Results from two mystery rolls of film

On 10 Sept I bought a camera online which came with two mystery rolls of exposed film (one was 120 format, the other was 620 format):  the seller thought they were old but un-used -- but when I went to his house to make the purchase, I could tell they'd actually been shot.

I was sufficiently curious about their contents to pay for their development.  They were pretty old  and had been in a hot garage for a while:  my note to myself said:

A roll of 120 and a roll of 620; already shot, as it turns out; both rolls expired in the mid-’70s, so have probably been sitting in a hot shed for 50 years –- will have to totally push-process; just came with the camera.

The contents were:  trains.  Huh.

Here's one of them as it came to me (kinda faded and deteriorated) -- and then with a bit of digital enhancement:

And here's a few more, after I cleaned them up a little.

As usual, click to make larger (some of them are hard to figure out when they're small).

There's a few more that I haven't posted:  these were the better ones. 

So I guess someone really liked trains. :)

--GG

 

More photos with the Canon half-frame

 Here are some more photos that I took with the Canon half-frame. Unlike yesterday's photos, these ones actually benefited from some color "massaging" I did (my photo editing software has three presets that I sometimes use).

As usual, there were lots of mediocre ones that I shot -- these were the better ones.  :) 

--GG

Some photos with a Canon half-frame camera

 Some color photos, with a Canon half-frame camera -- which I bought from one of the guys at the local photo lab I go to.  :) 

Half-frames are neat because you get double the exposures per roll of film -- because each photo only uses up half of what a "regular" 35mm photo would use.  This means that you can take twice the number of shots with a single roll of film:  nifty!  :)

As usual, no post-processing -- these are just the scans as they were provided to me.  Also, you get the full effect if you click to enlarge.  And of course, I took a few different attempts of most of these scenes:  I'm only showing you the ones that I think are the best:  not showing you the duds.  :)

Yep1  Them's the pics.  :)

--GG

Should I under or over expose my Lomography Redscale film

 Another roll, from that unnamed black camera that shoots 120 film.  (The front of the lens probably had the camera brand -- but it fell off by the time I'd acquired it.)

 

Shot with Lomography Redscale film:   I think it's color film -- but just with a strong orange tint to it?  Functionally, though, it's "black and white" -- but with "orange" instead of greys.  :)

 

As usual, these are the better shots. 

I was actually kind of disappointed with the results:  the first roll I shot of Redscale, I just exposed it "normally" (based on what the box said -- 50-200 ASA). Or maybe I over-exposed it just a touch -- treating it as 50 ASA rather than 200 -- because I read a website that said to hit it a little hard, for stronger colors.  

But for this second roll, I did a bit of online research -- and three other websites said to under expose it for stronger reds -- so I did (exposed at 200 ASA, not 50 -- two stops less).  Wrong.

But:  now I know.

So, for future generations of internet folk, Googling "Should I under-expose, or over-expose, my Lomography Redscale film?"  Expose it correctly -- but at the "more light" end of the scale (i.e. if it says "50-200 ISO" -- shoot at 50 ISO).  

 Which is consistent with the general advice for shooting on film:  even though B&W is more robust with exposure than color -- you're better off over exposing by a stop or two, rather than under exposing. 

Yup.

For comparison:  here's a similar shot of the big red chicken (above) -- but with a lower exposure.  Unsurprisingly, it's darker and with weaker colors.  Ayep.

Oh!  And as usual, I haven't changed anything from the original scan (which hopefully was a "flat scan" from the photo lab guys).  So, no digital editing:  this is what it looks like -- for all of these.

As usual, double-click to enlarge.

--GG

Black and white from unnamed 120 camera

 I took these with a no-name black camera that shoots 120 film.  The exposure is a little "off" -- but I like the look.

I also don't mind the light leak on the bottom right:  I'm not sure why this happened, as another roll I shot with the camera didn't have a corresponding leak.  Huh.

This first one doesn't have any processing.  It's rather low-contrast -- but I think that it makes it look "old-timey".

 

 

 

 

These next two are the original contrast, and then the same shot but with the contrast enhanced. 

Enhanced contrast.

 

   

Same thing:  as I shot it -- and then with enhanced contrast (which changes the mood).

(As usual -- double-click to enlarge.)

Finally:  a tree near the beach.  :)

All of these were taken at the local shore.  As usual, there were other shots that didn't turn out:  these were the better ones.

--GG

Battle of the Bands brings me back

 Went to a high school-aged "Battle of the Bands" last night with my teenaged daughter (who was going with a few of her friends).  She had never been to a concert or rock music event before -- just school orchestra types of events.

It totally brought me back to my youth -- being in my 20s in Seattle, going out to see bands every two weeks or so with Guitar Cousin.  This was a bit more "sanitized", as it took place in a school multipurpose centre, so there wasn't any spilled beer on the floor, or secondhand smoke in the air.

But:  it still had that quality.  Most of the bands were good performers; some were really good performers, with strong "audience engagement".  Nearly all were cover songs -- but, that's okay.  The crowd was pogoing and singing along to the good songs -- and I was reminded at the sort of "communal spirit" you get at a concert, which is not at all replicated by sitting in your room and listening to the album.  ;)

I also noticed that it's hard to find good singers:  out of about 12 bands, one singer was "pretty good" and the other two were definitely good.  Among the songs were a No Doubt cover, a Pearl Jam cover, and a Queen cover -- and I realized just how powerful the original singers (Gwen Stefani; Eddie Vedder, Freddie Mercury) were.

Anyhow:  had a great time -- was bopping along to the music, "Woo!"-ing, clapping - all without conscious volition:  I was just "in it".  :) 

Would do it again.

And:  as often happened, was inspired to go home and play guitar... or bass... or drums.  But, I didn't (by the time I got home, it was late).

 

--GG

The triangle of my hobbies

 Was talking to a co-worker, who was intrigued that I had so many hobbies.  In explaining my pattern of hobbies to him, I realized that there's a "triangle" relationship to all of my major hobbies (writing and recording songs; hand tool woodworking; filmmaking).

I'm not going to draw out a diagram, so:  imagine a triangle, with the bottom left vertex being "creativity", the bottom right being "logic", and the top of the triangle being "technical".  Extend a line outwards from each of these three corners:  to "creativity" add "self-expression"; to "logic" add "problem-solving"; and to "technical" add "gear".

All of my major hobbies are an intersection of left-brain and right-brain activities (logic vs creativity), and all involve technical mastery of skills (e.g. playing an instrument; using woodworking hand tools).

The creative aspects manifest themselves in self-expression (emotions and ideas in the songwriting; storytelling through the filmmaking; and various physical forms (and creative decisions about shape, color, and general look and style for the woodworking.

Problem-solving occurs in songwriting (choosing the right notes that fit as a whole); filmmaking (various technical challenges, especially with my limited resources); and woodworking (creating something that's structurally sound and meets the needs, while using often "scavenged" materials).

Finally, all of these hobbies can be performed with a fairly basic set of tools -- but I tend to enjoy the gear (inexpensive, quirky stuff -- not the fancy expensive stuff) as well.  :)

So:  that's a diagnostic summary of (apparently) why my main hobbies are, indeed, my main hobbies -- and why other things (e.g. martial arts) have -- for now -- fallen by the wayside. 

--GG