Images of mistakes - good or bad..

[Pitcherman]

a shot I did yesurday with the c1 and 250mm 6.7 fujinon, the last time I saw this creek flooded like this was about 12 years ago, I was so excited about it I forgot which side of the holder I had used after I took the first shot, so I guessed, and you know what? I was wrong : (

accidental double exposure by john golden, on Flickr

Love it.

[scheinfluger_77]

a shot I did yesurday with the c1 and 250mm 6.7 fujinon, the last time I saw this creek flooded like this was about 12 years ago, I was so excited about it I forgot which side of the holder I had used after I took the first shot, so I guessed, and you know what? I was wrong : (

accidental double exposure by john golden, on Flickr

This is great! It gives an impression of flooding that no straight image could ever do. This is a striking photo, may you do it again. :-)

[StoneNYC]

Finally got around to scanning these!

Built a basic 14x17 box camera, the first shot I didn't check the flush-ness of the holder and the back and noticed after, the original image has a lot of leaking light, but it forced me to do some Lightroom magic, which actually made it look pretty good... Original image...



And the "fixed" image

14x17 Ektascan | 450mm @ f/9 | Rodinal | Lightroom Vignette magic added to cover up major light leak.



And the video on how the camera was built!

http://youtu.be/NW4dhOJVfzk

[ImSoNegative]

Cool camera

[Emil Schildt]

somehow I like this "angelic" mistake....

[StoneNYC]

I'm really frustrated with this image, I had taken a TMY-2 shot of it which I've posted previously, but I really wanted this shot to SHINE IR, but instead it flops, the water isn't at all black, the IR doesn't cut through the fog, and the tree's and other things really don't shine, I know this is slightly under-exposed, but the UV index was high this day, so I would have thought I would get more IR light in the image, and again, why the heck is the water and sky completely white in an IR image... I know Rollie doesn't have the effect that my EFKE does, which I've been alternating between to try and find a way to get the Rollie to at lest somewhat behave like I envision my IR images to be, but certainly not here.

Looking at my notes, I did also shoot a sheet of EFKE so I guess I was trying to compare, it's been so long I hadn't remembered, and the stack of EFKE IR is next on the list to be processed.

Anyway wanted to share regardless.

4x5 Rollie IR 400 | 450mm w/ R72 filter | f/22 @ 1/60th | HC-110(B)



If anyone has any more Rollie tips to get me in a better spot, please share.

[Corran]

Regarding the UV index, you might want to take a look at this chart, and you'll probably figure out why that's irrelevant to your situation:

[StoneNYC]

Regarding the UV index, you might want to take a look at this chart, and you'll probably figure out why that's irrelevant to your situation:

Yeah after I typed that I totally realized why it was a stupid thing to say, but it was too late to edit it, I hear you.

[baro-nite]

Six mistakes I've made recently:


Errata by Jeff, on Flickr

Top and bottom left, close look at a light leak (same holder). Top and bottom center, too much shading: just clipped the corner with a hand-held dark slide at top (detail view); masked off the entire top of the image with a lens hood at bottom. Well, this hood worked fine with no movements! Top right, hair in the film holder, I think (detail view). Bottom right, detail from a double exposure.

[Martin Aislabie]

somehow I like this "angelic" mistake....

A very fortunate mistake - to me the obscuration of the face makes the image.

I guess you ought to have luck on your side when photographing Angels.

My mistakes usually involve shutter release cables.

Martin