Discussion in 'Black and White' started by pdh, Aug 7, 2014.
b20140806-1 by _loupe, on Flickr
hmm this looks nicer in LR than it does from FLickr. sigh.
Ops, never mind Paul, it would have been a less interesting double exposure if the camera (or film holder I guess) hadn't been rotated by 90 degrees.
Ha, no rotating back on my big beast! You have to move the camera!
It's a bit galling, though.
I lumped the camera, 4 film holders, two light meters, a tripod and a darkcloth all in a very unsuitable and uncomfortable canvas duffel bag (the only bag I have big enough), up a short but very steep hill, knowing exactly what I wanted to take ... just for the clouds to arrive as soon as I did. I only managed to make 4 exposures, three of which were poorly composed and the fourth (the vertical one in this) just exactly what I wanted, only to ruin it ... I gave up on the light and went home ... whereupon the sun blazed forth ...
the joys of photography ...
Ah, so the rotating back is for the next mark number then :smile:
Rotating back comes along when I win the lottery and get Chamonix or someone to build me a custom job
I think you left off the UK at the end of this..... :tongue:
(also, the image is not showing here anymore)
Because the sun always shines in Wisconsin you mean? :tongue:
the other thing should be fixed now
anywhere within reach of my shining visage.
Another dimensional portal picture?
I've just developed and scanned a roll of 35mm including some I took at the same location at the same time as that in the OP, and this is pretty much the photograph I was trying to make :
b20140817-1-2 by _loupe, on Flickr
A very fine photo Paul
Separate names with a comma.