I myself get by with a Sony F505V (which I was thinking about trading in for the 707 that just came out) and do a lot of slow-speed photography. A few of the pictures I took a few days ago are in the meteor shower thread, and the rest of my photos are < here >.

I'd love to see some pictures that all of you folks have taken!

< >

< >

< >

< >

< > (one I'm sure you've seen before)

This message has been edited by syf on November 18, 2001 at 05:57 PM

edit: took out the pic in favor of a link.

This message has been edited by Wiley on November 18, 2001 at 08:36 PM

I'm gonna get some prints made on tuesday, maybe I'll scan some and put them up. some experiments with different focus settings etc. on a manual Pentax K1000.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.

< >

< >

--these were taken on my roof with a crappy 640k pxl digital camera. Had to adjust the contrast a bit.

ps - please do, Hellraiser

This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on November 19, 2001 at 03:54 PM

------------------
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- William Shakespeare.

This one was done at F2.8 with a 1/500 second exposure. Very crisp focus on the leaf between the boards, and about 1 inch in front and behind it, but the rest blurred. It is a really interesting study selective focus.

< >

This here is an interesting effect, a double exposure which happened accidentally. It is really cool though, what happened was after taking a picture at F22 with a 1/60 second exposure, the aperture did not reset, but the shutter did. It happened to be the last picture on the roll, so to reset the aperture I advanced the film, but there was no film to advance, so the only thing that happened was the shutter got reset, and when I snapped off another shot it exposed the same film again, but the aperture did reset.

< >

Hope you enjoy.

------------------
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- William Shakespeare.

------------------
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- William Shakespeare.

< THIS > was taken outside my school. Slight fisheye effect and despeckle.

Both photos taken on my Kodak DC 4800

quote:

---

Originally posted by syf:
I was actually that high in the real photo. I jump high.

---

I'm sure you were Next time you get some peyote *grin* get a little extra for me

------------------
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- William Shakespeare.

< streetcar on st. charles >
< neighbor's driveway >

I think I'm going with the francis ford coppolla approach to a lot of this. ah well, at least it looks interesting.

This message has been edited by syf on November 22, 2001 at 12:13 AM

One that seems to be interesting is Minolta DiMÂGE5:

3.34 megapixel
7x optical zoom
focal length: 35mm equiv. 35 - 250mm
lens: 16 elements in 13 groups (includes 2 AD glass elements and 2 aspheric elements
max aperture: f/2.8 - f/3.5
manual zoom
manual & automatic focus
auto exposition methods: Multi-segment (256 segments), Center-weighted, Spot

and there's a lot more, but if you want to know more, go check by yourself, i'm not going to copy&paste the whole spec page :P

so, anybody has suggestions?

------------------
#define QUESTION (2b)| |!(2b)

Edit: 200 whoot

This message has been edited by just_dave on November 28, 2001 at 08:57 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyematimmo:
< HERE >is photo of me doing flying side kick (Tae Kwon Do version) over a garden chair. Original image.. no manipulation.

---

Actually, that just looks like you jumped off of the chair...If the picture had shown you directly above the chair, I'd still say you jumped off of it. If the picture was taken with you in midflight slightly before the chair, I'd say there was manipulation...

Sorry, I am a bit incredulous...I think you look very cool in your outfit, though, if that's any consolation...

--amygdala

edit - added the compliments, heh.

------------------
My whole life is an oxymoron...like, urban planning for gypsies...

This message has been edited by Amygdala on November 29, 2001 at 03:58 PM

------------------
Knowledge is power, arm yourself.

Really, who can answer any of these questions?
The fact that you even asked me, gambit, poses another one:
Must you jerk off to feel better about yourself? 'Cause obviously coming here didn't make you feel better, judging by your stupidity...

It boggles the mind:
Ten million sperms, and you were the fastest one??

--amygdala

p.s. good sig, but I think you should call for backup...

------------------
My whole life is an oxymoron...like, urban planning for gypsies...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amygdala:
Actually, that just looks like you jumped off of the chair

---

Initially, I tried jumping off the chair to get more height, but it didnt work because the garden chair is light plastic and kept sliding off from under me, so I jumped over it instead of from it. I'll compare it with a person next time

hellraiser, can I make a suggestion? The muddiness of your prints says that either a. your prints need to spend more time in the developer, or b. your developer is exhausted and needs to be thrown out.

I'd guess you're developing by inspection, i.e. throwing the paper in the developer and watching it develop until it looks done. This is the #1 mistake budding photographers make... your print needs to STAY in the developer awhile after the image appears, because that is the time when your highlights fill in, your midtones separate, and your blacks turn deep and rich. You can't really see this happening in the red light of the darkroom.

So ALWAYS time the developer. And don't skimp on developing your test strips... otherwise your final exposure will be off and you'll be stuck wondering why your final prints always come out too dark.

Two minutes should be fine for most papers and developers... it's ok to overshoot development time a little bit, you just don't want to underdevelop. Check the recommendations for your paper/developer combo... if your prints are *still* coming out muddy with the recommended time, then it's time to replace the developer.

This message has been edited by damien_s_lucifer on December 02, 2001 at 02:51 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by damien_s_lucifer:
developer...developer...developer...

---

------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."

quote:

---

Originally posted by damien_s_lucifer:
/me has ten years of amateur photography experience to share...

hellraiser, can I make a suggestion? The muddiness of your prints says that either a. your prints need to spend more time in the developer, or b. your developer is exhausted and needs to be thrown out.

I'd guess you're developing by inspection, i.e. throwing the paper in the developer and watching it develop until it looks done. This is the #1 mistake budding photographers make... your print needs to STAY in the developer awhile after the image appears, because that is the time when your highlights fill in, your midtones separate, and your blacks turn deep and rich. You can't really see this happening in the red light of the darkroom.

So ALWAYS time the developer. And don't skimp on developing your test strips... otherwise your final exposure will be off and you'll be stuck wondering why your final prints always come out too dark.

Two minutes should be fine for most papers and developers... it's ok to overshoot development time a little bit, you just don't want to underdevelop. Check the recommendations for your paper/developer combo... if your prints are *still* coming out muddy with the recommended time, then it's time to replace the developer.

---

I always leave the paper in the developer for at least two minutes, usually four. The "muddyness" is partially my scanner, partially the fact that the enlarger station I was using was dusty (its community college, and nothing ever stays clean) and partially the fact that my negatives were slightly over-exposed: thus grainy. (Average exposure time on the enlarger was 30 seconds.)

The prints themselves are actually pretty nice, but for some reason scans of greyscale images on my scanner look worse when blown up from 300 dpi on a 96dpi monitor. ;-)

Also, you were probably correct that the developer was over used. It tends to get that way for B&W photo I students because they are all learning to use the chemicals, and 15 studends printing an average of 30 prints every five minutes can result in somewhat "used" developer after a two hour class. (I get to use it after they're done, since I'm the lab assistant not a member of the class.)

------------------
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- William Shakespeare.