You are currently browsing the photo tag archives.

Synth Electronics Pron

Posted 2016.02.06 11.28 in Hobbies by Stephanie

Korg Monotron Duo.

Monotron Duo Top

Monotron Duo Bottom

Just leaving these here for future reference.

They’re Baaaaack…

Posted 2012.01.22 22.21 in Photography, Pointless Blather by Stephanie

Oh wait, wrong movie. Who you gonna call?

 

I love that whoever owns this car sometimes parks it in my neighborhood.

(Pic taken with my 75+ year old Kodak Bantam camera.)

Caught on Film

Posted 2011.11.12 8.59 in Photography, Spiritual by Stephanie

The idea of catching ghosts on film has been around since about 35 seconds after the first camera was made. Well, maybe not quite that fast, but at least within the first week. The point is, ghost photos (and fake ghost photos) are as old as photography itself.

Nowadays there’s a huge glut of so-called “orb” pictures around, and some people take them very seriously. At one time I tried to keep an open mind about them too – I reasoned that maybe there was some sciencey reason that meant digital sensors were somehow sensitive to otherworldy energy. Or something like that.

I was forced to abandon that belief when faced with the fact that the large sensors in DSLR cameras do not catch “orbs” like the small point-and-shoot cameras do. And if it wasn’t some sciencey thing that made digital sensors catch them, then it had to be the other reason – tiny lens, tiny focal length, tiny sensor, and a flash in close proximity to the lens / sensor means any dust will be brightly illuminated and just inside the lens’s ability to focus as a big blurry blob.

So while I am open-minded and I’ve seen and experienced many things I cannot explain, the “orbs” captured by digital cameras are no longer in that “unexplained” category.

Now when I see these ghost-hunter type shows, and they capture orbs with their equipment, I always look closely to see what they are using. And I’ve never seen “orbs” captured on a large-sensor digital camera. And I’ve really never seen “orbs” captured on old-fashioned film.

Until now.

In the last week of October I had a half-roll of black & white film I wanted to use up, so I put it in a simple camera, and snapped a few shots around the house. Mainly I wanted to see how the film performed, and wasn’t worried about the subject matter so much as ensuring that the images turned out.

Out of about 8 or 10 frames, most were simple boring pictures. Then there was this one…

A glow seems to be emerging from the heat vent in the hall, and another glow seems to be streaking into or out of the front bedroom. I can say with certainty that I saw no such glows or illumination when I was taking the pictures that night.

There is also a bit of ‘fog’ towards the top of the frame. And down the right-hand side there are some faint after-images of the film’s sprocket holes.

I can’t say for sure that this photo is paranormal, it might be the result of a processing or film-handling mistake. However, I’ve processed dozens upon dozens of rolls of film just in the past 6 months alone, and I’ve never had something like this happen before.

XA-3 X-Pro

Posted 2011.10.08 11.44 in Photography, Pointless Blather by Stephanie

Being stuck at home with this lame leg is starting to get me down. I can’t go out and enjoy the nice weather. Can’t go for a walk. Can’t even go for a drive, as it irritates my leg to be in the car for any length of time. About the only thing that’s improved is without the IVs in my arm, I’m able to get my arms into a dark-bag to process some film I shot earlier.

The pics below were shot on Kodak Elite Chrome, using my Olympus XA-3. Elite Chrome is a slide film, but I cross-processed it in my standard C-41 chemistry. That’s why the colours are so wild and wierd. Where the Fuji film I’ve cross-processed has come out with pink and red hues, this Kodak brand came out with lots of greens and yellows. It’s kind of neat, I think.

The XA-3 did a good job, I quite like that camera. Most of the images are sharp and nicely exposed, though there’s a bit of motion-blur here and there as a few shots were snapped from the car while it was moving. I actually still had the IVs on when I shot off this roll, so it’s mostly crummy car-shots I took while getting from home to work or whatever.

Grumble grumble lame leg. Not crippled enough for an accessible-parking permit but too crippled to be out going places and doing things.

Anyways, pics:

Processed for about 24 minutes in my tired old C-41 chemistry, at about 68 degrees F. I’m really abusing those chemicals. They were rated for 12 rolls of film or 2 weeks, whichever came first. They’re now over 3 months old and I’ve processed over 35 rolls of film with them, and it’s still kicking.

A Day At Marineland

Posted 2011.07.28 22.16 in Family/Friends, Photography by Stephanie

Recently, my sister had decided to take her kids to Marineland in Niagara Falls, Canada. Our parents were going to, and it sounded like a fun trip so I tagged along.

As a break from my ongoing compact camera thing, I decided to take an old classic with me – the Fujica 35-SE. Although not my original camera from 1983, this is the same exact make and model as that very first camera.

The 35-SE was introduced in 1959. A heavy, solid camera, it is fully and completely manual. To aid in setting the manual exposure parameters, it does have a selenium light meter, which still works after 50+ years! What I had forgotten was that my 35-SE suffers a light leak. This resulted in some colourful yellow-orange flaring on many (but not all) of the images.

Light leak aside, I’m pleased with many of the images, and even the ones with the flaring aren’t too bad.

Film was Kodak Portra 400VC, the first four exposures above were based on the “sunny-16” rule and the last two were trusted to the light meter. (The last two were also shot inside a moving car, so you know… just wasting film to get to the end of the roll!) Finally, it was processed at home with my tired & expired C-41 kit.

Cheers!

Not a Photoblog

Posted 2011.07.28 8.35 in Pointless Blather by Stephanie

I figured I’d just slip this comment in here – this isn’t a photoblog, it’s just that I’ve been on a photography kick for the past month or so.

Before that it was an electronics thing.

And anyways, the photography stuff probably makes for better reading than the alternative – whinging about the terrible crippling back-pain I’ve been suffering since the end of June.

So – more pictures and camera talk to come! 🙂

Art Camp, 1983

Posted 2011.07.09 21.16 in Family/Friends, Photography by Stephanie

Going through my negatives binder recently, I found buried in the middle of it a few strips of negatives that brought me back… way back, to June, 1983.

These were the first two rolls of film I ever shot & developed myself, in the first couple days of the first photography class I ever took. After 28 years, I can still remember many of the details.

It was Art Camp, I had my dad’s 35mm Rangefinder — a Fujica 35-SE, which he bought in 1959. Photography was a popular subject at Art Camp and there were four different classes set up. My instructor’s name was Tom I believe, and he gave each of us a roll of film and told us to come back in an hour or so with the whole roll shot.

Art Camp, by the way, was a 2-week camp experience for students with some skill, aptitude, or interest in the visual arts. Participants selected their major and minor studies from options such as drawing, painting, printmaking, photography, sculpture, and so forth. It was held in June, towards the end of the school year. If my memories and calculations are correct, I attended in 1982 (majored in sculpture), then in 1983 when I majored in photography.

Here are a collection of shots from those first two rolls, from those first couple days of class, in June 1983.

Click the thumbnails for the full-size images, and for some details & information on each pic. There are likely to be inaccuracies as this is based on my memories from 28 years ago.

For what it’s worth: the negatives are marked as “Kodak Safety Film 5062” which was known as Plus-X Pan film, rated at 125ISO. I have no memory of what chemistry we used to develop it, only that we had dark bags and daylight Patterson tanks like I do now. The dark bags were optional as the classroom was light-tight and could be secured for processing.

We didn’t just do the negatives, there were also enlargers so we could make prints. Somewhere I still have some of my prints from back then filed away, but probably not as carefully as my negs were.