Solarisations

>>2741362

pretty gimicky desu. i mean in a picture like that i cant see any benefit of the gimmick. ive seen some landscapes where you dont know if youre looking at a positive or negative, night or day, thats a kinda cool use of this.

File: solaris.jpg (112KB, 610x850px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 610x850px

Solarization seems like such a digital effect to me, I was kinda amazed the first time I found out it was a film thing and not just the name of a photoshop filter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	610
Image Height	850

File: IMG_49041.jpg (1MB, 1270x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1270x2000px

>>2741362
Rollei ortho 25, FM2+50/1.2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:29 08:59:21
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1270
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2741364
I get what you saying. I think it looks good sometimes, it's pretty much like looking at a negative: by forcing you to imagine what will it look like, you see somethings that usually goes unnoticed on the positive image. I've tried to get more of his eyes in that pic, for instance. Also I think it looks less gimmicky when there are midtones, not just stark b/w.

I think you're taking about Brett Weston pics, they really nice indeed.

>>2741365
Yea, I was surprised when I first heard that too. Btw, thanks to tarkovsky I started enjoying image alterations like.

>>2741379
Nice, the texture really shows

>>2741365
>>2741417
>kids thought solarization was a photoshop filter

no wonder this board is a tasteless shithole

>>2741487
tacky either way tho hope we can agree on that

>>2741489
I was just pointing out how young and clueless the posters were. regardless of if you like solarization or not, to have not heard of it outside of photoshop and call yourself interested in photography is ridiculous. I mean, you'd have had to never opened a book on photography in your life. even skimming the wikipedia page about photography would introduce you to it

that pic looks more like a straight up negative than a solarisation

>>2741500
nevermind, i should have looked closer. but still, i don't think it's a good example

>>2741487
>>2741493
Are you being cocky over some silly thing like this? jesus...

Anyway, I thought it was some special effect before I got into photography; I learned soon that it wasn't...

File: ipad.png (216KB, 1026x1170px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1026x1170px

>>2741487
>kids thought solarization was a photoshop filter
Yes, what else do you expect when I grow up fucking with photoshop and not with a darkroom in my attic?

>>2741493
because someone's age determines how much they know about something.

stop being a grumpy old cunt, man.

File: 22048503656_c824a2b2a6_b.jpg (143KB, 889x900px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 889x900px

>>2741500
>that pic looks more like a straight up negative than a solarisation
That's bc the kids were really black, I think. kek

Pic related by Wolfgang Moersch

File: 1452439354138invert.jpg (2MB, 1600x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x2000px

>>2741513
I think it's solarized film, not a print. The words on the jersey are backwards. And I couldn't help inverting it in photoshop.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	2000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:10 14:53:49
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1600
Image Height	2000

>>2741379 here, I actually have some Solarol which I bought with a stack of other darkroom garbage from some crazy old german dude.
Haven't used it yet, because I'm more into straight photography, and it seems like the process would be pretty time and experiment heavy...
I got a stack of Agfacontour, Kodalith, and ridiculous gridded sheet film, lith film, ortho films for doing all of that heavy darkroom manipulation stuff from him.
>all one click in PS now, I wonder if this guy feels like he wasted his life on that trash...

File: DSCN2667o.jpg (2MB, 2736x3648px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2736x3648px

>>2741508
Maybe you could have haerd of Man Ray before

've done some of them in photohop too but I don't thonk we should name those solarization. Any thoughts ?

>>2741510
>>2741512
>>2741508
>>2741505
>the point
>your head

>"yeah i'm a musician, I love music, I post on music forums about my passion for listening to and making music"
>"wait, 'guitar'? what's that? I thought it was just a synthesizer preset on fruity loops?"

literally has nothing to do with your age or the age of the medium