[ennuipoet]

I use Firefox and have NoScript and AdBlock+ and was still seeing them so somebody knows their shit at making adds visible even with blockers in place.

Yeah, it was buried in the CSS for the site from a plugin, I had to go through the page source, find it, strip it out and then reload the theme. That pissed me off.

Problem is I don’t know WHICH plugin did, probably one of the sharing apps. I deleted them all and replaced them with newer, more reliable ones. The thing is, I couldn’t see them in ANY of my browsers which makes me wonder.

[ennuipoet]

Son of a bitch! I just found them in the page source! Must be a plug in!

[ennuipoet]

The whole Kit put together and ready to go:

http://freeversephotography.com/freeversephotoblog/2012/12/11/anti-instagra/#

That’s a pretty cool looking kit.

as a side note there sure is a lot of ads for viagra and cialis and a few other ads at the top of that page. lol.

Seriously? Because there should not be a single ad on that site, it’s mine and I DO NOT advertise.

[ennuipoet]

Honestly, I can’t keep with the Social Media I have, I get why people hire people to do it for them. But I am going to have to go over there just to grab the FreeVerse name.

[ennuipoet]

The whole Kit put together and ready to go:

http://freeversephotography.com/freeversephotoblog/2012/12/11/anti-instagra/#

[ennuipoet]

You can almost certainly develop it as B&W, most any color film can be developed that way. This thread has a recipe for e3 developer too: http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00DISU

I was reading that thread earlier and trying to decide whether it was worth it to even attempt b&w developing. Aside from the “Cool” factor, it’s not really worth burning the chemicals. Not knowing how old the film really is, quite sure it hasn’t been properly stored and if the packaging is still light proof, I think I will just consign this film to the dustbin. Or, sell it on ebay. 🙂

[ennuipoet]

My film holders arrived today, along with a special surprise: 75 sheets of the Kodak Ektachrome 64. Now normally this would be a super bonus, except they are, according to the packaging, E3 processing which hasn’t been done in 40 years. I had a lot of fun identifying the film from the notch code, and since the can’t reasonably processed, using a sheet a trainer for loading the film in the holders.

Still, if anyone has a batch of old E-3 Chemicals sitting a dusty basement of their out of business photo lab, or finds a wormhole to the early 1970’s let me know.

[ennuipoet]

Come back when you can Kes, you know we will miss you.

[ennuipoet]

I could not wedge myself into a pair of “skinny” jeans if my life depended on it. It’s not that I am morbidly obese (though I ain’t small) but my frame is…well let’s put it in a camera term, I’m Full Frame and don’t fit with a Cropped Sensor.

[ennuipoet]

I am actually depressed, I just got my hair cut from a wild shag better suited for a street person down to an almost military trim. Now my idea to dress as a crazy street preacher will not work! 😀

[ennuipoet]

You know Instagram has filters that look the same for free? LOL!

Congrats on the purchase!

Perhaps I will use Instagram* to take selfies of me using the Crown…it would be ironically meta.

Skinny jeans here I come.

😛

*No I won’t

[ennuipoet]

So, a history lesson first. Dodging and Burn were techniques to selectively lighten (dodge) or darken (burn) areas of a print during exposure in the darkroom. There were several tools one could use to achieve the effect ranging from physical cutouts on lightproof paper to the “dodge wand” which is used in Photoshop to represent the tool. It was a laborious and tedious process that required a real expertise, none of which possessed but could make a huge impact on a print.

In Photoshop or Lightroom, the same effect is made by a selective brush and changing the exposure value of particular areas of the image.

By adjusting the size and relative light/dark of the adjustment you Burn and Dodge the image as needed. The difference between Burn and Doge and changing the global exposure of the image or the global contrast/black/highlight etc. is the brush is limited only the exact area it is applied. The only real difference between this and other Photoshop enhancements visa vie Farktography is the history behind the technique, practically it is no different than other PShop enhancements.

[ennuipoet]

OK, I’m at the “questioning myself” stage (once again), so I’d like some feedback if y’all don’t mind. Are these two “landscape-y” enough?

• Man-made waterfall
• Vegas

They selectively meet the definition of “a section of scenery seen from a single viewpoint” and while I was pretty confident when choosing these early on, today I find I’m not so sure. I don’t know whether to attribute it to a dawning realization or just over-analysis fatigue. I’m sure none of you can identify with that, right? 😉

I’d say it fits, I think so long as the focus is on “scenery” rather than a person, you probably fit.

[ennuipoet]

What a Vertical Landscape may look like

/The term landscape is a bit of a misnomer used for convenience when it comes to subject matter.

[ennuipoet]

I am still in love with my Pixma, it’s make bee you tiff full prints. It is an ink hog, but they all are. Important caveat, no matter what you might think off brand ink is crap, it will screw up the printer and give you crap prints. Spend the money for Canon inks and print wisely.

[Author]

Posts