[soosh]

That’s really cool. I love playing around like that.

[soosh]

However, presenting what amounts to two different photos side by side wouldn’t be kosher in my mind. Multiple exposures in the same frame with film or the few digital cameras that can do it has always been accepted, however.

Fair enough.

I really appreciate the consideration that has gone on with all of this, and thanks for all the clarifications.

[soosh]

A different thing, but this is a photoshop action that embeds an invisible watermark.

This action embeds a watermark that is invisible to the eye, but when you run the read watermark action, it will reveal the hidden watermark.

[soosh]

and it my considered opinion that we would stretch ourselves more as photographers if there was NO post production allowed. not even cropping.

Well, that raises other issues. My digital camera produces images in a 3:2 ratio. If I crop an image to create a more panoramic final product, is that allowed?

Consider these two images:

The difference between them is that the one on the left is how the film came out of the camera, was scanned, and then was treated as an image. The one on the right is from the same film frame, only I isolated the edge of the negative, cropped the image inside the frame, then adjusted it to fit back into the negative border.

My position is that the image on the left should be acceptable as non-digitally altered and eligible for a farktography contest while the one on the right should not be, in the same way that using a clone stamp isn’t allowed.

we would stretch ourselves more as photographers if there was NO post production allowed. not even cropping.

Keep in mind that if you shoot in jpg as opposed to RAW, then the camera is doing post-processing, applying sharpening, adjusting saturation, etc. If you take film to a lab to be developed, someone there is making a decision as to the color balance and exposure applied in developing. Taking a RAW image and applying exposure compensation, white balance, sharpening, etc, so long as it is applied fully across the image is as much a part of the finished product as is choosing the exposure speed and f-stop.

Dodging and burning are considered unacceptable, and I would agree with that. What about this image, in which I used a Tokina 12-24 lens designed for a cropped frame dSLR on a full-frame film body, because I wanted the black vignetting in the final product?

If I had taken that with my dSLR, it would have been image to the edge of the frame, not black. Does that mean I can’t use the film scan because the lens wasn’t designed for that wide of usage on full-frame?

If my dSLR takes a 3:2 ratio photo, can I submit a photo with a 16:9 ratio, so long as it’s one cropped image and not multiple images stitched? Can I submit a 6×6 image taken with a 4/3rds ratio digicam? Is this image, where the film was purposely not wound completely and then the camera panned for a second exposure, eligible as a single image?

[soosh]

First off, let me say that the second photo you posted is absolutely spectacular. I mean, really good. Nice work.

Thanks! I truly appreciate the compliment. I love that photo.

The border, though has nothing to do with the actual photo you took. I have a very hard time believing that you intentionally framed the photo so that the lettering would be positioned in a certain way and aside from those letters it’s just a grayish black border. My point here is to say that the border isn’t a part of your composition.

You’re absolutely wrong. The outside of the image is where, in this electronic format, the pixels end. I knew not where the exact placement of lettering would be, but that it would be there. That’s part of the point of the image. If it was going to be presented for display, I would dry-mount a print of the scanned film on a thick piece of sintra and then use a matte cutter to trim to the edge where I wanted the picture to end. From there, the photo can be mounted directly to the wall as-is or be mounted within a frame. I personally wouldn’t use a piece of matte board inside the frame, but would use a clear glass front and back float effect.

It’s not a snapshot, no. But it is a photograph out of a camera and the border is a part of the image, not the manner in which it is displayed.

It’s similar to the idea of Through the Viewfinder photos, in which the photo is taken by capturing the image displayed in the viewfinder of another camera, usually a TLR. It’s as much as a part of the process as these incredibly cool altoid can pinhole shots or paint can pinholes or polaroid transfers or hoglaroid shots made by adapting a polaroid back onto a holga. light leaks is another place where this sort of thing is practiced. I participate on these other sites, too, but I’m a farker who’s a bit nuts about photography, and these are the photographs I’ve created. I rarely go out and shoot just specifically for the contests, but rather read the themes and try to find something I’ve already taken and use it here. I participate here because it’s fun and I get to show off what I can do with a camera just like anybody else.

[soosh]

They are not manipulated or taken into account when the actual photograph is taken nor are they a part of the post-processing procedure.

Again, I disagree. I absolutely take the idea of the film into account before the photo is taken, and that’s part of why I reach for the camera that I do. Not every medium-format photo I take do I include the border – generally only those with expired film, or one of the cameras that leaks more light. It’s as much a part of the process as choosing whether to take the photo with a Holga or something with a sharper lens.

Likewise, using a Holga, one of the ideas I have that I have yet to try is not fully winding the film to separate two images, making a sort of in-camera panoramic of 9×6 or 12×6 rather than the standard 6×6. I don’t know if artificially stitching images in Photoshop is allowed, but if I can picture an effect and pull it off in-camera, then I believe that I am experimenting and improving my photography, and I’d be more than happy to explain how I create any effect in any of my photos if someone would like to emulate the effect.

[soosh]

One thing that I would like to say is that if a person wants to have the look of a photo with a negative, slide, or polaroid frame, it’s not that expensive to purchase a Seagull, a Polaroid, a Holga, or a TLR and some film and have at it. A Holga and a roll of film will run you what, $50 with shipping? I picked up a fully functional Polaroid SX-70 recently for a dollar. This is really lo-fi stuff, so to say “I’ve only got a digital camera, I can’t compete with that” is missing the point.

[soosh]

FWIW, swampa, I don’t think you’re whinging. It’s a legitimate question and I respect your opinion on the matter.

[soosh]

When I’m not using expired film, my standbys for color negative are

Fujifilm NPH 400
Kodak ULTRA 400UC
Kodak PORTRA 400VC
Fujifilm FUJICOLOR PRO 400H

The 400 speed seems to be a nice compromise between being able to use a wide variety of f-stops and shutter speeds, and in the larger format, grain isn’t a problem. I order up a bunch from B&H every so often.

I’ve heard, but have not tried yet, that WalMart will process 120 film by mailing it out to a central location. I wouldn’t trust them with anything super-important, but it might be a cheap way to process color while you’re experimenting and getting used to 120.

[soosh]

Sorry to be a picky person, but aren’t soosh’s first and third entry invalid as they have a greater then 2 pixel border around them?

I’m more wondering if the “totem pole” entry isn’t invalid because the subject matter isn’t actually a functioning utility pole, but only formerly one. My first post was deleted by the mods for that reason, don’t see why others should get cut any slack.

I honestly went back and forth on that one myself, but there is, in the photo, a functioning power line and pole. I really wanted to use this image

But chose not to since it doesn’t have a functioning pole in it.

Also, there are other photos which show a downed utility pole in the weeds in the contest.

I’ve definitely stretched the interpretations of farktography contests in the past when I felt they were more open to creativity under the wording. I think that’s part of the fun of these contests. This contest, however, was narrowly defined and I did my best to stay within those definitions.

[soosh]

The photo you just posted, the effect was planned from the beginning and not added when converting from film to digital.

It’s the same thing, though. when I loaded my Ricoh up with film, I knew I was going to end up with an image that included the film border. That was part of the point of using medium-format rather than my digital.

If I had a Hasselblad 500c, you can be damn sure I’d enter photos taken with it. I’ve got a $1500 Canon L telephoto lens that I’ve entered farktography contests with, and I’ve entered contests with photos taken on my dSLR through a modified Holga lens.

[soosh]

Here’s an example of something that you can’t do with a digital camera, yet I believe should be allowed to be entered if the content of the photo was in line with the parameters of the contest.

You can take a Holga and spool 35mm film in it and get an image like this (not mine, found with a google image search

Now this is a unique photographic image that isn’t a photoshop, and can’t be done with a digital camera. But it’s a very pure photograph.

[soosh]

I get what you’re saying, but I disagree that it’s an unfair advantage to leave the frame in. I have both digital and film cameras. I have something like 30 cameras all told of various types, from a dSLR to very very early box cameras to toy things with plastic lenses. I use specific ones to achieve a specific look. I use different types of film, use outdated film on purpose when it gives me the sloppy unpredictable results that I’m after. I think of it more like if someone thought it was unfair that one person had a very long telephoto lens that allowed a compressed effect that they couldn’t get with the 18-55 lens that came with their camera from Costco. If what you have doesn’t allow you to get the image you want, then you have to get something different. If somebody had a Hasselblad and came in here and was putting in photos taken with it, I might think they have an advantage because they have a camera I can only lust after at this point. Doesn’t mean they can’t enter their photos.

[soosh]

I know it was the film frame, but as it isn’t the focus of the photo, it seems like a way to create border that would otherwise be invalid (and also unfair to those of us that shoot digital as we can’t do anything similar)

Well, if you use a Holga, for instance, you’re going to get a blurry vignetted effect that can’t be duplicated by a digital camera (outisde of using a lensbaby). If you’re using a digital and I’m using a fifty year-old medium format camera, I can’t capture an image that needs a shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second. Someone using film can make a double-exposure and that would be allowed, but I don’t believe that combining two digital images would be.

People with dSLRs can get more selective depth of field than people with digicams. A f/1.4 lens can take a photo in light that a f/4.5 can’t. Unless we’re all going to be bound to using the same equipment, there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to whatever you use. I can’t run out and take a photo on Wednesday morning with my medium format camera for a contest that afternoon, because I have to mail out my film 900 miles away to get it developed.

When I have displayed and sold these types of medium-format photos, I have them mounted so that the frame of the film is visible. It is a deliberate choice to include it, but that’s the look I’m going for.

[soosh]

My questions could all be summed up as differentiating between *utilitarian* poles and *utility* poles.

I should think less.

[Author]

Posts