# Three chairs



## limr (May 23, 2016)

rChairs by limrodrigues, on Flickr

SX-70 and IP color film. Took a picture of it before I sent the K-r back and then tweaked the colors to make them match the print.


----------



## KenC (May 23, 2016)

Nice.  A little bit Joel Meyerowitz.


----------



## waday (May 23, 2016)

Very nice. I feel like I can hear the waves crashing.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 23, 2016)

Wow, just wonderful on so many levels. Fantastic composition. You should have waited until June to post, I ran out of POTM votes. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

KenC said:


> Nice.  A little bit Joel Meyerowitz.



Thanks! Had to look up the reference - not because I don't know Joel Mayerowitz, but because the first thing that comes to mind is his street photography. 



waday said:


> Very nice. I feel like I can hear the waves crashing.



And they were crashing a lot at that point! The wind was up and the chairs were slightly rocking on their own. I think I took the shot with every camera I had with me (uhhhh, I had, um, four cameras with me  ). The two instant cameras wouldn't give me a slow enough shutter to catch the movement in the chairs, but we'll see about the others!



jcdeboever said:


> Wow, just wonderful on so many levels. Fantastic composition. You should have waited until June to post, I ran out of POTM votes.



Awww, thanks, darlin'


----------



## tirediron (May 23, 2016)

Very 1960s family vacation snap-shot; I like it.


----------



## terri (May 23, 2016)

Very nice, Lenny!   Empty chairs rate right up there with other suggestive subjects, like doorways, windows, shadows.   This is lovely!


----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Very 1960s family vacation snap-shot; I like it.





terri said:


> Very nice, Lenny!   Empty chairs rate right up there with other suggestive subjects, like doorways, windows, shadows.   This is lovely!



Thank you, thank you


----------



## KC1 (May 23, 2016)

It makes me want a table with 2 bottles of Corona sitting on it.


----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

KC1 said:


> It makes me want a table with 2 bottles of swill *Belgian ale* sitting on it.



FIFY 

(Sorry, I used to be able to drink Corona, but I just tasted one about 2 weeks ago and literally couldn't swallow it. My tastes have changed too much.)


----------



## KC1 (May 23, 2016)

lol, I was referring to the commercials. I don't drink any beer or ales, I couldn't swallow any of them.


----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

KC1 said:


> lol, I was referring to the commercials. I don't drink any beer or ales, I couldn't swallow any of them.



Ah, fair enough!


----------



## snowbear (May 23, 2016)




----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

snowbear said:


>


----------



## FITBMX (May 24, 2016)

limr said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> > It makes me want a table with 2 bottles of swill *Belgian ale* sitting on it.
> ...



I would go with a few old glass soda bottles personally. 
I love it great work!


----------



## manaheim (May 24, 2016)

Absolutely no offense, but I'm not getting what you're all seeing here. Can you enlighten me? (Seriously)


----------



## sleist (May 24, 2016)

manaheim said:


> Absolutely no offense, but I'm not getting what you're all seeing here. Can you enlighten me? (Seriously)



I've been wanting to ask the same thing.
I get the nostalgia thing, but I'm not really connecting with this in the same way others seem to be.


----------



## Mike Lamb (May 24, 2016)

Too soft for me.  More contrast definition with the chairs I think.


----------



## limr (May 25, 2016)

So I'm going to bump this, because if manaheim and sleist want their questions answered, the thread should probably not be buried on page 3 or 4.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 25, 2016)

manaheim said:


> Absolutely no offense, but I'm not getting what you're all seeing here. Can you enlighten me? (Seriously)


For me, I like the muted color and transient exposure. The composition is very good. There is a mysterious quality created by three empty chairs, textured porch shade, twisted focal point, and soft focus. The twisted framing also is in harmony with the rocker backs, making one believe something may be sitting in them. It is so far removed from digital, it presents a satisfying look and/or quality to it. I can understand it may not be everyone's cup of tea. However, for me, it has many interesting pieces. I like the concept and appearance that the artist/ hardware render. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tim Tucker (May 25, 2016)

I shan't give any deconstructed analysis because I know this shot will be instinctive, though structure and focus is there in abundance.

1) It's a period piece, everything is 60's, nothing contradicts.

2) The composition draws you to the chairs and no further than the chairs. The slight downward tilt of the camera combined with the levelling of the left side only tilts the the chairs back to a "comfortable invitation".

You're invited to sit in the chairs and look outside the photo to what you know is there (because it's suggested by the photo). It doesn't show you what you should be looking at with super-real shadow detail and absolute sharpness.

It's not a picture of chairs but a reminder of when you sat in them and gazed at the beach.


----------



## sleist (May 25, 2016)

I hear what you are saying.  But ...  

I'm not feeling this as strongly as others.
The problem I have with this photo - and let me be very clear that this is mostly *my* problem, not necessarily the photo's problem - is that I seem unable to judge this on it's own merits.

I suspect that if someone had posted this same photo and said they shot it with a cell phone and used instagram filters to create the same image, then the reaction to it may have been different.  Not saying this is right, but it's part of my struggle here, so .... Maybe limr felt the same way.  Maybe not consciously, but why post the the Polaroid framing and not just the photo?  Why does it being film even matter?

I have mixed feelings about the composition to be honest.  The porch is framed very well, but the chair arrangement is not complimentary IMO.  I would not rearrange the chairs, so that is not what I'm suggesting.  I just feel like this is missing something as a result.  How would I define a better composition?  I cant say.  It struck me as problematic and hearing the opposite reaction is one thing that prompted me to pose my question.

I think film gets a free pass sometimes because it's film.  I don't have anything against film. I never shot film because I could never afford photography when film was the only game in town.  And I do truly see some amazing work done with film.  I don't think I have a bias, but maybe I do.  I just don't know.  I try to judge an image by the image and not the medium.  

I was listening to NPR this morning during drive time.  There's an area of Boston near where I work that is facing changes due to a proposed hi-rise. They called it the hobby district and one of the businesses interviewed was the oldest camera shop in the city.  They were talking about his business and that they still developed film.  The discussion got around to hot trends and the Polaroids were mentioned.  The shop owner was describing how several years ago he wouldn't pay a dollar for the cameras and know he can't keep them on the shelf.  Trendy.  [shrug]

I grew up with vinyl records.  Still own a bunch.  Don't miss them in the least.  My son-in-law loves vinyl.  Whatever makes you happy I guess.

But I digress.  I can't fall all over this photo as others appear to.  I can appreciate the nostalgia.  Maybe I'm missing the art.  Maybe because I have a draw full of these. I just don't feel the same about them.  Kinda like my LP's.

Hope that wasn't to incoherent.  Time to go back to lurking. 

Hopefully no offense taken with this.  None was intended.  The photo made me think I suppose so I guess that's something.


----------



## limr (May 25, 2016)

sleist said:


> I hear what you are saying.  But ...
> 
> I'm not feeling this as strongly as others.
> The problem I have with this photo - and let me be very clear that this is mostly *my* problem, not necessarily the photo's problem - is that I seem unable to judge this on it's own merits.
> ...



What do you mean by 'different'? Do you think people would have liked it less?

Why post the framing and not just the photo? Why should it matter that it's film? Well, why not? The print has a border and I posted the print just how it looks, but not out of any desire to try to impress anyone.  Why does anyone post an image with a border? Or with any info about the gear or settings they used for an image? Some people who view the threads are interested in how the photo is made. They might be interested in knowing the gear or settings. Others do not care. They can ignore the information. But when faced with the info that an image was taken with a Canon or Nikon whatever with X lens, no one seems to ask, "Why does it matter if it's digital?" And yet if I post the camera and film, it's being seen as disingenuous, like I'm showing off.



> I think film gets a free pass sometimes because it's film.  I don't have anything against film. I never shot film because I could never afford photography when film was the only game in town.  And I do truly see some amazing work done with film.  I don't think I have a bias, but maybe I do.  I just don't know.  I try to judge an image by the image and not the medium.



I know you did not intend any offense and I don't take offense at you personally, but I have heard this argument so many times and feel like I have to address it now. I'm really really tired of people claiming that film gets a "free pass." The implication is that film images are almost never as good as digital images, and yet people like them, but _only_ because they were shot on film. Not on their own merits. But why aren't these images "as good" and only praised because of the medium? Because they aren't sharp enough? Because the colors don't "pop"? Grainy? Bokeh not smooth enough? Are these the only criteria? One of the criticisms above of my image was that it is "too soft." The criteria that mattered most was how sharp the image is. Isn't that the "tyranny of sharpness" that @chuasam started a thread to discuss?

Perhaps it's true that some like an image simply because it was made with film, but then again, some might go in the opposite direction and dismiss an image in a knee-jerk reaction to something deemed trendy or ostentatious. You said yourself above that you can't seem to judge this image on its own merits. Isn't _not_ liking something because it's on film just as bad as allegedly _liking_ something just because it's on film.

The whole argument is patronizing. It is not giving any credit to either photographer ("you aren't very good, and probably some kind of hipster poseur because you shoot film") or viewer ("you're either very shallow or you don't really understand what a good image is.")



> I was listening to NPR this morning during drive time.  There's an area of Boston near where I work that is facing changes due to a proposed hi-rise. They called it the hobby district and one of the businesses interviewed was the oldest camera shop in the city.  They were talking about his business and that they still developed film.  The discussion got around to hot trends and the Polaroids were mentioned.  The shop owner was describing how several years ago he wouldn't pay a dollar for the cameras and know he can't keep them on the shelf.  Trendy.  [shrug]
> 
> I grew up with vinyl records.  Still own a bunch.  Don't miss them in the least.  My son-in-law loves vinyl.  Whatever makes you happy I guess.



Yes, some have jumped on the nostalgia bandwagon. And retailers are riding the wave for as long as they can. I for one am grateful because it all means I still have a steady supply of the materials I love to work with. I can't speak to anyone else's reasons, but I didn't just start shooting film because it's suddenly popular again. I shoot film because _I never stopped_. I started 20+ years ago with film and it suits me. I'll continue to do so for as long as I prefer it to a digital process.



> But I digress.  I can't fall all over this photo as others appear to.  I can appreciate the nostalgia.  Maybe I'm missing the art.  *Maybe because I have a draw full of these.* I just don't feel the same about them.  Kinda like my LP's.



Again, I know it's not your intention, but the bolded comment _does_ carry the implication that this kind of image is a dime-a-dozen throwaway image that anyone can make without even thinking, and that's not exactly flattering 



> Hope that wasn't to incoherent.  Time to go back to lurking.
> 
> Hopefully no offense taken with this.  None was intended.  The photo made me think I suppose so I guess that's something.



Yes, it's something for sure!  And I did appreciate your comments on the composition. Thank you for the discussion.


----------



## sleist (May 25, 2016)

First, I would like to address this.

I did not mean to imply that the image was a dime a dozen.  My statement was poorly worded and I tried to frame it with my analogy to the vinyl records as a way to explain what I was trying to say.  I was trying to say that I was less inclined to attach significance to the media given that I had grown up with it.  Much like the way I feel about vinyl records as opposed to how my son-in-law feels.  There's no magic there for me based on the medium is all.  I was not trying to compare your shot to my drawer full of family Polaroids. (God forbid)

The point of my post is an attempt to understand why _*I*_ feel differently about this shot than others seem to.  I'm trying to discern if I have a bias against film, or if others give it a pass or, if it's some combination of both.  I thinks it's a combination.

Hell, maybe I just have bad taste.  

I guess I just felt like this photo was a good opportunity to discuss why people like or dislike a photo.  The fact that I disagree with almost everyone is something I want to explore as it will help me understand my own photography better.  I'm not trying to say that I'm right, but if I feel a certain way, I want to understand why.

Well, it's getting late and I've offended enough people for one day.

I will come back to address some other points you made later.  I need to go to bed.


----------



## limr (May 25, 2016)

sleist said:


> I guess I just felt like this photo was a good opportunity to discuss why people like or dislike a photo.  The fact that I disagree with almost everyone is something I want to explore as it will help me understand my own photography better.  I'm not trying to say that I'm right, but if I feel a certain way, I want to understand why.
> 
> Well, it's getting late and I've offended enough people for one day.
> 
> I will come back to address some other points you made later.  I need to go to bed.



I agree that it's a good discussion to have. And just to be clear, my own tone was fairly frustrated at times, but I want to say again that it wasn't directed at you. I get that you were sort of thinking out loud and trying to explore your reaction, and I totally respect that. The frustration I felt was because of having heard or read the same things by people who are not putting nearly as much thought into their opinion about film as you are doing. You just offered me an opportunity to finally respond 

Now go to bed!


----------



## sleist (May 25, 2016)

I think it's the nature of forums to discourage dissent.  At least that's how I see things.  Not intentionally mind you.  Just human nature.
My opinion is that I learn more when someone dislikes my photos - provided they can explain why of course.
So feel free to tell me how much I suck.  

Keep in mind that you are talking to someone that just deleted 90% of his "keepers" from the last 7 years.
Going through a bit of a phase me thinks ...

Good night.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 25, 2016)

you say stop....i say go
you say goodbye...i say hello


----------



## manaheim (May 25, 2016)

I stared at the photo for a long time trying to find a reason to like it. I didn't find it. I then stared at it even longer trying to find a reason why it's a well composed photo. I still didn't find it.

I agree with sleist's comment that images taken with film are given a bit of a free pass.  This is not to say that there are not excellent pictures taken on film, only that people give the image more points just because it is, and in some people's mind that makes up for whatever else it may lack.

Really and honestly, the image here is not a lot more than a snapshot of a nice scene. The scene itself isn't bad. It just isn't anything that interesting. I agree that the chairs are not lined up well in a way that makes a good composition. It's not a BAD image... it's just not a great one. It reminds me most of the shots that my father in law took of their vacation homes in New Hampshire and stuff. Not a bad thing... just not something I expect a bunch of photographers to fawn over.

And, yeah, I honestly think posting the image with the polaroid-style border is totally saying "hey! look at me! I'm an old-timey photo!" I really don't think there's any getting around that, and arguing that other have borders on their pictures and stuff and how is that any different... is just intellectually dishonest.

No offense intended, but I think sleists's comment was spot on. If this was an iphone picture, either it wouldn't have gotten a single comment, or it would have been panned.


----------



## limr (May 25, 2016)

manaheim said:


> I stared at the photo for a long time trying to find a reason to like it. I didn't find it. I then stared at it even longer trying to find a reason why it's a well composed photo. I still didn't find it.
> 
> I agree with sleist's comment that images taken with film are given a bit of a free pass.  This is not to say that there are not excellent pictures taken on film, only that people give the image more points just because it is, and in some people's mind that makes up for whatever else it may lack.
> 
> ...



"No offense intended, but you were totally lying about your reasons for posting an image with a Polaroid border."

I'm sorry, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, and I am not reacting simply because you didn't like my image. But yours is the exact patronizing, arrogant attitude that I was talking about.  You claim to know my motivations better than I do and you've essentially called me a liar.

I will continue this discussion with sleist, but you and I are done.


----------



## chuasam (May 25, 2016)

NO, the softness works here.
It adds this sense of nostalgia. Of memories long gone.
it's like we remember the past but we forget the sharp details.
What would work more is a whole series of these images.
From ice cream stand on the beach to an abandoned scene.


----------



## Tim Tucker (May 26, 2016)

@limr and @sleist, interesting discussion. This is my take:

It looks right to me, it convinces and resonates. This fits with my memory of looking at old faded photos of times long past that I can barely remember.

I'm not convinced when looking at digital pretending to be film. I see a slight difference as digital cannot mimic film accurately. It's fake, a pretender. It's not wrong to do it but you have to remember that viewers will recognise this and it will impact on their perception of the shot. Using digital to fool the post film viewers that it's film and a "cool look" to me is where the real pretending is.

But there is another more fundamental thing about using different media. If
I shoot B&W film my whole approach including selecting a subject is influenced by my understanding of the complete process including it's limitations. I will always come back with different photos than if I went out with a digital camera because digital has different strengths and limitations.

I do not see any merit in an approach where you can shoot something in digital with the idea that you'll change it into whatever you want in post. Why start with the idea that you can shoot it in digital and then make it look like film when it will never quite succeed?

It also _is_ a polaroid, I see no merit in trying to change it into something else. Another thing is that photographers tend to judge images only in terms of the metrics they know. They tend to apply the framework of _their_ understanding of the tools that _they_ use when looking at any photo.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 26, 2016)

Interesting opinions and thoughts. 

I don't walk around with my Holga every time I go out and shoot. I have to want to go out and shoot with a Holga. 

For me, the Poloroid would be the same way. Limr really provides a great lesson in pre visualization. Part of the art is in the ability to see something that many just walk on by. She see's the final image before it is processed, and in my opinion, one of the stronger attributes of an artist. I think understanding light is right there with it and she gets that right as well. 

As far as hardware, she more than likely grabs it because she wants too. That pic would be fine with a digital but never as good as what she seen and the hardware she was carrying.  

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (May 26, 2016)

It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image. 

In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain,  so be it.


----------



## limr (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.
> 
> In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain,  so be it.



Fair enough. I don't believe the process is more important than the final image when it comes to viewing or enjoying the image. I think it _does_ matter to the artist, however. (And apparently, it matters to some in terms of assessment, be it a positive or negative assessment.) The artist will follow the process that is most likely to produce a good final image, and that process is going to depend on how that artist prefers to work. The artist too cares about the end result, but may need to get there in a different way than another artist uses.

You say "spend hours in photoshop...so be it." I read, "spend hours in photoshop" and instantly shudder. If you can do that kind of work and actually enjoy it, at least tolerate it, then more power to you. I can't handle the thought of it. What I'd rather do is to create the image in the first place using a different method - one that I understand and enjoy. And because I enjoy it, it frees me from worrying about _how_ I am going to produce an image, and focus instead on _what_ I'm going to produce.

But that's me, and I don't expect anyone else to follow my workflow.


----------



## Tim Tucker (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.
> 
> In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain,  so be it.



Excuse me for breaking the romantic idyl... 

Art is not suffering, in fact most artists actually enjoy what they do. Though some artists may be sensitive by nature and exposing their souls my bruise....

It is the end result and not the process that matters as it is always the opinion of the  viewer that judges (though the process produces the end result and is essential to the 'artist'). A viewer who will not be educated in the fine art of understanding the process, (lest we all are required to be art snobs ).

Paintings by masters fetch high values because they are unique, one-offs, never to be repeated. It is also assumed, (because those with the money have the education), that those paintings have some intellectual worth, and I agree.

It may also be said that those who paid high prices for unique paintings are protected by forgery laws, (those that have the education and the money may also have the influence...), to ensure their investment. There is however no guarantee that the copy is not better, only that it is not original.

Be as nostalgic as you wish, but also remember that real art is not imagined, it is real, and is in front of your eyes not behind them. And is judged by others.


----------



## gsgary (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.
> 
> In that sense I'm not so much an artist but an image creator. I care about the end result. If I have to spend hours in photoshop refining and grading an image and then adding a nostalgic dusting of grain,  so be it.


I've seen your grain and it looks crap

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (May 26, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > It can be argued that much of art is suffering. It is the process rather than the end result that matters. That is why a painting by a master is valuable whereas a visually identical forgery is less so. Shooting film or polaroid is the suffering part. It's about the cost and the arguable uniqueness of each image.
> ...


Explain the art where the photographer uses alternative processes or craft a lens out of ice or Quartz. In my early photography schooling we had to do ridiculously painful things like coat a door in liquid light silver gelatin emulsion. Paint it on a window and then do our prints on these cumbersome materials. 
Or Bleach prints or toning them with hideously expensive platinum. My GF used to shoot with some cumbersome 4x5 cambo camera with glass plates she had to prepare herself. 

I would like to think all that had a purpose. When I could have gotten the same results using technology.


----------



## limr (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Explain the art where the photographer uses alternative processes or craft a lens out of ice or Quartz. In my early photography schooling we had to do ridiculously painful things like coat a door in liquid light silver gelatin emulsion. Paint it on a window and then do our prints on these cumbersome materials.
> Or Bleach prints or toning them with hideously expensive platinum. My GF used to shoot with some cumbersome 4x5 cambo camera with glass plates she had to prepare herself.
> 
> I would like to think all that had a purpose. *When I could have gotten the same results using technology.*



And by the same token, why do with a computer when you can do it with your hands?

For a process that results in a flat (2-D) image, I still say a lot of it has to do with the preference of the artist and how they feel more comfortable working. But it also could be that the processes that seem so laborious to you might serve the purpose of bringing out an effect in the final image that wouldn't look as good if it were done with technology.

As for explaining an art using alternative processes that can't be done with technology? Let me explain part of my love affair with instant film. With peel-apart instant film, I can interrupt the developing to have the image finish developing on a different surface, to introduce different textures, shading, even colors. That's an emulsion transfer.

Or, I can let the print develop, and then take that print, put it through some very easy paces with hot water and gel medium, and transfer the emulsion from the backing paper to any surface I want. Again, this introduces a texture - a literal, tactile texture, not just a 2-D illusion of texture - that can create a different effect than the print itself. That's an emulsion lift. Here's an early example from when I was learning how to do them:




Stained glass lift by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Finally, I could take the other half that still holds the negative, wash off the black backing with bleach, and end up with a 3x4 negative that could be printed or scanned. And it's not just a duplicate; it's an image with sometimes totally different colors from the print.

Print:



Day 130 - Zelda print cropped by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Recovered negative:



Day 130 - Zelda negative cropped by limrodrigues, on Flickr

I understand the idea of creating effects with technology seems easier and less labor-intensive to you, but to someone else, they might think, "Why waste hours in front of a computer when I can achieve the same effect with one shot and the 5 minutes it takes to lift this emulsion or wash this negative?" I can't speak to other alternative processes (...yet...I have a tintype kit that I'm dying to try!) but to stick with my instant emulsion processes, I do it because ultimately, I like the final product, I also enjoy the process of making it, and no, I cannot get the same results with technology. And even if I could, it's just not nearly as much fun for me.


----------



## chuasam (May 26, 2016)

Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.

And the bleach treatments too. I want to learn bleaching like the way Lillian Bassman did it.


----------



## pixmedic (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.
> 
> And the bleach treatments too. I want to learn bleaching like the way Lillian Bassman did it.


Did someone say....instant camera?







I have TWO of these in mint condition complete with case and flash, er....I mean "blink light", if anyone is genuinely interested in shooting some Polaroids.
You CAN  get smaller Polaroid cameras,  but you CAN'T get cooler ones. [emoji6]


----------



## limr (May 26, 2016)

Here's a lift:



Day 162 - Wheelbarrow lift by limrodrigues, on Flickr

And the recovered negative:



Wheelbarrow  negative by limrodrigues, on Flickr

I learned that when the print is exposed well...



Day 129 - Garage print by limrodrigues, on Flickr

...the negative is overexposed, so if I am shooting with the intention of recovering the negative, then I'll underexpose the print purposely.



Day 129 - Garage negative by limrodrigues, on Flickr


And finally (for now  ) my first emulsion lift collage:




Day 317 - Pano by limrodrigues, on Flickr

The lifts don't scan well because the glossy gel medium picks up the light of the scanner, so I'm going to try taking pictures of them to see if they look better. But ultimately, they are the kind of thing that should be seen in person. I like to accentuate the lines of the image with the gel medium to create texture, like in a painting.


----------



## limr (May 26, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Please share more of your instant film lifts. But not so many that I'm tempted to get an instant camera too.
> ...



Roll film?


----------



## pixmedic (May 26, 2016)

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Umm....
I don't think so.
I THINK it takes the instant sheet packs?
When I get off shift and actually remember I'll snap a pic of the open back.

Haven't looked in a while. They have just been sitting in the closet.


----------



## LARZRARZ (May 27, 2016)

I love it. I _instant_ly felt like I had been there before and wish I was there now. This so-called snapshot contains a lot of feeling in my opinion, making it much more than just a "snapshot of a nice scene".


----------



## limr (May 27, 2016)

LARZRARZ said:


> I love it. I _instant_ly felt like I had been there before and wish I was there now. This so-called snapshot contains a lot of feeling in my opinion, making it much more than just a "snapshot of a nice scene".



Thank you very much 

Hey, @pixmedic  even if those are pack film cameras, they will still be hard to use soon seeing as though Fuji discontinued their color pack film.  Or there might be some info on converting them to use Instax film, which seems to be going strong at the moment.

At least I can do emulsion lifts with the Impossible Project film.


----------



## pixmedic (May 27, 2016)




----------



## limr (May 27, 2016)

pixmedic said:


>



Yup, roll film. 

S-Q-U-E-E-Z-E the shutter.


----------



## pixmedic (May 27, 2016)

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Is roll film better?


----------



## limr (May 27, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> Is roll film better?



Not really, since it's been out of production since the early 90s   BUT there are apparently ways to convert it to 120 or 4x5 film. Am I right that it's a model 800?

Convert your Polaroid to 120 roll film and enjoy it - Photo.net Classic Manual Cameras Forum


----------



## pixmedic (May 27, 2016)

limr said:


> Is roll film better?



Not really, since it's been out of production since the early 90s   BUT there are apparently ways to convert it to 120 or 4x5 film. Am I right that it's a model 800?[/QUOTE]


----------



## limr (May 27, 2016)

pixmedic said:


>



Close enough  Same basic thing, just different tweaks. Can still be converted.


----------



## chuasam (May 27, 2016)

Limr, please start a thread about Polaroids and lifting. I would like to see what others here have done. I haven't done it before so I reckon I couldn't start that thread.


----------



## limr (May 29, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Limr, please start a thread about Polaroids and lifting. I would like to see what others here have done. I haven't done it before so I reckon I couldn't start that thread.



Gimme a few days and I'll post something. I'd like to do a lift and take pictures of each step, do a little tutorial.


----------



## pgriz (May 29, 2016)

limr said:


> rChairs by limrodrigues, on Flickr
> 
> SX-70 and IP color film. Took a picture of it before I sent the K-r back and then tweaked the colors to make them match the print.



Interesting discussion.  And to (partly) answer Manaheim's and Sleist's question...  how do you explain a joke?  You can't on an instinctual level..   Many jokes rely on the duality of something - with the second meaning snapping into view only at the last moment (ie, the punch-line).  If you don't know both dual meanings, you're going to miss the joke.   In this case, I see an image framed as a Polaroid print - it may be, or it may not.  That's not either the attraction to me, not the flaw.  What IS interesting to me, is the repeating motif of lines, of a tonality that echoes the snapshots of the 1960's, semi-warm, semi-cool tones, and finally, the composition of the empty chairs that focus on the open area to our left.  Most of us have seen little tableaus like this, as part of our visiting a vacation home, or someone with a place by the seaside, and that experience pulls us into the image, to sit in those rocking chairs, to feel the salty breeze, and to want relive that moment, even though it may have been half a century ago.  That's the duality - it is a modern image, but it evokes a different time.  A time when things were straight, things were black-and-white, everything had a purpose that you could understand.  The straight lines in the floor, in the chairs, in the walls, in the railing...  all hint at a simpler time.  Even the medium of the Polaroid, harkens back to the simplicity of image-making (point, click, pull on the tab, wait 60 seconds, and voila!  you had an image).  But then again, I have no assurance that Leonore didn't snap this image with a digital camera, then apply the "polaroid" framing and 64 blended photoshop layers that convince me that she really took this with a Polaroid, (except for having followed her posts, I know she would cringe at such a workflow).  In the end, the medium she chose just contributed to the vision I suspect she saw.  And in looking at the posted image, she invokes enough memories of my own for me to see the image though that lense.


----------



## chuasam (May 30, 2016)

If she shot it in digital and made it look convincingly like a Polaroid, I'd be asking her to teach me how. As a commercial photographer, I care about results. Sometimes a client wants a nostalgic look but also wants the same image in different media outlets. 

I see my role as a photographer as that of a visual communicator. I will use anything in my skill set to communicate the topic.


----------



## limr (May 30, 2016)

pgriz said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > rChairs by limrodrigues, on Flickr
> ...



Thank you for such a thoughtful comment - and by "thoughtful" I don't just mean "nice" but its more literal "full of thought" meaning. 



chuasam said:


> If she shot it in digital and made it look convincingly like a Polaroid, I'd be asking her to teach me how. As a commercial photographer, I care about results. Sometimes a client wants a nostalgic look but also wants the same image in different media outlets.
> 
> I see my role as a photographer as that of a visual communicator. I will use anything in my skill set to communicate the topic.



I'm sure it's possible to shoot something in digital and make it look convincingly Polaroid-y, but I know for me personally, it would not be nearly as fun, nor as straight-forward a process. If it's one thing I can't stand, it's taking 15 steps to do what I can accomplish in one step. So if I want a more nostalgic feel, rather than go through an extended process in software, it's just a matter of "Grab SX-70. Shoot. Keep print away from light for 30 minutes." Okay, okay, you got me - that's technically _three_ steps


----------



## chuasam (May 30, 2016)

Make a Polaroid back that accepts my Nikkor lenses with autofocus and metering and I'll be singing the praises of instant film. I guess one of the joys and sorrows of instant cameras is the lack of changeable lenses.


----------



## Tim Tucker (May 30, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Make a Polaroid back that accepts my Nikkor lenses with autofocus and metering and I'll be singing the praises of instant film. I guess one of the joys and sorrows of instant cameras is the lack of changeable lenses.



This comment confuses me. With all the threads you've posted about pushing the boundaries it seems that you're not willing to let go of your DSLR and it's familiar automated features. Besides, what possible use would a polaroid back for even FF lenses be? Postage stamp sized final images...


----------



## chuasam (May 30, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Make a Polaroid back that accepts my Nikkor lenses with autofocus and metering and I'll be singing the praises of instant film. I guess one of the joys and sorrows of instant cameras is the lack of changeable lenses.
> ...


Ha! You got me. 
I like the process of photography to be as transparent as possible. I want all my gear to be familiar and using it to be a second nature.


----------



## limr (May 30, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Make a Polaroid back that accepts my Nikkor lenses with autofocus and metering and I'll be singing the praises of instant film. I guess one of the joys and sorrows of instant cameras is the lack of changeable lenses.



It's true, the cameras themselves are limiting, which is why it's a matter of knowing the limits of both camera and film, and recognizing what scenes lend themselves to those limitations. Same with a Holga.

Hey, there's something you could try - a Holga lens on your DSLR!


----------



## chuasam (May 30, 2016)

limr said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Make a Polaroid back that accepts my Nikkor lenses with autofocus and metering and I'll be singing the praises of instant film. I guess one of the joys and sorrows of instant cameras is the lack of changeable lenses.
> ...


I did.  I will post the comical results.



D810 at ISO 51,200 and then bumped up 2.6 EV in post.
I never said it was any good.
Lens was some Holga Pinhole plastic doohickey.


----------



## Gary A. (May 30, 2016)

Nice.


----------

