive got a bunch more cameras and films developed since posting last so ill update my collection when i can with pics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2010 11:36:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 26, 2010 20:08:26 GMT
|
yeah you can but its alot cheaper to do it yourself. i pick up 35mm film all the time for less than £1 or kodak supercolor film from the 99p store in town, load it into that spool it works out pretty cheap and essentially the same stuff.
the lomo 120 redscale is worth getting at the price though as its really hard to do otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
retro camerasBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
Jul 26, 2010 21:49:48 GMT
|
Awoo - The Impossible Project have started making Polaroid films again (woot!), definitely for the SX70 and 600 type film... and some other types too. They're completely new products so not the same as the original Polaroid products, but very very exciting! It's all made in an old Polaroid factory they bought in Holland. www.the-impossible-project.com/(Sorry if I'm telling you stuff you already know! ;D I've been plugging Impossible wherever and whenever I can, it's an awesome thing!)
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 26, 2010 21:59:37 GMT
|
hells yeah ive been keeping a close eye on the impossible project, I'm awaiting the colour film, the stuff theyve done so far is abit too unpredictable for my liking right now.
the images fade to nothing over a few months apparently!
anything is a good thing though ftw
|
|
|
|
|
retro camerasBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
Jul 26, 2010 22:03:30 GMT
|
Ahh I didn't know they faded. Hope they sort that out. I know what you mean about the unpredictability though. It'd be nice if they did a straight colour film. I've got a small stash of various old Polaroid films (even iZone sticker film! ) but sometimes the emulsion is all dried up and I get nothing. Nice to shoot and have the drumroll whilst I wait to see what comes out though! ;D
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 27, 2010 20:53:16 GMT
|
i bet its fun! I'm really hoping the colour impossible film comes good soon. really looking forward to it
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 28, 2010 17:43:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2010 21:55:16 GMT
|
I'm sold on redscaling!
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 28, 2010 22:55:55 GMT
|
get on it! seriously though dude just make some of your own its so easy to do and dirt cheap compared to the lomo stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010 19:19:04 GMT
|
Is there any sort of advantage to this redscaling business apart from giving everything a red cast? If not it seems really pointless and a waste of perfectly good film, if you want to red cast something just do it in post production (also why shooting black and white on digital is stupid) so you can at least undo it if it looks wibblepoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010 19:51:58 GMT
|
Theres something thats so much more cool about doing it manually rather than shelling out loads for photo editing software. It looks more natural too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010 20:12:55 GMT
|
Pretty sure you could manage something like that in GIMP, which is free. At least with doing it in post you can choose to undo it and you have control over it's severity, where as you're now stuck with some red photos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010 21:16:04 GMT
|
Well if we all thought it was pointless we wouldnt bother.
We like the look of it, and for those who arent complete computer geniuses its fine.
Its not a waste of film at all, i think it looks rather cool.
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 29, 2010 21:19:00 GMT
|
yeah its all about doing it in the camera. i can do what ever in photoshop, it doesnt take much playing with curve channels to get the red cast out of it.
its just experimental photography. I'm long over trying to get a perfect exposure and true to life colours, thats no fun.
expired film, wacky colours, organic flaws, making things look old etc is what appeals to me. and the fact that you can take a photo and, subject permitting, you can make it look as though it was taken a few decades ago really appeals.
its like saying why buy a ferrari at £100k when you can buy a kit and an mr2 to put it on for £5k.
also with redscaling there are many levels of redness you can go, you can get blood red and black images through to a yellowy sepia tint
|
|
|
|
|
retro camerasBenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
Jul 29, 2010 22:03:46 GMT
|
I'm gonna have to try redscaling! I've got a colour darkroom kit which I want to get my teeth into too, but no space for it at the minute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does everything arrive back at me wanting a house?! I would love a DSLR but they are soooooo pricey, plus, you can buy a 10mp camera for £400, only for it to be outdated in a year or so. Digital only goes so far.
You can't beat film. Just look at the depth of field in some of these shots. Amazing. Also, with the rise of DSLR cameras, normal 35mm SLR's are going at silly cheap prices on ebay. The only thing is, I would like my own darkroom kit to go with it. In my mind, half of the shot is in the darkroom stage. real photography isn't about 'snaps' in my mind, it's about the art of capturing an image. However, I live in a small flat, so I need a house before I can build a darkroom. (got there in the end)
Oh yeah - getting your shots in to digital isn't that hard. We went diving recently and took underwater disposable cameras which we then got developed at somewhere like snappy snaps or quick print or something. It cost about £30 to develop 4 cameras and get them put on to DVD as well. Not bad really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2010 16:18:47 GMT
|
You can get one of the older Rebels for under £200 with the kitlens and they still perform well today. Older DSLRs might be outdated compared to current models, but they don't magically become crappy after a couple years. If they were capable of producing good images 6 years ago then they're capable today, my 20D from 2004 can certainly hold it's own against newer cameras. All you're missing out on by going with an older camera are features like video recording, faster continuous shooting, larger screens, etc. which you're not getting with a film SLR anyway.
As for the price, don't forget that with digital cameras there aren't as many consumables. A £200 DSLR will equal 3600 shots on film if you can manage to buy rolls for £2, not including the £40 for the SLR (another 720 shots). Now if you're shooting film chances are you're not going to waste shots, that 4000+ might last you a couple years, but with digital the cost of a wasted shot is nothing.
EDIT: Forgot to include the cost of developing. I forgot how much it is, it's too much for me to bother actually getting any of the photos I've taken developed, but I do know it's more than the price of the film. So, say it was the same as the cost of film and you're cutting the amount of photos in half, so a £200 DSLR then equals about 2000 shots on film.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 30, 2010 16:29:02 GMT by The Ran
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,506
|
|
Jul 30, 2010 18:02:31 GMT
|
i see what youre saying, i use a dslr for alot of stuff as i do it freelance, but considering you can get nice film cameras, film and developing all for the price of a beer its easily justified. like i buy film at boot fairs all the time for 50p a roll. i buy cameras left right and centre for no more than a fiver, most under £3 - even bought a yashica slr for under £2 on sunday! developing a 35mm film - £2.55 - scanning it costs nothing or getting it scanned and put on cd at the shop is only another £2. so it totals up to not alot. considering just one of my flashes for my dslr cost nearly £300 i think film's quite a good way to play about and get creative for not alot of money! this is the camera i used for those photos up there ^^^^ kodak retinette, taken, ironically, on a canon digital slr
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2010 18:05:16 GMT
|
Oh my!
I have that camera, albeit the 1A
|
|
|
|
|