As mentioned in the Film 2 Digital thread (I didn't want to hijack it), here's a couple of images from the first two rolls I've shot with the Diana. I'm shooting more or less full frame, 12 exposures per roll. They were scanned with an Epson V700. One had some NIK PP done on it, the other is pretty much SOOC, with some dust spotting. See if you can tell which is which. They were taken in Charleston in April.
Admittedly, I'm clueless @ the Diana camera, but am interested in the scanning film process/output/results/etc ... possibly utilizing an excellent condition Graflex Century Graphic (S/N 510001). As to the guess (50/50 here), I see what I think is some "dust bunnies" in the top one, so I'm guessing it to be the sooc.
Yep, the top one is SOOC. I didn't spend much time dust spotting, there was some trash that got dried on the negative. I had them processed at a local shop in Charleston and their QC wasn't the best. I also notice some processing problems, the funky pattern at the bottom of the second one is evidence.
Diana Cameras are toy plastic cameras. The lens is plastic, many have light leaks and you're never sure what you're going to get. That's the fun of shooting with them. Diana photos often have an ethereal quality, which is better represented by #1. My favorite Diana images are quirky, bad snapshot looking images.
You have to get your head in a different place to take Diana photos. It's a fun exercise.
These photos were made late in the day. Both were shot using structures to steady the camera and using a bulb exposure. Exposure time was a total WAG, I think they ran around three seconds.
Diana Photography (aka Lomography) is the antithesis of ultra-precise large format or digital photography. I shot another roll on my most recent trip. I can't wait to see what I got. I'm still thinking about these two images. I think I'll darken them up some.
Okay, gotcha ... somewhere between a pinhole camera and Coastal Optics.
Maybe, the "paper-mache" of photography ... if you will.
So ... I'm thinking about putting the Graflex into use, but as a valid tool for some serious use. I've gotten myself to a place where I shoot very few frames in the digitial realm on certain occasions/subjects, but with a more envisioned approach, knowing that PP (dry darkroom) will be an integral part of the process vs. sooc ... a far cry from my chrome days when I stated "He cheats !!!" regarding Adams approach. I finally came to understand just how limiting/restrictive ooc only can be.
That being said, I'll still be using the "dry darkroom" for finishing, so there are two aspect for consideration for me. 1) Developing: self vs. outsource and 2) Conversion to digital for pp/finishing @ vision.
It has been decades since I processed any film (only in class), but iirc development can be fairly straightforward ... just wondering about the QC care / pitfalls that I'd need to watch for. I'm thinking short rolls in developing tanks that can be done "anywhere" are about as "wet" as I'll go. Guess I should find a "refresher" somewhere. And of course, if I'm going to develop my own, I should likely scan my own. Any thoughts on scanner DPI for 120/220 film.
