I'm not a photo enthusiast Billy BA but those where awesome shots! Thank you kindly for sharing those. Is there a place where I can see more of these similar quality shots from the past? Thanks again.
Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread
- Thread starter BillyBadAss
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Here are some glorious 4x5 Kodachrome shots taken from 1940 to 1943. Best film line Kodak ever made, but discontinued it because of how expensive and how lethal the chemicals were to develop it. Nothing has ever looked so good since IMO. http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/303194.html?thread=22669914
All of these images look like they were taken with a ring flash or clam shell as a fill light... yet some of them are clearly not. I am very curious as to how these photos were taken. I looked up the photographer but all of his photos are BW on the website and hardly of the same quality. It looks like professional touch up artist got ahold of the originals and really went to town with the processing. I'm not saying they are fake but that I'm in great disbelief. I'm just really curious as to how the photos where made. (lighting, camera type, lens type, post processing techniques for the film and digital post production.)
Is there any more info you can share about these photos BillyBadAss? The dynamic range in a few of these shots is simply unbelievable.
Last edited:
All I know from the blog is these were shot on Kodachrome which is a positive (slide) film. That film was always beautiful and by far the best thing Kodak ever made. Also, the film was 4x5, not 35mm.
Good, I'm glad I wasn't ranty...I can "go on a bit" sometimes.
But I was comparing 35mm film (the books and photographers I mentioned) with 35mm dSLR (and in particular, full frame) with the images I linked, because that's what you originally compared when you said "in the realm of 35mm film; digital cameras are finally catching up in terms of resolution."
I mentioned digital MF as an afterthought.
There's also something about looking at positives on a light board that I never get tired of.
Absolutely. And those images look lovely
I also loved the Kodachrome WWII photos you linked. Have you ever used a view camera like that. It takes a while to get used to the inverted image on the ground glass plate, and focusing is....time consuming, but it's a whole different way of taking photos.
Like Mike though, I looked at some of those photos and thought...hmmm, where's the light source. Particularly the first inside an aircraft fuselage, and the third (which is my favourite) in the wind tunnel.
All the same, wonderful images and thanks for sharing.
Click it for much higher resolution.
You always take great cloud pictures! :tup: From what is shown, looks like a weak and/or dying thunderstorm or shower(based on the fibrous cirrus of the anvil above).
How do you capture such contrasts and depth by taking cloud pictures like that? If I go and take some, they either come out too bright or too dark, otherwise, if I am able to get it down, it always looks two dimensional.
Although I don't have a (D)SLR, my P&S does have manual exposure, iso, aperture, shutter speed settings. If that helps.
Last edited:
Thanks . Having 10 megapixels really helps, but I aim towards slightly overexposing the pictures, then I just fix them up in Photoshop afterwards.
Maybe I'm a little lucky, but I feel like I have a good idea of when I can get a good cloud picture. Generally when the clouds are absolutely massive, I try to snap some pictures. You get a lot more dimension that way.
Here's the original.
I didn't hear thunder, I think it was just a rain cloud. It isn't quite hot enough for thunder yet I think.
CR2.
. Having 10 megapixels really helps, but I aim towards slightly overexposing the pictures, then I just fix them up in Photoshop afterwards.Maybe I'm a little lucky, but I feel like I have a good idea of when I can get a good cloud picture. Generally when the clouds are absolutely massive, I try to snap some pictures. You get a lot more dimension that way.
Here's the original.
I didn't hear thunder, I think it was just a rain cloud. It isn't quite hot enough for thunder yet I think.
CR2.
Last edited:
I recently mucked about with some glaciers and volcanos and shit. Have some very amateur pictures taken on my crappy compact:
[screenshot]http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/476813_10150834328176802_652081801_11896477_456273693_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/412862_10150834329256802_652081801_11896485_131175131_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/574449_10150834329661802_652081801_11896489_1810126798_n.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/412645_10150834330781802_652081801_11896495_1606280291_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/580221_10150834332486802_652081801_11896506_636059042_n.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/460812_10150834333476802_652081801_11896512_343405179_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/476813_10150834328176802_652081801_11896477_456273693_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/412862_10150834329256802_652081801_11896485_131175131_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/574449_10150834329661802_652081801_11896489_1810126798_n.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/412645_10150834330781802_652081801_11896495_1606280291_o.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/580221_10150834332486802_652081801_11896506_636059042_n.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/460812_10150834333476802_652081801_11896512_343405179_o.jpg[/screenshot]
Plant in my garden
[screenshot]http://www.margrave.myzen.co.uk/images/2012/DSC_9510_v1deres.jpg[/screenshot]
[screenshot]http://www.margrave.myzen.co.uk/images/2012/DSC_9510_v1deres.jpg[/screenshot]
Click it for much higher resolution.
^ New background thanks
[screenshot]http://i.imgur.com/sHvsr.jpg[/screenshot]
![[GU]elmur_fud](/data/avatars/s/47/47919.jpg?1425583194){kind=avatar}
[GU]elmur_fud
I have balls of Depleted Uranium
Zee plant ist a Narcissus pseudonarcissus AKA a Daffodil but perhaps you knew that and were just being lazy. Nice macro though. Never eat 1 of those BTW they are edible but they taste horrible.
LOL
Thank you for the kind words.
Oddly enough, no macro. It was a case of the best camera in the world being the one in your hand at the time.
The shot was taken (iirc) at something like 300mm (200mm on full-frame) f5.6 by standing back a bit. Not my lens of choice for taking that sort of shot but owing to the geography of my house* I couldn't be bothered to go back into the house to find a more appropriate lens.
*The house and garden are on a steep hillside and the shot was taken from outside the garden (and below the house). Only a mountain goat could reach the flower from the house side of the garden wall (but, there again, a mountain goat might find the flower quite tasty.
Thank you for the kind words.
[GU]elmur_fud;2560354 said:
Oddly enough, no macro. It was a case of the best camera in the world being the one in your hand at the time.
The shot was taken (iirc) at something like 300mm (200mm on full-frame) f5.6 by standing back a bit.
Not my lens of choice for taking that sort of shot but owing to the geography of my house* I couldn't be bothered to go back into the house to find a more appropriate lens. *The house and garden are on a steep hillside and the shot was taken from outside the garden (and below the house). Only a mountain goat could reach the flower from the house side of the garden wall (but, there again, a mountain goat might find the flower quite tasty.
[GU]elmur_fud
I have balls of Depleted Uranium
It's not like I thought you would eat one normally, merely I had to eat one of just about every edible wild plant indigenous to North America for a wilderness survival training thing (Bear Grylls shit) and I wanted to put that horrible knowledge to use.
Edit: Hmm maybe 5 minutes and I run into this... oh well, if she ate it, she learned.
http://harleypastore.deviantart.com/art/XXIX-299288184
Edit: Hmm maybe 5 minutes and I run into this... oh well, if she ate it, she learned.
http://harleypastore.deviantart.com/art/XXIX-299288184
Last edited:
[GU]elmur_fud;2560358 said:
My idea of wilderness survival is a restaurant that I haven't been to before.
Our Judo club is planning a camping weekend for a big competition in Inverness during May (the camp site is adjacent to the sports centre) and I've found the perfect spot to pitch my tent: http://www.premierinn.com/en/hotel/INVSOU/inverness-west#2
Am I a wimp? Yes. Will I care, sleeping soundly in my hotel room whilst the others freeze their buts off? No.
Was the daffodil the worst?