Author Topic: I'm not working Friday. So, today is Friday AKA the weekend thread! (Read 25148 times)

Terry · « **Reply #50 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:30:39 PM »

I exposed the first couple of frames at 4 seconds, but that was on a bright day. yesterday was cloudy so I doubled the exposure time (more or less). I guess this guy was in a hurry! What I love about this is having to re-frame your sense of time. I usually shoot 35 or 120 and my default exposure setting is a 125th, at say f/16. I've been shooting more large format, and getting used to a 15th at f/45, so shooting pinhole and counting the time in my head is the logical next step in that progression.

This one I shot earlier shows (ever so slightly) a light smear in the distance that was a car driving through.

These were shot on Arista EDU 100 (AKA Fomapan)

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #51 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:46:51 PM »

oh, I really like this, Terry!

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #52 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:50:11 PM »

Andrea..I could be wrong!

I do go back and read what you wrote to me..I am so fascinated by that book..and I realize I am now talking pinhole versus long exposure.. but they are sort of the same/but different

Your notes have been invaluable!!

Volker · « **Reply #53 on:** March 25, 2012, 06:57:55 PM »

i'm a bit late this weekend...

Polaroid 600 se, fuji fp-3000, negative scan

calbisu · « **Reply #54 on:** March 25, 2012, 07:08:57 PM »

Yaich! I am gonna join efforts with Dynamo. Negative fp3000b. Which now seems more under control, still it seems to me a little forgiving film. This was the second weekend in a row that I had not been able to go out to the streets and shoot (yes, babies are demanding..

) so I grabbed the polaroid the 3000b and went out at night. I had in mind this young street vendor who sells cigarrettes. I shot at 1/30 and 3.8f, I would say I overexposed one step so I slightly modified exposure of the goop.

Miles · « **Reply #55 on:** March 25, 2012, 07:36:51 PM »

Not much happening here, looking forward to seeing what the FW trip out this WE yeilds though.

Couple more Red Filters on 1999 SFX, Zenit 12XP and BHF flipped.

calbisu · « **Reply #56 on:** March 25, 2012, 09:10:53 PM »

MIles, second and third just look terrific

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #57 on:** March 25, 2012, 10:37:17 PM »

Carlos, I love the intimacy of your shot.

Miles, love all three, but, two and three and just great.

Miles · « **Reply #58 on:** March 25, 2012, 11:22:53 PM »

Thanks Chums

Miller · « **Reply #59 on:** March 26, 2012, 05:07:29 PM »

Miles... #2 for me....

hookstrapped · « **Reply #60 on:** March 27, 2012, 01:47:03 AM »

Quote from: calbisu on March 25, 2012, 07:08:57 PM

Yaich! I am gonna join efforts with Dynamo. Negative fp3000b. Which now seems more under control, still it seems to me a little forgiving film. This was the second weekend in a row that I had not been able to go out to the streets and shoot (yes, babies are demanding.. ) so I grabbed the polaroid the 3000b and went out at night. I had in mind this young street vendor who sells cigarrettes. I shot at 1/30 and 3.8f, I would say I overexposed one step so I slightly modified exposure of the goop.

I really like this.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #61 on:** March 27, 2012, 01:51:40 AM »

I wanted to get more of a widescreen feel for my next series and eventually remembered the triptychs of David Hilliard, and I like a lot of his stuff, the slightly off kilter perspectives, the images that don't quite align. Somehow I think seamlessness is an ideal and seams and breaks and slight disjointedness is more true. Anyway, a couple tests I shot last week.

EDIT: No pigeons, but another.

moominsean · « **Reply #62 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:35:05 AM »

I like those, hookstrapped...

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #63 on:** March 27, 2012, 11:32:23 AM »

Peter, I like these very much.

calbisu · « **Reply #64 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:40:47 PM »

Quote from: Phil Bebbington on March 27, 2012, 11:32:23 AM

Peter, I like these very much.

Agree

hookstrapped · « **Reply #65 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:46:51 PM »

Cool, thanks guys.

I was thinking about magazines with a two-page photo spread where things didn't quite line up, probably in Life or Sports Illustrated since we were such a Henry Luce family, and it would piss me off. But that's life, no? Seamlessness is an ideal, not real. Maybe those separate images, each with their own perspective, is how we view the world before our brain stitches it all together, where we focus on one thing, then the other.

I was watching Breathless last week, the Godard film, and there's this sequence when they're in the car talking and it's jump cut after jump cut -- which goes contrary to creating the illusion of seamless continuity. Sort of the anti-dissolve. This is sort of like a jump cut, not in time but in focus (what we're looking at) and perspective.

Late Developer · « **Reply #66 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:59:21 PM »

Peter - really nice images and I like the slight disconnect between the pairs.

This got me thinking. I don't imagine we see everything we see seamlessly but I wonder what the eye / brain refresh rate is in real terms. Nikon's new 1v digicam can do video at 60 frames per second (which sounds impressive) but we are, presumably, processing the data we see at an even higher rate to make the process at least "appear" to be seamless....?

Interesting concept.

Francois · « **Reply #67 on:** March 27, 2012, 04:03:46 PM »

Well, our eyes can see still images as seemless motion starting at 24 images/second. Increasing the refresh rate only makes things appear smoother. The reason for cameras that go up to 60fps is mostly to be able to do slow motion video. Film fast-playback slow is the classic trick.

Many animals have a better optical system than us. Pigeons come to mind as they see everything that goes on around them in slow motion.

As for the data processing speed of the brain, this is hard to calculate. Thing is we have an analog computer in our head. We can't benchmark it easily. Also, being analog and adaptable, it can do functions very fast yet be totally poor when it comes to some things that need precision. Unlike a digital computer which is very precise but awkwardly slow when it comes things that need adaptation.

Here's something somewhat interesting from MIT http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24030/

LT · « **Reply #68 on:** March 27, 2012, 04:54:41 PM »

Quote from: Francois on March 27, 2012, 04:03:46 PM

Pigeons come to mind as they see everything that goes on around them in slow motion.

Francois, I know this is a common factoid, but it is so ridiculous that I can't let it lie = How can anyone know how fast a pigeon can see?

crazyness!

(not a dig at you, but a dig at the things 'they' tell us)

Paul Mitchell · « **Reply #69 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:34:49 PM »

They can if you have pigeon's called Neo and Morpheus

moominsean · « **Reply #70 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Leon on March 27, 2012, 04:54:41 PM

Quote from: Francois on March 27, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
Pigeons come to mind as they see everything that goes on around them in slow motion.

Francois, I know this is a common factoid, but it is so ridiculous that I can't let it lie = How can anyone know how fast a pigeon can see?

crazyness!

(not a dig at you, but a dig at the things 'they' tell us)

they are probably just so stupid that there is a delay in processing what they see. if they actually saw in slow motion,, they would continually be falling behind until eventually they would be seeing last week!

Miles · « **Reply #71 on:** March 27, 2012, 06:25:48 PM »

Free the Pigeons !

Francois · « **Reply #72 on:** March 27, 2012, 09:49:10 PM »

Well, for a long time, we had a dove at home. And let me tell you, as dumb as these birds can be, they have highly tuned senses...
She didn't see anything on the tv, that pretty much means that her eyes were running faster than the TV's refresh rate...

Thing is the pigeon family has a very short optical nerve, this means that their tiny brain gets the visual cues faster than we do...

Late Developer · « **Reply #73 on:** March 27, 2012, 10:22:42 PM »

Amazing. Pigeons (aka "rats with wings") have better and more responsive eyesight than us humans. I read somewhere, a few years ago, that someone had worked out that the average pigeon walks further in its lifetime than it flies and that, as a result, they are most likely to be the next species of bird that loses their ability to fly.

That sounds like b*llocks to me but I do hope it's true as that would give me a better than evens chance of kicking the living daylights out of the dirty little bugger that keeps crapping on my car before it has sufficient velocity to get airborne (other than as a result of a "collision" with my right boot).

I'm usually very tolerant of all animals, creepy-crawlies and birds but, alongside wasps and traffic wardens, pigeons are another species that I think the earth would benefit from becoming extinct.

LT · « **Reply #74 on:** March 27, 2012, 10:58:55 PM »

Quote

She didn't see anything on the tv

how do you know that? Since when would a bird respond to anything on a tv screen???

One of my dogs never shows any interest in the tv yet Woody goes mental everytime time he sees a dog on any show - does this mean they both have different 'refresh rates'?

Francois · « **Reply #75 on:** March 27, 2012, 11:08:17 PM »

I don't know... but I know animals prefer LCD screens to CRT... don't know why.

All I know is that our bird didn't care a single bit when we filmed her and played the tape back but went pretty much ballistic when we showed her a mirror

Who knows... this could also be a whole bunch of bull as far as I know...

Miles · « **Reply #76 on:** March 27, 2012, 11:48:27 PM »

My wife told me dogs like a but of HD, but she's always telling me stuff

I decided to flip the lens on the Ansco that Diane sent me as part of "Share the Love", very easy, all just tabs to bend. Thought it might make a change from the BHF and being 6x9 and real 120 ... Anyway I loaded it with 2006 Jessop's efke R200 and dev'd in 100:1 RO9 for 20 mins.

All in all a bit disappointing, but might try again and easy to flip back.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #77 on:** March 28, 2012, 07:48:22 AM »

Quote from: Late Developer on March 27, 2012, 10:22:42 PM

Amazing. Pigeons (aka "rats with wings") have better and more responsive eyesight than us humans. I read somewhere, a few years ago, that someone had worked out that the average pigeon walks further in its lifetime than it flies and that, as a result, they are most likely to be the next species of bird that loses their ability to fly.

Given the chance they could go the way of the dodo. After all, the pigeon belongs to the same bird family.

LT · « **Reply #78 on:** March 28, 2012, 08:48:40 AM »

hey Miles - I've got one like that!

Miles · « **Reply #79 on:** March 28, 2012, 09:33:31 AM »

You cannie whack and black dog at a window !