http://files2.lynda.com/files/lol_em...eAnnouncements
A Deardorf complete with a motor drive sound.
http://files2.lynda.com/files/lol_em...eAnnouncements
A Deardorf complete with a motor drive sound.
Interesting actually and not being sarcastic. I would think that possibly for a quick and dirty print using the DSLR might actually be the ticket, if you don't have a scanner or if a customer really doesn't care about all the detail brought out in a large print. There was an article in VC, IIRC, that used the same process for LF 8x20 or 7x17 negatives and I thought it was interesting and definitely worth trying for a contact or slightly larger size.
My DD doesn't have that feature-bummer. That's not the first time I've heard that motor drive sound added to a manual camera in a movie or video.
Don,
I don't think that is the sound of a motor drive. I think that sound is the clockwork monkey used to waken the models up.
Best,
Helen
I love the way he handles those beautiful 8x10 transparencies too - obviously he's had his sweat glands surgically removed - that's dedication!
Still Developing at http://www.timparkin.co.uk and scanning at http://cheapdrumscanning.com
That's like Spinal Tap for LF photographers.
In case you haven't heard there is a recent software update for the DD that adds that feature to your camera. Seriously........My DD doesn't have that feature-bummer. That's not the first time I've heard that motor drive sound added to a manual camera in a movie or video.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
They were pretty crappy shots anyway... nobody made uglier early Photoshop work than Kirkland... wacky art filters, weirdo curves, 20x Gaussian Blurs, you name it, he used it!
Isn't this almost the exact way you convert your LF negs to digi. I think you said you use a Copy stand and a 5dmkII.
I have used a window with a softbox diffusion material on it, sun blaring thru and a canon g12 to take the shots of 6x17. If it works it works.
Way faster than scanning, all depends on the final size and resolution. I am sure there is some loss of detail scanning with a dslr vs a good scanner.
Also he showed 8x10 chromes on a light table. Then when he took the images on the copystand, they looked like negs. Why did he not show the process of transfer of chromes to a digi space with that rig. I have to assume it is the same process.
Bookmarks