Capture: Two Tripods, One Night
496 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Koala cam?
Just for the lols, here's a koala on cam
-
David Hood, in reply to
Where did you get the bolt?
Hardware shop. Most consumer cameras take a 1/4 of an inch bolt (some larger professional camera are 1/3 of an inch, these cameras often come with adaptors).
You are not like to find a bold short enough though. My solution was to add a couple of nuts until the bolt was the right length. -
Lilith __, in reply to
You are not like to find a bold short enough though
Ah yes, the old don't-puncture-the-camera issue ;-)
Thinking about it, I could probably use the half of my quick-release tripod attachment that goes onto the bottom of the camera: that already has a bolt the right size!
-
In terms of the steady-cam dolly, Jos and I have talked about this before, and dreamed of various homemade versions. There’s no end of them on YouTube. Here’s one, made of, you guessed it, tubes.
While I admire his innovation, I think he could have picked some more dramatic examples than the pots on the stove.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Still dreaming of dollies, at your age? ;-)
Yeah that's clever with teh tubes. Not a koala in sight.
-
Wind tree, with the cheat-sheet double exposure. 50mm f/22 1/6sec.
-
No tripod, one night, Piccadilly Circus. :) I find state of play has much to do with balance, steadiness and framing. This shot ,drunk :)
-
All this talk of dollys and cranes and night shots reminds me of This Guy Tom Lowe.
Saw some of his early stuff a few years back and still watch it in awe now. Can't find a copy on line of the stuff I have but here is a trailer for his upcoming feature.
Really worth looking for a hi res copy though.
Here's one on Vimeo which I can't embed. -
Last night. Outside lights out side.
-
While we're on the subject. Here's something I found from a local, goes by the name, The Pitbull Press.
Can't embed so here's a Link to Vimeo Auckland Timelapse 2011 -
The first photo in the “Two Tripods …” post of the Auckland skyline was taken a few weeks ago. How times change I thought, as I looked at the mass of tall buildings and the super yachts. The photo above was taken sometime in 1986, from approximately the same position, and with exactly the same camera – my trusty Nikon F3 – and 35mm lens. To add further pathos, I was at Silo Park last weekend photographing Doug Jerebine when I clicked the shutter, the mirror locked up, the shutter and meter refused to work, and it was all over for the F3 and me after 27 happy years. Not worth fixing.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
How times change I thought,
I have these two images, and I thought similar but in a completely irrelevant way.
I give you before.... -
....And, after. The evening was spent :)
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I clicked the shutter, the mirror locked up, the shutter and meter refused to work, and it was all over for the F3 and me after 27 happy years.
Maybe it sensed the impending end of Ektachrome.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Not worth fixing.
bugger. so it was terminal
-
The shot above must have been amongst the first for me from that fine camera ... Grafton Bridge 1985.
Maybe it sensed the impending end of Ektachrome
Could be. Actually, I had a roll of Kodak Tri-X in there at the time. Just started using it again and it's still good.
so it was terminal
Unfortunately yes. The Nikon agent can't get the parts, anyway.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Grafton Bridge 1985
I have some from the following year and the other direction when a certain someone helps me scan them.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I had a roll of Kodak Tri-X in there at the time.
Used to be my fave, you could push that bugger so far you could take pictures of black cats in dark rooms that weren't even there.
:o-] -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
certain someone helps me scan them.
Well you just hurry them up Sacha. Would love your contribution. :)
-
JacksonP, in reply to
Grafton Bridge 1985.
What a great shot. That's the year I spent in International House, more or less in the shadow of the bridge. Somewhere I have some negatives from that time of night shots at the museum and Auckland Uni clock tower. Might have to go digging.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Ilford XP1 chromogenic ftw - ISO 50-1600 on the same roll, all clear as.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I found the contrast dropped off over 800, I cursed myself for taking 20 rolls of the stuff to Nepal back in the early 80s. they didn’t do the Himalayas justice, mind you I don’t think any film or camera could. I used TriX more for bands and action shots, mostly Rugby strangely enough (not a big fan now it’s rammed down our throats).
The remark about the cat, by the way, was actually true. A friend and I tried taking pictures of “ghosts”, shooting randomly in the dark, and pushed the old TriX to the equivalent of around 6400, just let it soak up the developer for god knows how long.
When we checked out what we had, there was a cat and no way could it have been there, I didn’t have a cat. -
Sacha, in reply to
more for bands and action shots, mostly Rugby strangely enough
same. lots of indoor performances and outdoor sports in varying light
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I had a roll of Kodak Tri-X in there at the time.
Used to be my fave, you could push that bugger so far you could take pictures of black cats in dark rooms that weren't even there.
:o-]Seemingly miraculous stuff back in the day all right. It was reputed to be a recently ASA-boosted version of Tri-X 16mm reversal that got the ball rolling on Mother Theresa's rise to sainthood.
From Christopher Hitchens’s The Missionary Position:When Malcolm Muggeridge did his 1969 BBC documentary about Ma Teresa, one day they were taken to what MT called ‘the House of the Dying.’ It was badly lit, and the director was doubtful they could film inside, but they had just received some new film made by Kodak, and the cameraman, Ken Macmillan, a very distinguished cameraman, Hitchens says, known for his work on Kenneth Clark’s Civilization, said let’s try it, and they did. Then when they got back to London and were watching the rushes they were surprised when the shots came up: they could see every detail. And Macmillan said ‘That’s amazing, that’s extraordinary,’ and was about to go on to say ‘three cheers for Kodak’ but he didn’t get a chance to say that. Muggeridge, in Macmillan’s words (page 27), “sitting in the front row, spun round and said: ‘It’s divine light! It’s Mother Teresa. You’ll find that it’s divine light, old boy.’” In a few days journalists started calling him saying they’d heard he’d witnessed a miracle. That’s good, isn’t it? Kodak comes up with a new film that works brilliantly in bad light – and Muggeridge declares it’s divine light.
-
Islander, in reply to
Skyward astral snail!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.