Post Your Photos Created 17 years ago2007-08-06 23:50:34 UTC by Archie

Actually, I think that is pretty cool brendanmint. How did you get materials for processing the film?

I just ysed the ones my teacher gave us :p. We used photo paper, and the first of the three chemicals is called 'Developer'.

Had the displeasure of completely dis-assembling and then completely re-assembling an entire lens assembly.

I had to gut out my Pinhole camera, and then re-build the inside, something broke it and light was leaking in like a motherfucker, should be good by Tuesday.

My Ghetto Camcorder.Loving the Dirty-Anamorphic style lens flaresAlso made a small monocular, it's not very powerful but it works:

I made a pinhole camera once at school. Took a photo of a tree, but the desk the camera was sitting on was wobbly and it was windy, so it came out blurred.

Originally posted by The_(c)Striker
It's 4k.

What is this, 1953?

Also, you gotta work on your 3D some more Striker.

Wow. Very basic presets.. however, it looks awesome. Well done mate.

Why is that first image 500px wide when you're only using the middle 100 and the rest is transparent?

@Crollo:
Screw renders.

You shot that one? Bastard.

El Bastardo.

Consoles, fucking lol.

My college. Unedited.
Photo taken the last time a TV student returned kit late to our technician.

Woah! What happened?

a TV student returned kit late to our technician.

Something you'll learn quickly (or die) is that technicians are very sensitive about their equipment.

Looks like an exciting environment to work at.

Something you'll learn quickly (or die) is that technicians are very sensitive about their equipment.

Heh, I'm in my third year and I've known this since about week 2 of my first year

Some utterly amazing shots, caboose. The light rays especially are just wow!

Loving the sunshine through the trees. Also the last one with the... wasp? on the flower looks worthy of a catalogue or something.

Shame you had to damage someone else's property to get a good shot in the 2nd photo

JJ Abrams would be so proud.

I love the wrecked rusty cars picture Caboose.

Grape PaintAutumn LeafDry Dirt:Cat on a tree branch:

All your pictures really lack contrast and seem to have very little thought put into them.

Do some post-production on them

My bad, my shots are always post processed a little but I usually don't add a lot of contrast, I'm extremely nazified about crushing blacks and overblowing whites.

Crollo, some are ok, but all your shots are really starting to look alike.

Save for the one above Striker's post - what the hell is that??

All your pictures really lack contrast and seem to have very little thought put into them.

I wouldn't say that. Not all photos have to be high-contrast. I love his third photo- that's sexy.

He increased the contrast significantly after I made my post.

Thanks for the kind words, guys.



Also, I reprocessed this one to look a bit more natural, and shooped out the annoying discarded chair (???) in the bottom-left corner. Much more satisfied now.

I have the feeling you have already posted the second one before.

Notice the words placed a few dozen pixels above the image you're referring to.

Disco is really bad in the sense that he often forgets to add smileys to the end of his posts.

So upset that this one didnt turn out. this is when I was having problems with the autofocus, so I had to use manual focus, in which case, I need glasses.. BLAH! Would have made a nice picture

Fucking Minolta lenses.

Someone stole my Camera D: Finally made some positive prints, only 100 sheets of photo paper and already sued 4 of em, trying not to waste them. Waiting to see if there is a better way of porting my pictures to the webspace without my shitty ass digital camera.

Flatbed scanners are pretty much the only method worth using, you can usually get them dirt cheap or even free if you look around for used ones.

What's wrong with Minolta lenses?

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing. Looking at images taken with the specific lens they look pretty sharp, the build quality is good, I just need a camera and some film, but I'm disappointed that I'm strictly limited to minoltas considering that they're not cheap.

I'd like you to justify your avatar.

It's pink.

No, I mean, what are you trying to prove?

It doesn't prove anything.

Crollo.... Seriously....

It proves Crollo is more of a 13 year old annoyance then (fuck) dimbark. And is here purely to harass you Striker. He seems to like your Avatar. Alot. Alot Alot. [Jokes But for real Crollo, c'mon man.]

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing.

That also happens with Canon, Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Hasselblad, Voigtländer, and pretty much any SLR brand you can think of.

You can use adapters that actually function properly on more standardized lenses. Don't be a prick.

You don't even have a SLR, you have no reason to care about that anyway. Don't be a troll.

Because apparently you lack the requisites to read it properly I'll break it down segment by segment.

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing.

Translation: With Nikon, Canon you can at least get adapters that function properly and allow you to use lenses with different body brands.

Grammatical breakdown:

Other then the proprietary mount that isn't even usable on other cameras via adapters, nothing.

I start with stating that it has a proprietary mount, obviously Nikon and Canon each have their own proprietary mounts as well, however this is not the end of the sentence so this is not a statement and is rather the start of one. I then go on to bring up the specifics of the mount, stating that it is unusable on other cameras using adapters.
The knowledge that Canon and Nikon mounts can be exchanged functionally using adapters is assumed, but if lacked, Canon and Nikon mounts usually have adapters that allow them to be interchanged between separate bodies and brands without troubles.

Looking at images taken with the specific lens they look pretty sharp, the build quality is good, I just need a camera and some film, but I'm disappointed that I'm strictly limited to minoltas considering that they're not cheap.

Translation:
The lens itself is good, irrelevant of the mount type, however I'm disappointed that I can only use minolta's because minolta only makes film cameras and they're expensive.

Grammatical breakdown:

Looking at images taken with the specific lens they look pretty sharp, the build quality is good, I just need a camera and some film, but I'm disappointed that I'm strictly limited to minoltas considering that they're not cheap.

I start by stating that I've seen images taken with the lens I have, noting that they look sharp, then stating the build quality of the physical lens is acceptable. I then state that all I need is a camera and some film, which further implies and references the previously brought up fact that I'm completely restricted to presumably subpar quality film cameras, and also presents the fact that if I wanted to, I would have no choice of using the lens in a digital slr considering that minolta has never made any DSLRs and the only digital cameras you can properly mount the lens to without problems are certain Sony cameras, which are also just as rare as a minolta, and a lot more expensive. I then lastly bring up the pricing of minoltas, unfortunately because they're so dated and by today's standards mostly 'vintage' not many people are willing to sell them cheaply, if you can find anybody selling them at all. I also if you somehow failed to notice, pointed out I intended to buy a SLR, whether or not it's digital or film is irrelevant, the implication that I wish to buy a SLR camera would assume that I might intend to use the lens I already have, but I show dissapointment in the fact that the lens I already have is completely unusable [At least, properly] unless I buy something that is relatively difficult to get and often expensive, whereas if I bought a Nikon or a Canon I'd have a much easier time getting lenses considering that I could safely buy a lens of either brand and use an appropriate adapter, and even if that wasn't an option lenses of both brands are plentiful regardless, whereas buying a minolta restricts you greatly to yet again, difficult to find accessories that most likely will cost even more then the camera itself. [Usually around +$160 or so]

Also I've changed my avatar, I'm sorry I didn't realize it was so unacceptable.

So in short, fuck Minolta lenses. Buying a Minolta lens and then realizing you have to buy a Minolta along with all it's accessories is like buying a old mouse and finding out you have to buy a Apple II and all it's proprietary shit. Expensive, and not fucking worth it. I could sell it but to be honest I'll just buy a Nikon and Nikkor lenses, and keep the Minolta as a vintage item, I'm sure 10 years down the line it'll be worth a couple thousand dollars. Or maybe it'll be worth 2 cents at the bargain bin. Whatever.

TL;DR.