Still, it's not a bad set of images you've created.What amazes me about low-end film cameras is that their image quality never deteriorates as badly as low-end digital. Aside from the resolution (or lack thereof) of a mediocre lens, the film itself still retains its tonal and dynamic range, pretty much regardless of the camera it's in (assuming the exposure is half-okay).
You've hit it exactly, Joe. Considering the low-budget circumstances of this "shoot" I am very pleased!This is dollar-store film, too (rebranded Fuji.) And it's been overexposed by about two stops, at least according to Sunny 16. The camera is f/8 with a 1/125 shutter speed, and the film is ASA 200. Complete cost of everything: camera, film, processing & scanning -- a shade over $5.Scanners will be constantly improved and tweaked, too, to be able to pick out more detail from the film. That's why I like it so: the image is already preserved at the highest resolution possible, waiting for the digitizing technology to catch up.
Great pictures. I like the flag.-Justin
I have a couple of those Pix Panoramas, too. I should pull the masking out of one of them, give it a try. I liked the quality of the masked pictures - not bad for a $1 thrift store purchase.Also recently picked up a Vivitar Ultra Wide and Slim, which is basically the same 28 mm lens (I believe, with a tiny lens-to-film distance (I'm such an optic genius, I know). Haven't developed pics yet; I really need to.
Okay, turns out the Wide & Slim Vivitar has a 22mm lens. But whatever.Like what you've done here, regardless of my own optical incompetence.
Ah, then it's even wider, Duffy. Surely worth a roll of film and a walk.
I think I've found your next DIY project. Bwa-ha-ha!http://cow.mooh.org/2010/04/fisheye-tin-cam.html
Post a Comment