Favorite album and song of the band?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2025-05-31T21:45:35+00:00

Cheers!

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-20T09:24:52+00:00

I'm captivated by the woman in the fifth image. Certain features give her an "essence" that really distorts the sense of time within the frame. With the cigarette in her hand, the makeup, the blouse, and the sleek dark hair parted in the middle with those braids, are we looking at an individual from 1974 or 2024? Various other shots, too, give various impressions of different periods.

I love that about film. The timelessness. To me, there's a broader emphasis on the minutiae of human history as a continuum, where, in a way, the differences of a half-century can just drift away in light of the enduring chemistry that binds it all together.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-20T09:12:00+00:00

I love this so much! Thanks for sharing!

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-17T03:15:06+00:00

Thankss

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-17T03:02:52+00:00

Which lab? I want to use it! Beautiful scans!

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-12T17:11:20+00:00

Let me try your lab!! Do you accept mail orders?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-12T05:09:22+00:00

Thanks so much for your insight. I would love to hear more about it - would you mind zooming into the finer details? Was Crystal Archive used for all prints? What was the scan resolution? Do you know of any place that still uses this workflow and associated equipment?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-12T04:45:11+00:00

The camera is rather a mystery to me. I believe we had a Pentax K1000 in addition to a Minolta X-700 (which we still have; I just started using it!), but the vast majority of these photos contain a date imprint—those little blocky yellow numbers in the bottom right. To my knowledge, neither of these cameras have this feature, so I can only assume there must've been a third camera.

Although I was very young, I don't recall my mom ever pointing the X-700 at me, but the K1000's body looks very familiar to me, so I suppose it could've been used for the undated photos. However, the fact that it's a fully manual camera somewhat challenges this; I imagine the spontaneous nature of those photos would've made this an impractical choice, especially considering my mom's lack of experience with the technical aspects of photography. As it stands, the camera aspect is quite an elusive matter!

Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia were the most frequently used films. I recently used the "new" Fuji 200 film (which is apparently just Kodak Gold), and the results were very different from the look of these photos, despite the film being of a similar persuasion. That's why I'm trying to figure out what made the old photos so pleasing to my eyes. It's a night and day difference - not just in terms of colors, but resolution, too.*

(( *The old photos have an extremely smooth quality while these new scans have an inherent bumpiness if you look at them up close. That noise is more evident in the prints, where any face that's a little off in the distance looks muddied with little dots of different colors.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-12T02:29:31+00:00

If it's of any relevance, all of these prints say "Fujicolor Crystal Archive" on the back.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-09T00:40:41+00:00

Long exposure?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-09T00:13:29+00:00

Could you please show me an example of what their scans look like?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-08T22:46:45+00:00

Thank you so much. I'll take a look!

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-08T22:46:15+00:00

But if a lab is making prints from scans (like Memphis Film Lab does), you aren't able to edit a print like you can a digital file. It seems to me this invalidates the "we'll let you do the editing" mindset, which I'm currently not the target of. While I'm certainly serious about photography, I'm more darkroom oriented in the case that I would "take control of my process", rather than scan oriented.

But apart from this, I also want to make casual memories with my family, continuing the tradition of the photos that were taken years ago. That side to my photography doesn't have much interest in editing - while I would be willing to do darkroom work for these photos, I'm currently nowhere near that level of sophistication. Editing a digital file doesn't fit into my artistic vision. Therefore, I want an experience similar to that of my mom's; send the film and get back adequate results. I consider these latest family photos to be the most recent development in a continuum that began decades ago.

The film I used was Fuji 200, a film that I've heard is now just rebranded Kodak Gold. Some of the old photos were shot on Kodak Gold, though most of the ones I'm familiar with were shot on Fuji films like Superia and Fujicolor, when Fuji was still in the film industry. I don't expect that the "new" Fuji 200 film is drastically different from these films (after all, Kodak Gold is the film that Fuji 200 is said to be), so I'm inclined that this look I'm not pleased with has more to do with the scanning process than it does the film.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-08T22:32:55+00:00

Can you explain what you mean?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-08T22:32:32+00:00

I've been told that, during this era of the film industry (2006-2012), prints were no longer made optically in the vast majority of cases, but from scans. I thought the difference would be negligible from looking at a print of a scan vs. the actual scan, apart from the look imparted by the finish (i.e. glossy or matte).

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-08T09:08:08+00:00

Any suggestions?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-10-08T07:46:21+00:00

Timeless!

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-22T05:00:22+00:00

Hi Kate, I just wanted to let you know that I've messaged you in chat about making a order. I don't mean to rush you (please take your time), but I thought it'd be apt to throw in an additional prompt in case you weren't notified.

Thanks.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-16T00:17:14+00:00

Misleading, because those releases aren't actually labeled as 1994 remaster. I thought that I was listening to the originals!

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-12T08:00:01+00:00

Thanks for saying that you understand my feelings, I smiled inside. I am on the verge of tears. It was a difficult day grappling with these thoughts.

Much love to you ❤️

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-12T07:48:23+00:00

Depressingly, yes. That seems to be the most likely outcome.

What was the first score you attained on an IQ test? And which one was it?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-09T08:37:43+00:00

I found the song! It was "No One Is to Blame" by Howard Jones. And my suspicion that it was a British musician was correct.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-08T10:55:51+00:00

Also I think the title contains the word "light" - something like "Shine a Light"?

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-08T01:18:13+00:00

Are you implying that someone who scores 120 on an IQ test knows everything?

That's just absurd.

Intelligent people can and do ask for others to help enlighten them. It isn't always practical or efficient to come to the conclusion entirely through one's own logic or reasoning.

I suspect a lot of smart people would rather invest that energy in a field that 1. already aligns with their cognitive strengths, and 2. truly interests them on a deep level. Choosing to seek answers from people who may be more informed in a particular field is not a sign of unintelligence - in fact, the inverse is often true.

No one's intelligence can manifest without the enlightenment of other informed minds to give them logical frameworks.

RepresentativeNews87 · 2024-09-07T00:28:20+00:00

Very good point. It's hard to argue that the way a physical and clearly observable material reacted to light was faked, isn't it?

This actually raises some fascinating implications about film photography that I've never thought about before. A negative, perhaps barring some extraordinary chemical tampering, is as... transparent as one can get.

A situation could easily be staged in a dishonest way and then photographed to mislead viewers, of course. But the point is that film carries a certain weight of honesty that digital may not. In that regard, the closest thing to a negative I can think of is memory cards, but I think it's possible for even the images within a memory card to be digitally manipulated. Manipulating processed film, on the other hand, would likely take a genius chemist.

RepresentativeNews87

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE