Dancing with the Devil! Flirting with the Dark side! Have I gone too far for BOKEH???

phfitz · Jan 22, 2006

Jim,

Thanks for the pix and the info. This has some real possiblities. I guess most VC paper would respond as ortho and RC would not have a fiber pattern to it.

Thanks again.

df cardwell · Jan 23, 2006

phfitz said:
Jim,

Thanks for the pix and the info. This has some real possiblities. I guess most VC paper would respond as ortho and RC would not have a fiber pattern to it.

Thanks again.

You're all catching on !

Just watch out for back printing.

You know, we're approaching state-of-the-art 1920 at an alarming rate...

slow down.... S L O W D O W N N N N

next thing, we'll discover retouching with pencils....

Dave Wooten · Jan 23, 2006

pencils? Pencils?! who said pencils? what's pencils? :confused:

colrehogan · Jan 23, 2006

Nice pics, Jim!

Tammyk · Jan 23, 2006

Jim,
The image that you posted up is beautiful. It really has a lot of detail and tonality!

I use paper negs in pinhole boxes all the time, but also used paper in my 8x10 film holders when learning the nuances of shooting a Kodak 2D. And, I use paper in my 4x5 holders to judge my pinhole exps times on 4x5. I love a good paper neg. So easy (and instant), as you have pointed out!

I just love these old lens results!

Regards,
Tammy

sajianphotos · Jan 23, 2006

Gotta love the boots! I woke up this morning feeling just like the boots look. They also look like they gotta have a good "bokeh".

jimgalli · Jan 24, 2006

Post Script

I should have listened to John Nanian. He told me printing paper negs was addicting but I jumped right in anyways. I'd never made a print from a paper neg before. I was stunned at the results! The resulting prints are beautiful. Better than the PS scans. I'll tag a couple on here but I doubt you'll see much difference from the inverted scans at 32kb. The highlights blocking is a little more apparent in the print scans only because they are more "truthful" than the inverted scans where you can set your highlights a bit lower. But I also figure that's the nature of the beast with this type of photography. One thing I did notice in the prints that I liked a lot. Where the petzval had left a glowing edge on an out of focus highlight, the prints made it even more "glowy". A result of the extra diffusion the light gets traveling through the paper. I also discovered that a paper that prints slow can have a dramatic effect on the contrast at the printing stage. Kind of works in reverse. You can gain contrast with the slower paper.

Dorothy Blum Cooper · Jan 24, 2006

Love when you post this type of work, Jim (I know you already know that tho' )

Dave Wooten · Jan 24, 2006

This is very revealing,

1. the photos are lovely

2. a less expensive way to introduce large format to students

3. the paper photos have their own charm, which can be exploited with further experimentation.....I think the qualities we "Galliites" have grown to appreciate in the old classic lenses could be further enhanced with the paper negs etc....make 'em glow, Jim!

jimgalli · Jan 25, 2006

That Galli guy is shameless. First he tantalizes us with these pictures, then he puts the lens up for sale at an inflated price. Whata schmuck.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

MattCarey · Jan 25, 2006

I am shocked, shocked to learn that you would do this.

Actually, I figured it would either go with a private sale (a PM--"Jim you gonna sell one of those babies?") or take a bit longer to show up in the classifieds.

I mean, how many Petzvals does one man need?

Matt

jimgalli · Jan 25, 2006

Thinking of changing my APUG moniker to "LensWhore". What do you think?

Wayne R. Scott · Jan 25, 2006

I think Petzval Pimp has a better ring to it.

Wayne

MattCarey · Jan 25, 2006

jimgalli said:
Thinking of changing my APUG moniker to "LensWhore". What do you think?

It would fit if I didn't believe that you have many more lenses than ever show up here.

If we put these two names in front of your wife, which would she pick for you?

1) Lenswhore
2) Lenscollector

Matt

jimgalli · Jan 25, 2006

Matt, she'd pick 3) Lensbottomlesspitof$$$

athanasius80 · Jan 25, 2006

Oh my Ape-huggers! This has been one of the best posts I've read in ages. I nominate Jim for "Old Lenswhore" because it may be more accurate. I am definately using RC paper for negatives now, the work can be gorgeous. Oh yeah, if there's a stoning party I want in.

Aggie · Jan 25, 2006

athanasius80 said:
Oh my Ape-huggers! This has been one of the best posts I've read in ages. I nominate Jim for "Old Lenswhore" because it may be more accurate. I am definately using RC paper for negatives now, the work can be gorgeous. Oh yeah, if there's a stoning party I want in.

It should be "Old Lenswhore Extrodinare" ore OLE for short. Opps we have another lens expert named ole. I personally think (I know Jim from real life) we should call him Cuddles. He is like a loveable old teddybear. For those that Know Les McLean, He is another one of the teddy bear types.

removed account4 · Jan 25, 2006

sweet pix jim

if things get too bad, let me know, i'll be around to sponsor
you when you enter the "program," i won't reveal your real name, and i'll be glad to guard the lens mine

john

jimgalli said:
I should have listened to John Nanian. He told me printing paper negs was addicting but I jumped right in anyways. I'd never made a print from a paper neg before. I was stunned at the results! The resulting prints are beautiful. Better than the PS scans. I'll tag a couple on here but I doubt you'll see much difference from the inverted scans at 32kb. The highlights blocking is a little more apparent in the print scans only because they are more "truthful" than the inverted scans where you can set your highlights a bit lower. But I also figure that's the nature of the beast with this type of photography. One thing I did notice in the prints that I liked a lot. Where the petzval had left a glowing edge on an out of focus highlight, the prints made it even more "glowy". A result of the extra diffusion the light gets traveling through the paper. I also discovered that a paper that prints slow can have a dramatic effect on the contrast at the printing stage. Kind of works in reverse. You can gain contrast with the slower paper.

MattCarey · Jan 25, 2006

jnanian said:
sweet pix jim

if things get too bad, let me know, i'll be around to sponsor
you when you enter the "program," i won't reveal your real name, and i'll be glad to guard the lens mine

john

I can see it now:

"Hello my name is Jim"

Hello Jim!

"I haven't bought a lens in 6 months"

Good on you Jim!

...yeah, 6 months..that's possible for Jim...sure...

Matt

jimgalli · Jan 25, 2006

Hey! My 10 minutes of fame are here. Mike Johnston did a very nice little piece about this hybrid process and resulting discussion over at the "Online Photographer." Thanks Mike!

Dancing with the Devil! Flirting with the Dark side! Have I gone too far for BOKEH???

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency