[ennuipoet]

It’s funny, some of us good ape poo for an old film camera chock full of obsolete tech. Yet when it comes to an old DSLR…they crowd goes silent 🙂 That says something about technology and camera nerds. BTW, it looks to me like you struck a solid deal there. The lens alone going $750 USD and up on the Fleabay and Amazon, so good on you! Shoot and enjoy, and I definitely agree with sleeping it’s nice to have a body you don’t care so much about for hard use.

[ennuipoet]

Short of an epiphany this week, I’ll have to sit this one out. No archives, no local interesting parking lots – and believe me, I tried. I thought I was onto something with the walmart and strip mall next to a giant grain silo complex. Not so much.

Tell the truth, unless I find something on Monday this may be a nil week for me as well. Parkings lots in NYC tend by small and underground. We’ll see

[ennuipoet]

I found as site with some fairly easy identifiers, it looks like I’ve got a ’46 Anniversary

Thanks for the info on the Focal Plane, I watched a video showing how it works and that makes sense. I’ve got a flatbed Canon 8800F which has only a three inch wide film scan light, I guess I could stitch from that on 4×5.

I’m reading up on Instant Backs trying figure the best way to go, I’ll let you know.

[ennuipoet]

My Graflex arrived today! I thought she was a Pacemaker but she is an Anniversary, which means she was made between 1940 and 1949, because there is no chrome on the camera she is a ’41 to ’45 edition. The leather (not leatherette, real leather) is peeling on the corners but the bellows is in excellent condition. I haven’t done a full timer test on the shutters, but they seem to be close to accurate. The flash solenoid needs to replaced, it’s pretty corroded but they are fairly cheap on the Fleabay. The ground glass is intact but grimy. The Wollensak is gorgeous! No fungus and just a little haze, hey…it’s 75 years old! The rear curtain shutter still fires but it sounds slow, but I need to spend some time testing before I know for sure.

I started looking into the options, keep or sell. I can shoot and develop large format film via the Taco Methodhttp://www.flickr.com/groups/largeformat/discuss/72157594305554218/ with no problems. The big problem is scanning the negatives, my scanner won’t do 4×5. I could shoot Instant on Fuji, but the Fuji Back cost almost as much as a low end 4×5 scanner. I could just say fark it and save up for an enlarger and 4×5 lens and REALLY do darkroom.

Or I could fix her up and sell her.

It may sound crazy, but I am thinking, what if I saved up the money and did an actual darkroom in my bathroom? Not now, but in the future! I could flip this camera for twice what I paid or I could hang onto her and do something really cool in a year or two.

Thoughts? Anyone have a Fuji back they want to get rid of? Anyone shot instant film these days?

Anyone want to get together this Summer for a Classic Farktography Roundup?

ETA: Pics tomorrow once I put her up on the Tripod and circle!

[ennuipoet]

I liked when you were sticking to just a car parking lot. You’re right about that keeping the field level. This is not too difficult to understand guys. He said a car parking lot. Sorry, I’ve had a bad few days.

So, what about trains…they have cars…

/runs 😀

[ennuipoet]

I *have* noticed that taller photos tend to get more votes. Strange psyche, these farkers.

Actually I think that’s mostly down to simple geometry – a 640x900px image has a lot more impact than a 640×400 one because it’s more than double the area.

If I am shooting or picking for Farktography, I do portrait orientation if I possibly can. The pxl limitations really hamper the viewer and few people click through.

That’s just Fark.

[ennuipoet]

Anyone have some potential criticism they could share with me? Because otherwise I have a confused.

I have only one piece of advice: the more you like something, the less likely it is to receive votes. Thus is the nature of Fark.

[ennuipoet]

Re: Topaz Adjust

I love the Topaz “Look” in photos, but the thing is, you can always tell they are Topazed. Nothing in nature or software looks similar (I suppose heavy make up might do the trick) to a shot manipulated with Topaz.

Everyone knows that I am in favor of loosening the rules in what we can do with software for Farktography, but since the rules are in place I have to pitch my two cents in with the anti-Topaz vote.

Which sucks, because those two shots are perhaps the best posted so far!

[ennuipoet]

Ennui – love the idea of “shooting” in the bathtub with a camera. Great concept.

Thanks, I wanted to provide the impression of violence without the actual…you know…violence. Also, I do not own any firearms and even if I did, I couldn’t bring myself to ever point it at my person in such a manner…even if I cleared them fifty times before doing it.

/very much a believer in the never point at anything you don’t intend to shoot.

[ennuipoet]

“B”s

So basically my inspiration is pretty obvious:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuipoet/6773145828/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuipoet/6773145632/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuipoet/6919262195/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuipoet/6919261951/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ennuipoet/6919261775/in/photostream/

I Snooted the hell out of my primary flash and placed another strobe on the floor that was supposed to provide fill, but because my remote trigger was in the tub so as not be seen if could not hit the fill flash strobe…you live, you learn

[ennuipoet]

Hmmmm. I think I’m a little off-theme – and no chance to fixx0r it.

It’s REAL hard to be off theme in a theme I suggested! 😀 Basically, you would have to submit pics of the kids at Disney or something!

depends on the camera angle. to a three year old, Mickey Mouse is a six foot fucking rat.

Damn…that would be a great shot…

[ennuipoet]

Basically, you would have to submit pics of the kids at Disney or something!

Damn, back to the drawing board….

😉

If the kids are hacking down Goofy with a polearm, then not necessarily

[ennuipoet]

Hmmmm. I think I’m a little off-theme – and no chance to fixx0r it.

It’s REAL hard to be off theme in a theme I suggested! 😀 Basically, you would have to submit pics of the kids at Disney or something!

[ennuipoet]

#3 and #14 are the current picks.

Nice, this is the kinda stuff I was hoping for in this theme!

[ennuipoet]

I suppose if I had more (interesting) friends, the problem would resolve itself.

Tell me about it! I love all of my friends, but NONE of them are the kind of people that want their portraits taken. We’re all bookish types and no one is really all that into their physical beauty. I tell them I don’t want glamor shots, but they just smile and tell me to go to hell.

[Author]

Posts