File :-(, x, )
Anonymous

EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:02 12:46:26Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width900Image Height635
>> Anonymous
Great photograph, looks surreal and sensual at once, even though it's just a photograph of a hand.

What was it shot with?
>> Anonymous
Nikon F90X
35 mm, Tri-X 400 film
printed the old fashioned way and with basically not burning or dodging
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
i'm not sure how to feel about the framing. i would like it better if it were black all the way to its 90ยบ corners. explain what's with that plzx?
>> Anonymous
Those are the edges of a poorly filed-out negative carrier.

Admittedly the effect seems much more natural when you are looking at the actual print, it isn't something digital folks see often. I'd plain forgotten that it was unusual.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54808
i kind of have no idea what you're talking about and sort of completely glossed it over because i have no interest in non-digital photographic methods, but i get the idea.

still a great shot.
>> Anonymous
>>54810

right?? you do realise that all digital principles are based on film, dont you?
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>54827
of course i do. i just don't CARE. because i'm not interested in ever using a film camera ever at all. it's not that i don't see the value in it, it's just that it doesn't fit my interests.

i like photoshop too, but i don't need to learn how to paint first, you know?
>> Anonymous
>>54833
Digital photography = film photography with a few exceptions and nuances in regards to sensors, printing, and developing. Your interests are more related to film photography than you might like to think.

And photoshop has nothing to do with painting.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>54840
You realize that, in response to Slim's claim that he doesn't feel the need to learn about the film-specific aspects of photography, you responded that digital photography is just film photography with some film-specific aspects removed and digital-specific ones added?

I.e., you didn't make any sort of argument at all.

If you never plan to use film, there's no real reason to know about negative carriers, developing chemicals, darkrooms, different types of film, etc.
>> Anonymous
Freaky, funky and has a piano. Nice pic.
>> Anonymous
>>54763
youre my hero for using tri-x
>>54840
youre my hero for knowing that its called photoshop for a reason
>> Anonymous
>>54883
I must confess I use a different brand for different film speeds, Tri-X is the best for 400 I've found.

For 1600 I use Fuji and for 100 I use T-Max. I really don't shoot in between those since I'm not a terribly picky person. If I know I am going to be doing fast shooting or shooting in really crappy lighting I'll use 1600 (though I've used Tri-X in night time with good results, albeit at 20 second exposure time). If I am shooting on a really bright day or am going to do long exposures or want to catch a lot of detail on something I use T-Max 100 (which has a funny way of turning all the developing fluids pink).
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>54732

Love it. Very moody, nice atmosphere
>> Anonymous
>>54883
I'd been using Photoshop since I was about 6 so I knew it like to back of my hand. So when I finally took my first photography class in college and found out all about burning, dodging, solarizing, and contrast filters I felt like a real dunce. It also made me appreciate the entire film process that much more since I knew how easy it could be done digitally.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
The more I see this picture, the more I love it.

I've had about a day to digest it. Even now, I'm still wondering how exactly you created the image. I know there's a mirror involved somewhere, and perhaps a piano, but I'm not certain about how, where, and so on... it's a very mysterious shot, with lovely grain and tonality. Gotta love that Tri-X. I would love to purchase a print of it, honestly. Feel like making an 8x10 and $15?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>54975
Actually, I apologize, it's horribly pretentious of me to name a price for YOUR work.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
excellent photo, as said above. very special.
>> revolutio
>>54975
Wow, umm that is tremendously flattering.

I've got a DA account, which I know offers printing service but frankly I don't like the concept of a digital print of a scan of a traditional print.

However, I still have another print of this apart from the one that was scanned, the only actual difference is that it is slightly lighter, as in the exposure time under the enlarger for this print was 8.5 seconds and the other one is 8.1 seconds. It might require a little spotting.

If you are honestly interested send me an email and maybe we can work something out.