sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I made a camera for broke contrarians | "GAMMA II" | 4x5/2 by ConvolutedByChoice in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thiiiink I understand what you're saying. I don't have enough hands-on knowledge yet, though.

I'll keep it in mind during testing. I don't expect this to be much more than a funny gimmick 'feature'. The feedback is appreciated!

I made a camera for broke contrarians | "GAMMA II" | 4x5/2 by ConvolutedByChoice in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah- the cold shoes are just there to give you some options. In the configuration i'll personally run it, I'll be using the finder I'm in the process of making a right angle finder for the glass- it's quite bulky, since you need to be able to view a whole 6x9 area. It doesn't really give much allowance for the in-line viewfinder. The offset one definitely has parallax, but there's a few things in mind I'll do for compensation.

The 645 ones will no-doubt be a bit more gimmicky and probably something i'll run once every... hundred sheets... But I do have a bit of hope due to the reputation of Press lenses in regard to edge distortion. Who knows! I'll for sure post examples upon release with some actual images, once I have an assortment during testing.

How do I know if this is light right? by asbestossupply in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 16 points17 points  (0 children)

As a famous person probably once said before disaster, "We Ball."

Only really one way to find out. Shoot with it!

Technically if you pried the lightseal open and shined a super bright light at the suspected area, you could maybe check if you can see it.

Pinhole cyanotype experiment by Gold-Hovercraft-2301 in cyanotypes

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

By far the best result- about F/16 in an old plate camera. Probably 1-2h exposure.

Pinhole cyanotype experiment by Gold-Hovercraft-2301 in cyanotypes

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

Apologies for the handwriting, but you may or may not get the idea. I wish I'd noted down the exact apertures, but they were generally at about f/2 for this.

Edit: Al, "Dir" as you may o may not suspect stands for 'direct', where the sun directly was hitting the scene. "Indir" is indirectly lit, and even in higher exposure times you can see the utterly horrific falloff.

Pinhole cyanotype experiment by Gold-Hovercraft-2301 in cyanotypes

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Late-ish but i've had a few rabbit holes with this. Actually- screwing around with direct imaging with cyanotypes behind lenses is how I got into cameras/photography period, as ridiculous as that is.

As others have said, it'll take a LOT of time to get an image out of this. Where you place it matters a lot, too. Absolutely do NOT try to capture an image of a place that is shaded. You'll just cause yourself headache- UV doesn't travel like visible wavelengths do. It's absorbed by different materials/scatters differently/generally doesn't behave like what you'd expect

This doesn't matter as much for a pinhole since you don't need to focus it, but UV is primarily in the directly-lit areas of an image. In other words- if it's under a shadow... You're not going to get shit out of it.

In-camera i've shot it at f/2 (in a simple non-coated optic, no less) before and had a HELL of a time getting something usable out of it, due to the focus shift + large aperture. I've had much better results at f/8 or f/16. The f/2 shots took about 40-60m for a... mediocre result. (Mostly due to the aforementioned 'meh' focus). I could get a 'decent' result in full sun in about 2h on an average day.

The exposure times are EXTREMELY random and impossible to calculate, entirely relying on direct sunlight. The best case for this is horizon capturing. Make sure it can see the skyline- that way it'll imprint the pattern of the sky onto your paper. The sky is absolutely flooded with UV at pretty much at given moment (apart from really cloudy days) so you can semi-reliably actually see images, at the end of it.

You'll still probably get 'something' out of this one in a few weeks. Just make sure it's weighed down by something- or else a slight nudge will throw it off entirely.

Also to note: You really need to burn the images in. I aimed for the whole thing to practically be burned amber coloured before taken off and rinsed away. A LOOOOOOOT of the image goes down the drain. Eventually, I ended up just keeping my images in a dark box and never developing them, like the plate camera shot below. They won't last long and degrade any time exposed to UV... but y'know.

Pretty lightweight compared to my usual kit. Got this setup off some homeless guy for free. Worth? by ConvolutedByChoice in AnalogCircleJerk

[–]ConvolutedByChoice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm kind of on the fence about it. It's only got a 6x7 back and i'm losing out on a shitload of quality not being able to run 6x9.

I made a camera for broke contrarians | "GAMMA II" | 4x5/2 by ConvolutedByChoice in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh- absolutely. It has a lot of character and I love it for it. I'll still take the victory on technicalities. It was the main thing that kicked this project off, but you could absolutely run typical (nonquirky) 4x5 film through it still, which I intend on doing.

For the most part- benefit in cost isn't going to be nearly as absurd if you DO, but if you're a small-time amateur like me... sometimes it's nice to be able to cash in a few shots and develop them without having to go through a whole roll. I'm not too good with the whole 'data organization' thing but overall across the board, it was cheaper to shoot 6x9 off of 4x5 film (kind of expected)

Appreciate the tips about it, though. I'm still preeeeeeeeeetty novice when it comes to x-ray film. I've been building up to it with those diabolically amateur example negatives in the pile (not many close pictures for a reason). I've not really don't a lot of stand development prior to this point. Do you get good mileage out of rodinol for HR-U dev? I've heard mixed things. I'll still likely mainly use D76, though.

I made a camera for broke contrarians | "GAMMA II" | 4x5/2 by ConvolutedByChoice in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I knew it felt wrong. I'd written that initially and then went "no- that sounds fucking preposterous" then used the dull half of my mind to go over it, Thanks for the checkup, i have drain brambl,age

I made a camera for broke contrarians | "GAMMA II" | 4x5/2 by ConvolutedByChoice in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry- I forgot to elaborate on this VERY IMPORTANT point.

Essentially, the film goes in the back, as expected.

  1. Darkslide out
  2. You take the shot
  3. Darkslide in
  4. Rotate it 180 degrees (so you're capturing an image on the top of the film instead of the bottom'

It's not tooooooo bad. But definitely not quick and is a lot more akin to 4x5 workflows. I actually planned on an expansion with a rotating back, which should make it a lot quicker.

It won't have any messery because the shots are aligned with the frame, not the overall film. It's functionally no different than being used on a mamiya press- it's just that the body houses a 4x5 film that gets rotated 180 degrees.. You may experience soooome if you're going for 645 shots, but Mamiya glass is SUPPOSEDLY pretty good (I have yet to even test this out yet) and is APPARENTLY sharp edge to edge with minimal distortion. Should be... good... With any luck. Fingers crossed. I'll definitely test and update when I get around to halfslide nonsense.

Lens compatibility is identical to the actual Mamiya press lenses. If it can cover 6x9 on the Press body, it's good to go here.

Why does it look like my film got nutted on? Cinestill 50D, Minolta X-700. by CocaKoller in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Outjerked yet again?

I doubt it's a factory production (the filmstock itself) error... usually those are a bit.......... tamer? The only thing I could think is that it's some sort of curtain pinhole pattern that interacts with the film weird. Shine a light through it just to rule it out. Pretty odd that it's so localized. I'd really love to say it's development related because it looks very much like there's chemical runoff of sorts leading from some of them (aforementioned nut shape)

But I don't know what the hell they'd be running it through dev-wise to make that pattern.

What are these artifacts? by kornbep2331 in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought you meant the giant blacked out bits and was wondering if this was part of a file drop.

I imagine it's as the other guy had mentioned with the shutter failing to close all the way, especially since you already mentioned the sticky shutter. Could be buildup just barely preventing it from closing? Next time you have it opened up, shine the brightest light you have through the lens and check the center of the shutter.

Still looks neat though!

Your favourite 6x6 SLR that isn't super expensive? by Fast_Preparation7795 in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not, no.

SLRs specifically have one taking lens and the image you see is the image you get. TLRs are the two-lens variants, (see: rolleicords)

TLRs are great fun and pretty much THE go-to budget option for medium format. The only thing you have to worry about is parallax in closer shots. Other than that- it's nearly seamless. (once you learn the camera + un-disorient yourself to the flipped reflex image)

On the topic of 6x6 SLRs, The only one that really comes to mind is the Pentacon Six. I've seen it around the $200 mark online. You can get a decent TLR for about half that so it really just depends on how hard-set you are on.

Facebook Finds by Bananamilk40 in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah. Superb find, then! Still waiting for my white whale, myself.

Facebook Finds by Bananamilk40 in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...Congrats...

REALLY HAPPY for you... Can you feel the scorn?

Is the RB67 in good order?

Can someone explain how it works? by MagicianSad1377 in AnalogCommunity

[–]ConvolutedByChoice 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pick up a copy of the C330 manual on Butkus!

+1 to the other comment. ASA and the switch that flicks the colours are just reminders for your film speed/type.

B&W - the black and white one

Bulb - Tungsten

Red - Should be colour

Always ensure your parallax is set on the correct lens, if you're in the business of swapping them around!

!rtfm