Now that you gave me the description it sounds perfecty "natural" to me, but as always... to develop the idea is that hard part of it. To find it so understandable after the originator's explanation... well, that's the trivial part of it. Much like having Rory Hallagher telling you what he plays. It looks so easy then but it is way not "easy" to come to the idea to play that. ;-)
But still... if you have the developed film frame, can't you simply scan it? :-/
oh, ok, i knew that this method i am using sounds a bit strange. it is strange for the effort i had given in creating those images, where the quality of them is expected to be superiorly high/ and so should it be; with the method i use, i diminish it, and reduce it almost to obseleteness.
ok, here is what i do. 1. i take the developed 6x6 mm negative. 2. expose it to light (against a white background) 3. shoot the exposed negative with my digital camera, mostly with a macro lense so that i can get as close as possible to the negative. 4. i take the digital copy, and with Photoshop, i invert it. 5. a very poor result in positive is produced.
now, the reason i do this, is that i do not have just yet a laboratory where i can develop my rolls by hand, and which lab i've been expecting for some time now, but still did not get it. on the other hand, in the photo shops around town, they develop 6x6 mm rolls, but do not scan them. therefore, i had to invent something, and the above way helps.
Right, we provide the missing stuff in matters of discussions and debates and so we re-introduce the balance, ey? ;-) Hmmm... we could be named "fine tuners" this way. ;-)
I am sorry to hear about how adventurous it can get for you to develope some film frames, but on the other hands, as you say, it is good for working out other possibilities - for inventing solutions where everbody would say that "it is impossible to do different".
Your method of pre-exposing the role to light and then photographing with the macro sounds quite ununderstandable to me - did I get you right ata all? Could you elaborate on this?
Hi Nick; it is so great that you never fail to point out the negligence of many here stealing away this great great oppurtunity from themselves in having propper discussion on the work- thiers and others! but ey, that's what we are here for! ;)
I for my side, scan my fild 6x6mm film at some photo store here in town and they are ripping me off each time for that. not too happy about it, but now i have bought some rolls in Italy, which is to be hand developped, thinking that i will get the home lab by now; unfortunately, i have to say that i received only words so far from a very trusted person. i still do not have it, and there is many rolls waiting to develop (and this photo store in town, does not develop them anymore). however, i was never too happy with the way they washed my films- there would always be a scratch/ a line/ or some polluted part in the negative.
but, (this great fat BUT always triggers nice ideas on me ;)), what i did with some of the unscanned 6x6 mm negatives is: I unrolled them, exposed to light, and photographed them with a macro lense. took the digital file, and put it into PS and converted them to positive. the outcome is not the same, of course, but at least i can decently see what i have done.
still, i am waiting for the lab, where i can wash the negatives, scan them, and also print. but when that time is gonna come, i do not know.
First of all, let it be stated here, this is the greatest part of it here in UF, to continue this great exchange in moderate tempo, to digest the replies of the many good brothers and sisters, to think about them, to reply, to ask, to propose... Unfortunately many too many will neglect this part and rely on quick and cheap "comments", and this is such a pity since they are only stealing such a great opportunity from their own selves. Such a pity...
But we do remain in the good realms, we do keep on exchaning minds, and so we can be comfortable with that sine we know that sooner or later the value of it all will be understood. It is a matter of time and good will.
It is indeed intriguing, that "freedom of expression (of our own stupidity and genius)". It is actually a very interesting problem mathematically, and it is very related to the problem of... if a democracy can be so democratic to also allow fascists to act freely inside its axiomatic framework, and to negate that axiomatic frame (=the democracy itself) after all. We do have the associated problems here in Switzeria, we do have them in France, in Germany, and above all in Denmark nowadays. (The latter is a completely fascistoid land in the cloths of "culture and democracy. ;-)) Anyway, it is indeed a gift with which we are awarded and so we'd better be careful with its usage. (Which includes me too when I sing my tirades against digital equipment. ;-))
But already the pure physics analysis can definitely deliver an unbiased conclusion. Yesterday I scanned an medium format image from Film at a resolution of 300 dpi and a magnification factor of 5, which resulted inti a scanned image of about 3200 x 3200 pixels and thus of about 27 x 27 cm. Now, there has been no loss of sharpness even at that level! Imagine that this is only a lower bound of the available degree of details and then winder: What can be the upper bound? I will have to try that out, but this lower bound is already an unbelievable one for the amount of information that the medium format film contains. And when I think about large format... you know. ;-)
BTW, do you also scan your medium format images from film? or how do you do that?
Anyway, it seems to me that we are indeed talking about completely different levels of quality when we talk about digital and medium format film. There can be no direct comparison - this is also my conclusion up to now.
ah well, maybe they do not deliver much, technically (when compared to such monsters such as your Hassie), but a nice idea could help, perhaps- or that's what i count on them at least, anyways! ;)
...but this is the most troublesome gift that we were awarded, freedom of expression (of our own stupidity and genius)... quite intriguing, don't you think? ;)
it would be utterly rediculous to compare your Hassie (and its mates) with any digital cam- be the same hassie, like yours, with a digital back, or the new digi- Leica. these are different stories, and not necessary me mix them up (well, we don't). ;)
Hi and thanks a lot for the good detailed comment, Visar!
First of all about the crop. Well, it is not an intented crop. I simply had a film torn in the magazine. It can happen some few times. And thus also the non square frame.
About the digital "sad wishful attempt", well... you hit the nail on its head ince more. Most digitalographers would deliver black surfaces and noise beyoind all limits in such a case. There will be some more images soon, where one can see that much more clearer.
So, in the dark regions most digital cameras deliver uniform black, they also deliver overburned areas as "shines" for highlights... OK, and what are they able to deliver properly after all? Please help me, I am stupid, I don't understand! ;-)
i see this image and i sit in awe!~ there is a fascinating abundance of details in the dark regions, dominating the image; and i am thinking of similar images, underexposed, recorded on digital sensors, and how much can they get (?). that would be just a sad wishful attempt compared to this!
looks that the choice of your topic of shooting here was smartly selected for this type of experiment, for there is nice default contrast between white frames of windows and other white geometric forms and the darker surfaces. a such a perfect gradient generated here can rarely be seen. everything shifts so smoothly, and almost unnoticed, that i imagine would continue that shifting beyond the canvas, even if there would be too much light~
by the way, was there some very unwanted detail that you decided to go for this crop?
0 
