Look at the light leaks here.
http://www.shootingfilm.net/2013/01/...camera-by.html
Tin Can
I think that was some of his first works. I read through his blog and I think he solved that issue for the most part. It's all part of the process for me. On my 8x10 scans, I left the scanned tape marks from holding it to the AN glass - it's part of the process to remind the viewer... it's not digital. It used to be we tried to leave all of that stuff out to make our work perfect, now for me I don't mind leaving some of those imperfections in the final print. If I wanted super clean and perfect I might just be shooting digital still.
7 inches exactly... got it. I'll try to hunt down an inches ruler and try cutting it down soon - or just round the metric conversion to 178 mm. I'm anxious to shoot with the 7x17, but don't want to mess up my HP5+ just yet. I'm trying to stay away from cutting down 14x17 inch xray so I can KISS....
Lee Smathers
www.photoevangelist.com
I found these, bought 2, there are 4 left.
I have not yet used 14x17, but thought these may be good when I do.
While looking I found X-Ray hangers for 3.5X17" film, now that's pano! No I didn't see any film that size.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/290912996741...84.m1439.l2649
Tin Can
Lee Smathers
www.photoevangelist.com
Thanks for the link to the "great big camera" - pretty neat!
I'm not enamored of the landscape here in the deep south...Clyde Butcher can have it (I'm not going wading in chest-deep water to get the shot, sorry!). But if I do move somewhere that I feel speaks to me...I think a 7x17 or 14x17 is in my future. I can just fit 14x17 onto my scanner bed (!).
Bookmarks