The Indian Pot was colorized in Photoshop.
Chuck
Andy Schmitt wrote:
>
> Seems rather normal at lease under what ever lighting conditions you shot
> under...
> I like the WPHD picture of the Indian Pot. This is hand colored?
> andy
>
--
'Tearlach'
ICQ: 32665989
My Home Page: http://www.getn
> Although it is a positive film, wouldn't that mean it is designed to be used
> with a reversal process? If you developed it in a regular film or paper
> developer, you would get a negative.
> John
While most positive films do need reversal processing, there are
some special direct posit
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:11 PM
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] transparency film...xray duplication
film
Go to: http://www.chucksphotos.com/Gallery_pinhole.html It's the Image
labeled 'Coworkers' in the second row of thumbnails. Sorry
I worked in an x-ray darkroom. The Duplication film was developed in the
same processing machines and chemistry as the Positive film.
Chuck
John Yeo wrote:
>
> Although it is a positive film, wouldn't that mean it is designed to be used
> with a reversal process? If you developed it in a regul
8:11 AM
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] transparency film...xray duplication film
> I almost bought some Agfa xray duplication film and my better judgement
> (when I can locate it) suggested I check the Agfa website, then I called a
> local xray tech, and figured out it was positive, not nega
For a large format pinhole photography a positive image may be a plus. You could
exhibit with a backlight without further manipulation. Most non photographers
can't visualize negatives though I often find the negatives much more beautiful
than the positives.
Richard Heather
Murray wrote:
> I almo
Go to: http://www.chucksphotos.com/Gallery_pinhole.html It's the Image
labeled 'Coworkers' in the second row of thumbnails. Sorry about the
small size. I didn't do any tests to determine what colors the x-ray
film is sensitive to.
Chuck
Andy Schmitt wrote:
>
> hmmm cool...what kind of an
-discussion@p at ???
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] transparency film...xray duplication
film
I can add something here. I used to work in an x-ray darkroom, where I made
a
pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box and used an 8x10 sheet of x-ray film.
It worked
fine under the Tungsten lights
I can add something here. I used to work in an x-ray darkroom, where I made a
pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box and used an 8x10 sheet of x-ray film. It
worked
fine under the Tungsten lights there in the hospital. I didn't try it
outdoors, but
I'm sure it'll work there too.
Chuck
Andy Schm
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schmitt"
> I bought some Kodak Contact 2000 film that requires other than Daylight or
> Tungsten enlarger light...pitty 'cause it was cheep...wonder why?
Think I saw itwasn't Clinton Mandela the guy selling it?...may
be not! :-)
I have done
> 2) I will make this "on-topic", I promise. Conservation of mass as it
> applies to pairs of domestic pets...one loses weight, the other one gains
> it. I have been wanting to do some cat pinhole shotsthe tail twitching
> and contortions they do might be interesting with long exposures.
Hey M
: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???
[mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of Murray
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:11 AM
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] transparency film...xray duplication film
I almost bought some Agfa xray duplication fi
I almost bought some Agfa xray duplication film and my better judgement
(when I can locate it) suggested I check the Agfa website, then I called a
local xray tech, and figured out it was positive, not negative.
I let it slide (no pun there), but again the topic returns and I wonder what
can it be
13 matches
Mail list logo
