They screw onto your lens? I may be using the wrong terminology.
Credensniper is talking about filters -any filter will 'protect' the lens- but none of this matters because wiping a spitty finger on glass (filter or bare front element) isn't going to damage it.
Teacher spreading misinformation, my 'joke' above was a playful jab at it.
you're using it right, but i don't think spit affects lens coating. i've gotten spit on my camera sensor and that still works fine
It's still spitting on someone's expensive equipement, even if it doesn't damage it.
I'll ask him about it. But yeah I meant filter not lens.
being a janitor, I can imagine he's got a good amount of grime or gritty dirt on his finger from doing various chores all day, there's potential for scratches, and I"m sure some of that junk isn't the easiest to clean away. Security guard at my school had hands that looked like he was working on the underside of a vehicle all day
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZOmlqoOHdo&feature=youtu.be[/media]
5 mins later, police follow us and ask us what we're taking photos of
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzeb6thSZF1qf8g70o1_250.gif[/img] [img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzeb6thSZF1qf8g70o2_250.gif[/img]
[img]http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzeb6thSZF1qf8g70o3_500.gif[/img]
[img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzeb6thSZF1qf8g70o4_250.gif[/img][img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzeb6thSZF1qf8g70o6_250.gif[/img]
Never seen these before.
I've enrolled into Computer Science at my local university!
cueball i really want to learn a scottish accent
i imagine you like this
[video=youtube;SGxKhUuZ0Rc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGxKhUuZ0Rc[/video]
i'm not a rough as that since i was brought up in an area which is quite posh (by that i mean there's not a stabbing every 10 minutes)
just every 15 then like the rest of scotland?
every 20
Handed in a roll of Ektar and Portra to be developed today. First time using either - I'm extremely confident I got some good shots on the roll of Portra... Well see about the Ektar.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;34727594]every 20[/QUOTE]
even in the highlands?
i live in glasgow fucks sake
[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;34727638]Handed in a roll of Eltar and Portra to be developed today. First time using either - I'm extremely confident I got some good shots on the roll of Portra... Well see about the Ektar.[/QUOTE]
Looking forward to it mate.
[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;34727638]Handed in a roll of Eltar and Portra to be developed today. First time using either - I'm extremely confident I got some good shots on the roll of Portra... Well see about the Ektar.[/QUOTE]
Looking forward to this, I love your work.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;34727761]i live in glasgow fucks sake[/QUOTE]
then surely the stab rate is by the minute?!
did you guys see this?
[media]http://vimeo.com/27359714[/media]
it's a camera that takes 6 by 4 foot pictures
[img]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/9811/screenshot2012021615323.png[/img]
[img]http://www.fotoart.gr/istoria/onephotoonestory/thegiantcamera.jpg[/img]
related, this was pretty neat and waaay bigger- [url]http://www.petapixel.com/2011/05/20/worlds-largest-camera-big-enough-to-hold-an-airplane/[/url]
Doesn't win sheer size, but it's the largest instant film ever. Polaroid's 20x24.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/tyqeA.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/VwRRX.jpg[/t]
Lady GaGa got to take a bunch of self portraits with it.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/DJM9V.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=bopie;34731901]Doesn't win sheer size, but it's the largest instant film ever. Polaroid's 20x24.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/tyqeA.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/VwRRX.jpg[/t]
Lady GaGa got to take a bunch of self portraits with it.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/DJM9V.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
That film has to be pretty rare, you [U]really[/U] don't want to fuck up the shot.
I think it's custom made for the shots, much like old slide-insert shots.
>prepare the paper with the necessary chemicals (or just buy normal light-sensitive photo paper if you can find the size)
>fit it to a darkslide so it's protected from light til you load it
>remove the protective slide-out face
>take the picture and replace the face so you can take it to a processing room and do a standard chemical development process
It's more or less skipping the film portion of taking the picture and utilizes the camera like an enlarger in a dark room, I suppose
[QUOTE=daijitsu;34733971]I think it's custom made for the shots, much like old slide-insert shots.
>prepare the paper with the necessary chemicals (or just buy normal light-sensitive photo paper if you can find the size)
>fit it to a darkslide so it's protected from light til you load it
>remove the protective slide-out face
>take the picture and replace the face so you can take it to a processing room and do a standard chemical development process
It's more or less skipping the film portion of taking the picture and utilizes the camera like an enlarger in a dark room, I suppose[/QUOTE]
If it is custom made for each shot, it has to be a huge pain to make instant film that large.
You'd still have a lot of pressure to not waste an exposure.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;34734123]You'd still have a lot of pressure to not waste an exposure.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're lady gaga £€¥$$$
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;34734123]If it is custom made for each shot, it has to be a huge pain to make instant film that large.
You'd still have a lot of pressure to not waste an exposure.[/QUOTE]
if it's just large sheets of light-sensitive paper, it wouldn't be much of a hassle, just a bit expensive to keep the paper comin'. It costs me about a dollar per sheet of the stuff (8x10") when working in a darkroom, and even then you end up losing half of those sheets cutting them up for test strips or realizing you made a terrible mistake with your timing in burn/dodge and such.
oh, here we go- 20x24" paper from ilford, same processing methods as the darkroom stuff I've been describing. [url]http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?sku=203461929&sellerid=10001650[/url]
would cost roughly $6 per sheet (plus cost of developing chemicals to dip the paper in after taking the shot, but that's not much), I'm sure it cost more to dress gaga up for the shoot than it did to produce the results even if she went crazy with it
[editline]e[/editline]
whoa what's up with this price- [url]http://www.buy.com/prod/ilford-hp5-plus-film-iso-400/203924755.html[/url]
It's basically just skipping the film and going straight from the subject to the printed picture
If i remember correctly that's how they did it waaaay back then.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;34736018]if it's just large sheets of light-sensitive paper, it wouldn't be much of a hassle, just a bit expensive to keep the paper comin'. It costs me about a dollar per sheet of the stuff (8x10") when working in a darkroom, and even then you end up losing half of those sheets cutting them up for test strips or realizing you made a terrible mistake with your timing in burn/dodge and such.
oh, here we go- 20x24" paper from ilford, same processing methods as the darkroom stuff I've been describing. [url]http://www.buy.com/pr/product.aspx?sku=203461929&sellerid=10001650[/url]
would cost roughly $6 per sheet (plus cost of developing chemicals to dip the paper in after taking the shot, but that's not much), I'm sure it cost more to dress gaga up for the shoot than it did to produce the results even if she went crazy with it
[editline]e[/editline]
whoa what's up with this price- [url]http://www.buy.com/prod/ilford-hp5-plus-film-iso-400/203924755.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh, I thought it was instant film.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;34738023]Oh, I thought it was instant film.[/QUOTE]
that's what he's saying, so I'm not quite sure about my theory. Haven't had a chance to really do my research on it but I'd think it would be nigh impossible to make a 600-film kinda self-developing exposure at that size, wouldn't it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.