Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Website  (Read 1774 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« on: June 06, 2010, 03:06:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi folks - got around to getting a website together at last, and it's up and currently alive. I suppose I'll be making changes now and again as things begin to strike me as odd, and as with any new baby you hope it will improve with age - they generally do, don't they? Later, of course, it all goes downhill again. The first site, robcphotos.com got as far as a single blank page - don't ask.

The girls are all from calendar shoots and come off Kodachromes with a very few 120 Ektachromes thrown in; most of the 'paintings' are from a D200 and, whilst I remember, the 120s were 'scanned' by being shot via a D700 and a 2.8/105 Nikkor of the old school, the originals stuck on a lightbox. Since there was no rig, I wouldn't fancy going any larger with those copies as I'm sure the transparencies were never parallel to the camera, not that I didn't try...

Currently working on another set of pics... hope it doesn't take as long this time - my butt is numb.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 03:11:36 PM by Rob C » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2010, 05:40:43 PM »
ReplyReply

As I said elsewhere, clean site and excellent photography!

Are the Kodachromes shot with 120/220 as well? Do you still shoot glamour with film, if so, with what?

I'm trying to find a good, clean 50-100 ISO color positive or negative film for portraits. I've shot some portraits with Provia with 6x6 (Mamiya C220), and the sharpness is ruthless to imperfections on skin, and skin tones are not optimal. I wouldn't mind the sharpness as I'd rather have too much information than a soft image - never was a fan of the stocking-over-the-lens -look. I'm aware Provia isn't meant for portraits, but I shoot landscapes with it and happened to have some in the freezer. Also considering some pushed negative film for grain.
Logged

David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 890


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2010, 06:25:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, this is a really nice web site. There is no nonsense and it's straightforward to navigate. I really like your landscapes at the bottom of the gallery (if it's ok to call them that?).
David
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2010, 02:58:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
As I said elsewhere, clean site and excellent photography!

Are the Kodachromes shot with 120/220 as well? Do you still shoot glamour with film, if so, with what?

I'm trying to find a good, clean 50-100 ISO color positive or negative film for portraits. I've shot some portraits with Provia with 6x6 (Mamiya C220), and the sharpness is ruthless to imperfections on skin, and skin tones are not optimal. I wouldn't mind the sharpness as I'd rather have too much information than a soft image - never was a fan of the stocking-over-the-lens -look. I'm aware Provia isn't meant for portraits, but I shoot landscapes with it and happened to have some in the freezer. Also considering some pushed negative film for grain.



Hi feppe

No, I never did get to use the 120 Kodachrome film - it came out after I had moved to Spain and by then, the problems with finding good local E6 facilities here for the Ektachrome 120 I used led me to get rid of my 'blads and concentrate totally on 35mm Kodachrome (64 ASA because the slower stuff produced more contrast than I could handle). I have heard from one guy in Australia who had identical subjects that the 120 Kodachrome was very unreliable - excellent when it went well but a nightmare when it didn't. There must have been real problems for Kodak to withdraw it after spending so much time and effort to bring it to market.

Do I still use film to shoot girls? I have a freezer full of it, including some Kodachrome that is now unprocessable but might become historically valuable for my grandchilden, but sadly, the girls have flown the coop. The clients drifted away from the genre and my stock supplies went with them. I did try floating an independent stock shoot but the cost of model fees etc. meant that the economics didn't work out; I did get my money back but only after two years - I'd have earned more, at no risk, on interest in those days.

I've used some old E100S 35mm on girls since then, non-professionally, and I did like the colours and it made good conversions to b/w too. I still have some in the freezer and also an almost unused Nikon F3 (not in the freezer ;-)) and if the opportunity arises again I'll use the two once more. However, the film porcessing costs are fairly high out here - around 8 per film - and without a client to foot the bill, I'd rather shoot digi! unless there is a very good reason.

If you want to shoot people on color transparency, I'd go for Ektachrome myself, probably based on the comfort value of past experience if nothing more. The one interesting advantage of transparencies for me is that they are instantly readable on a lightbox; I never did get to grips with colour negative/people on a lightbox - all that base dye made it virtually impossible to judge anything very well, expressions included!

Thanks again for your kind words.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2010, 04:23:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Sutton
Rob, this is a really nice web site. There is no nonsense and it's straightforward to navigate. I really like your landscapes at the bottom of the gallery (if it's ok to call them that?).
David


Hi David

Thanks for the compliment about the website;  yes, you may indeed refer to those shots as landscape - I just hope you enjoy them under whichever nomenclature!

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 04:23:51 AM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2010, 05:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Just when I thought it was going okay, I upload a second Gallery page and find a glitch that I just can't fathom.

On the second gallery, the titles all appear to be on a pale pink background where they should be on white. When making the extended background on which to write them, that background looks perfectly white. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this happened? The work was done on an old version of Photoshop.

Rob C

EDIT: Page content removed until I can fix the problem. But any suggestions still welcomed!
« Last Edit: June 11, 2010, 05:46:33 AM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2010, 05:58:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Website, Gallery 2


Well, I've tried redoing all the JPEGs again and the pink effect on the background to the titles persists though I don't see it on my monitor whilst I'm typing the titles.

Sorry, but I just don't have the energy for Take 3! The pink can stay - some may even like it. On the other hand, if I execute the titles... forget it.

Rob C


EDIT:

Sorry; at the risk of boring you all and stretching patience beyond its elastic limit, I have been assured that the pink is only visible on my computer!

Oh well, there must be a lesson there...

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 08:35:41 AM by Rob C » Logged

Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2010, 07:46:23 AM »
ReplyReply

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....252&hl=site
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7965



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2010, 08:24:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I like your new gallery, too, Rob.

And the background for titles doesn't look pink to me (but I'm colorblind  ).

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2010, 08:53:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris_T



Thanks, Chris, I've checked out these sites and am now even more paranoid that before!

Seems the best one can hope for is to hit some sort of high average of success;  maybe since nobody else here has seen the pink background to the titles on Gallery 2 they exist only on my own setup. That being so, I wonder why I don't see the same effect on the titles in first Gallery (viewing on the same setup)?

Thanks again for your advice,

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad