Jump to content

Karim D. Ghantous

Basic Member
  • Posts

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Specialties
    Photography (mainly portraiture and live theatre).

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    kdghantous.photo

Recent Profile Visitors

5809 profile views
  1. I joined RedUser because of the cameras, and I stayed because of the people.
  2. I think a psychologist could explain it better. But, it's easier to quit than to create. It's easier to slide down a hill than to climb it. It's easier to make yourself into a victim than to fix your life. Etc.
  3. Actually, for some it is just an exercise. Kind of like running a marathon. It's a pretty big challenge. Some are delusional, of course, but you can't help that. I've recently heard of two stories about film makers who are, or have been, in huge debt. Ironically, the one who had to sell his house was in less debt than the one who went to film school. The former pointed out that his exercise in futility was his "film school". I wish this on nobody, of course. Learn from the mistakes of others.
  4. That makes me think a little bit. If Fuji doesn't want to make film anymore, then I'm not sure why Sony would want to. Fuji is doing terrific business with Instax, though. I hear that they were just about to give up on it when sales spiked, and the rest is history. It's quite amazing what has happened to 35mm SLR and RF cameras, too. The price for a Leica M6 is not far off that of a new Fuji GFX 50R. Think about that!
  5. If only there was a Kodak ColorPlus 200 of movie stocks. It's less than half the price of Portra. A pack of ten rolls of ColorPlus costs AU$80. A pack of five rolls of Portra 160 costs $100. $8 vs $20.
  6. AFAIK, RedScale film has a slightly lower ASA rating. In addition to that, the Remjet is even more dense than regular film (I think?), and if you shot through the Remjet, you'd be noticeably underexposed. So obviously you threaded the film the correct way.
  7. Agreed. IMAX is the future of cinema. It will be digital but it will be true IMAX, not just a slightly larger screen. I do like the concept of aspect ratios, and for most applications it's still relevant. But, nothing beats IMAX for immersion.
  8. FWIW, I have seen frames from 7219 pushed one stop and they looked fantastic. They are no longer available online so I can't show you, I'm afraid. But 7219 handles pushing very well. The whole of Eyes Wide Shut was shot with a two stop push, and that was on 5298.
  9. I might offer this caution: most photographic scanners are terrible and exaggerate graininess. So if you see 5222 scanned with an Epson flatbed or a Pakon F135+, you're going to get grain that really isn't visible with a proper scanner like a Flextight or a Northlight or whatever. I'm not against graininess, I'm just unimpressed with scanners which exaggerate it.
  10. Robino, that's awesome. I love it. I don't think I could have afforded anything anamorphic back then. But I surely could have converted my camera to a wider aspect ratio with masks for the VF and the film plane. Tyler, you may be familiar with Nick Carver: (18:50) Bruce, it's about composition, not about anything else. I notice you really like 2.35. I hope I don't catch that bug because I don't think many clients or subjects would appreciate it! LOL
  11. A long time ago I made the decision to take photographs only in the landscape aspect ratio. This was partly because I thought I might be a DP one day, and the best way to get your eye trained for that is to force yourself to compose in landscape. Even if the subject begged to be shot in portrait, I always found a way to shoot it in landscape. (The only exceptions I would allow myself were photos taken with the intention of submitting to stock libraries, which never happened anyway. But even in these cases, I made myself shoot both aspects where applicable). I'm glad I made that decision, regardless of the fact that I probably won't be a DP after all. I much prefer a consistent approach to photography, rather than the haphazard approach that we are encourage to take. You can hold an exhibition and every single image can be a different aspect ratio, so that IMHO encourages laziness disguised as 'variety'. But, I don't think I went far enough. In hindsight, I should have probably shot everything in 2.35:1 for a while. Why? Because if you can compose a difficult subject in 2.35, you can compose it in 1.85. Of course the challenge would have been to find a way to shoot in 2.35 on 35mm SLRs. But, hey, where there's a will there's a way. Your relatives will probably not like the fact that literally all your family photos and videos are in 2.35:1. But you're either into it, or you're not.
  12. Well said Phil. If you don't want to use real guns, or don't ever want to, maybe make your next project 100% CGI.
  13. I would assume it was. Maybe that's a clue? Maybe you need a print made from the internegative (third generation copy). Scanning the camera negative is technically better, but that is a separate issue.
  14. Scientific proof that some digital cameras have a long way to go. 😉 Okay, so now I know what you mean. Could this be the principle behind Phase One's TriChromatic sensor? I know a little about it - Phase One, with Sony, made a Bayer array with even colour density, without compromising high ISO performance too much. Alexa may have more saturated filters but it still can't handle light sources, despite what people say about its highlight performance, which is supposed to be more than film (LOL). It's not alone, so I'm not picking on it. Just saying.
×
×
  • Create New...