"Ghost" pics

T

thomas998

Well-Known Member
fractal said:
any pics to share?
Click to expand...

couldn't find the old photos I had done with film... but here are two quick double exposure using a digital camera.

First version is taking photos from two different places, the second is a double exposure in the same place with only the person moving... I think I bumped the tripod between exposures so it seems a bit blurred... But if that is the type of ghost image you are looking for then that is how you would do it.

small ghost1.jpg


small ghost 2.jpg
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
ddbowdoin said:
Rolleis take 120 film

620 is a pure kodak invention, well... to make sure people bought Kodak 620 back in the day.
Click to expand...

Actually not - This is why I mentioned the Rolliecord not the Rollieflex the 'Cord was a version which took 620 film, As you note the 'Flex takes 120 film. And if you really want to get arcane the VERY first Rolliecord's used 117 film !!! and were subsequently retrofitted to use 620 after 117 went buh-bye.

There are also lots of 'Flex conversions to 620 film because at the time ie 1940's-1960's 620 was considerably cheaper than 120 film and those in the commercial side of photography needed to save a buck wherever possible.

620 was popular because prior to automated enlarging systems, it made a usable size image with a contact print so was cheap to process as well as a whole roll could be contact printed on a single sheet of 8x10 paper which was usually on Kodak Azo paper.

When I was in high school I worked for oldest studio in town and we had a UV contact printer to do just this had a bunch of mercury lamps in bottom which were controlled by switches on front panel.
 
Last edited:
ddbowdoin

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
ford91exploder said:
Actually not - This is why I mentioned the Rolliecord not the Rollieflex the 'Cord was a version which took 620 film, As you note the 'Flex takes 120 film. And if you really want to get arcane the VERY first Rolliecord's used 117 film !!! and were subsequently retrofitted to use 620 after 117 went buh-bye.

There are also lots of 'Flex conversions to 620 film because at the time ie 1940's-1960's 620 was considerably cheaper than 120 film and those in the commercial side of photography needed to save a buck wherever possible.

620 was popular because prior to automated enlarging systems, it made a usable size image with a contact print so was cheap to process as well as a whole roll could be contact printed on a single sheet of 8x10 paper which was usually on Kodak Azo paper.

When I was in high school I worked for oldest studio in town and we had a UV contact printer to do just this had a bunch of mercury lamps in bottom which were controlled by switches on front panel.
Click to expand...

Nice! I've never messed with a Cord... why, when you can have the Flex!

I've never seen a 620 Flex.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
ddbowdoin said:
Nice! I've never messed with a Cord... why, when you can have the Flex!

I've never seen a 620 Flex.
Click to expand...

I've seen ONE 620 Flex and that one the owner was having it reconverted BACK to 120 - Remember the Flex was the tool of commercial photographers before 35MM took over in the late 60's it was portable, reliable and much more flexible from a users perspective than large format cameras like the Speed and Crown Graphics of the era - lens and filmplane movements notwithstanding.
 
ddbowdoin

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
ford91exploder said:
I've seen ONE 620 Flex and that one the owner was having it reconverted BACK to 120 - Remember the Flex was the tool of commercial photographers before 35MM took over in the late 60's it was portable, reliable and much more flexible from a users perspective than large format cameras like the Speed and Crown Graphics of the era - lens and filmplane movements notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Graphics are insanely large, especially when compared to a field camera. I never jumped on the crown train, I know they're a low cost entry into LF but I saw the size and was instantly turned off. My field is considerably smaller, lighter, and more reliable than the crown graphics.

I could talk this crap for days!
 
PhotoDave219

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
ddbowdoin said:
Graphics are insanely large, especially when compared to a field camera. I never jumped on the crown train, I know they're a low cost entry into LF but I saw the size and was instantly turned off. My field is considerably smaller, lighter, and more reliable than the crown graphics.

I could talk this crap for days!
Click to expand...

I'd rather shoot on a speed graflex but I dont have the cash to find one right now.
 
fractal

fractal

Well-Known Member
thomas998 said:
couldn't find the old photos I had done with film... but here are two quick double exposure using a digital camera.

First version is taking photos from two different places, the second is a double exposure in the same place with only the person moving... I think I bumped the tripod between exposures so it seems a bit blurred... But if that is the type of ghost image you are looking for then that is how you would do it.

View attachment 43630

View attachment 43631
Click to expand...

very cool! Thanks for sharing
 
ddbowdoin

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
PhotoDave219 said:
Maybe I should buy a rolleis.....
Click to expand...

Big cash man, big cash.

A Mamiya TLR is more robust, easier to fix, and wayyyyy under valued. A little more cumbersome to shoot and a larger body but a nice model Rollei will set you back 600-800 PLUS a nice clean up from Harry Fleenor (looking at 250-500 to get the Rollei back into super shape)... compare that to a 300-400 dollar Mamiya C330F
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
ddbowdoin said:
Big cash man, big cash.

A Mamiya TLR is more robust, easier to fix, and wayyyyy under valued. A little more cumbersome to shoot and a larger body but a nice model Rollei will set you back 600-800 PLUS a nice clean up from Harry Fleenor (looking at 250-500 to get the Rollei back into super shape)... compare that to a 300-400 dollar Mamiya C330F
Click to expand...

Plus it has interchangeable lenses! and is utterly indestructable
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom