Artistic Airsoft

[JJBennett]

TMC what is the loadout of your m4 its beautiful!

 

What are all of the parts, i recon i just might splash out later in the year. A name for each bit would suffice.

 

Cheers, James

[doc_newstead]

Oh, I think this pic is moderately artistic, if not that well thought out.

[LoGiK]

here are my artistic pics:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/yt3/logik/armoury

[oikoik]

It still wont be anywhere near what film is like. You can get away with it if you are shooting for casual viewers, but it makes a big difference to those who can tell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you use medium format, perhaps, butmosdt peeps cant tell the difference these days, and by film you mean consumer film? or mdeium format and above?

 

the ccd resolution/size of chips is a problem atm, to get the closest to consumer film at 35mm you need the digital equivalent of somewhere in the region of 22mp - even pro-ish cameras are only about 12mp - the medium format digital cameras are 22mp, but who can afford £15,000 for one..

[most people i know hire these out instead]

 

for the average consumer film equivalent , current dslr's can take their place - but then its more about the photographer rather than than the equipment, as is oft said..

 

my dslr is only 6.1mp but its taken shots that i think compare favourably with my old 35mm slr shots [but then i was a ###### shot in the first place! ]

 

..and, i should add, in digital you can modify the pics straight away - with film, unless youre scanning slide film or something, or getting it professionally scanned, to tweak your images via computer youre running the risk of losing shedloads of information from the scannig process [most consumer scanners are utter ######]

Edited April 9, 2005 by oikoik

[enzo100]

just a quick cruddy foto

[urbandork]

Here is a photoshop job I did to see what my new P90 will look like. I made it with different images of stuff I plan on buying.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

if i only had the cash.

 

all my cash is instead going to a 5sfte project on my celica o well.

[Lance Jackass]

Why is it that any picture with a smoke grenade going off in it looks cool?

[doc_newstead]

Why is it that any picture with a smoke grenade going off in it looks cool?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

£7 well spent Damn thing nearly killed me though; running through smoke is not a good way to increase lung capacity

[Twitch]

Thats because the depth of field isnt shallow enough on digital cameras to do that. Its part of the reason I only use film.

 

I'd disagree, As Oik pointed out, DOF has bugger all to do with the medium, and everything to do with the lens in front of it. Use a micro Nikkor and appreciate how razor thin the DOF can be at even f8, let alone wide open. The DOF, the quality of the boke and everything else (1.5 crop factor) notwithstanding isnt going to change between a F100/F6 and a D70/D2X.

 

It still wont be anywhere near what film is like. You can get away with it if you are shooting for casual viewers, but it makes a big difference to those who can tell.

 

What defines 'casual viewers' - newspaper and magazine readers, billboard viewers, portraits, gallery work, webwork? These are all serious areas that have either seen the change, or will see it increasingly to digital.

 

If you think of what's happening to film - look at Kodak, Iflord UK, and even Leica, all of whom died a death because they didn't adapt fast enough.

 

Just look at the second hand market for medium format these days - everyone's selling up and the serious kit of yesteryear is going for a song, simply because if you need the resolution, digital can now provide.

 

Thats not to say I think this is good/bad, its just the way things are (and they're like that for a reason). Large format film has the only real edge in terms of resolution (just look at all the MF shooters who are willing to pay up thousands for digital and scanning backs), and apart from specialist projects e.g. landscape with rangefinders etc. film's just going to continue to decline until its just such a niche market as to be near irrelevant.

 

If you're looking for a limiting factor in what digital is actually capable of, its the user far more than the equipment these days. Its easy enough to send film off to a professional lab and have them take care of post processing, its another thing entirely (and a sharper learning curve) to be responsible for every aspect of an image's capture and development yourself to produce quality prints at the end of the day.

 

Heck, I learnt on film, loved the sharpness of manual focus with an old Canon A1, but I wouldn't be surprised if I never have the need to shoot another roll again (even given how dirt cheap Velvia is here in Japan), digital simply delivers better results for me at the end of the day. If film does for you, fair's fair, but to say that the medium (and 35mm at that) is just out and out better to 'those who can tell' is just plain not true. The point should be the result, not the equipment. If anything's going to matter in still photography (which most of these pics are) its going to be lighting, not resolution or medium.

[SilentScope]

I'd disagree, As Oik pointed out, DOF has bugger all to do with the medium, and everything to do with the lens in front of it. Use a micro Nikkor and appreciate how razor thin the DOF can be at even f8, let alone wide open. The DOF, the quality of the boke and everything else (1.5 crop factor) notwithstanding isnt going to change between a F100/F6 and a D70/D2X.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Without getting into exactly why things are the way they are (unless you want to see a bunch of confusing algebraic equations) DOF is inversely proportional to format's size. The smaller the format, the greater the depth of field. Forget field of view, it is impossible for a digital camera, unless it has a CCD that it the same size as a 35mm negative, to have the same DOF as a 35mm camera. If you want to talk about DOF, there will always be a difference between a Nikon F100 / F6 and a D70 / D2X.

 

What defines 'casual viewers' - newspaper and magazine readers, billboard viewers, portraits, gallery work, webwork? These are all serious areas that have either seen the change, or will see it increasingly to digital.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Casual viewers to me are people who don’t really care about what the image looks like. And most of the areas you listed still shoot on film for the most part. Magazine ads still are shot mostly on medium format, as are billboards and portraits (look at fashion). Especially artists for gallery work because that is where the final image counts the most.

 

Newspapers use digital predominantly because of the speed and ease-of-use of the format. Video journalists use camcorders for the news not because they produce a better image than film, but because they are cheap, low maintenance and easy to pickup and start shooting with. However if the environment is controlled, like in motionpictures, film is used predominantly.

 

If you think of what's happening to film - look at Kodak, Iflord UK, and even Leica, all of whom died a death because they didn't adapt fast enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kodak is still a very large company who makes tones of money from motion picture sales. Hardly any big budget movie is filmed in digital because digital simple cannot compete in that area. 35mm motion picture film sales from Kodak have actually been going up in recent years.

 

If film does for you, fair's fair, but to say that the medium (and 35mm at that) is just out and out better to 'those who can tell' is just plain not true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you think only those who have a vast knowledge of film or digital camera and how they work can tell the difference between the two format, try sitting anyone in front of a movie that was filmed on a digital camera and then have them watch a film made with 35mm. Unless they are blind it does count. Film looks more realistic. It captures the image in a similar way that your eye does. The realisim of the format is lightyears ahead of digital. Its like looking at a picture of a painting vs. seeing it in person.

 

The point should be the result, not the equipment. If anything's going to matter in still photography (which most of these pics are) its going to be lighting, not resolution or medium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It still always boils down to what is recording the image itself, not the environment or lighting. Without the medium there is no picture. However, if you want to talk lighting, film still has the upper hand. The way the lighting is recorded onto the image has a lot to do with what format recoded it. The surface of film is made op of tiny crystals that react to light. This surface has depth, in contrast to a digital camera's CCD, which has a flat surface that turns the light into electrical signals. Because the film has depth, the way the light is recoded on it has depth. Instead of having a hard image that looks artificial and manufactured like digital, the way film records light will look soft and realistic, as your eye would see it.

 

Im not here to say that film is better than digital in every way. Or to be portentous and tell everyone how special I am because I use film. Digital is still a great formant, but not because of the image it produces. I own two cameras for my movies that I make. If I'm filming a story in a controlled environment, Im using my Arri 35mm, if Im filming a documentary on the run, I'm using my Panasonic DVX100. The same is true with still photography, if Im shooting something serious, I always bring my Nikon F, even though it is like carrying a brick around. If I want to take pictures of my friends acting stupid while we are drunk at a party, I'll bring my crappy little Fugi Finepix.

[TMC]

Let's keep the digital vs film war OUT of this thread, people.

[McMadkat]

Let's keep the digital vs film war OUT of this thread, people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen to that...

[Jules]

Closest thing I have to an artsy pic, My M15A4 and KJ Beretta with it's custom olive paintjob (not that you can tell )

 

 

 

(Thumbnailed because of the dimensions)

[RobbyC]

Breathe thread, breathe!

 

 

hmm - not my best admittedly...

[RobbyC]

hmm i got bored so i decided to do a compilation of my best shots so far...

 

you low width internet people are just going to have to hate me for this

 

 

i think the last and the first ones are prob. my favourites...

[RobbyC]

sorry about me not resizing the early ones - i didn't know how at the time

 

ah well just deal with it guys

 

and yes i like grayscale

[Soloman]

last one's exellent

[RobbyC]

the rep bar's just there nah i'm joking

 

i appreciate the compliments - thanks! (but rep me if u want )

[Terror Of Heaven]

I have to agree with Soloman there, the last one is a very good photo. Simple but great

[Deepeyes]

Oh, I think this pic is moderately artistic, if not that well thought out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry but i can't help but have a little giggle everytime I see this picture. It just reminds me of the old/B-rate action movies.

[Magnus]

RobbyC, what magazine is that on you Sig 550??

[RobbyC]

ha ha rep me you buggers i need to catch up with my mate - he cheated - damn sales man

 

anyway, that mag?

 

oh aye custom built double mag - the short and sweet explanation - take two mags - one hicap and one standard rip out standard of standard mag internals

 

drill out hole in both mags - conect with tooth paste top or kinder egg container thingy

 

clip back together - the taq tape on mine is there because i didn't leave enough room for the top clip and the damn thing came apart but still it don't look to bad,

 

fake bullets are there to stop hundreds of pellets flowing out of the top - it now holds 525 rnds as opposed to the original 220 in the hi cap and 60 in the standard.

 

i really should make a project of it one day soon... but anyway

 

 

thanks for the compliments guys!!

[Andy_spencer]

Heres my new G23F

 

[RobbyC]

nice take on a glock - even if i don't like the gun itself

 

good work!

[evilhippy]

Apologies for not having this hosted but I've never bothered to do that stuff, here's a couple more semi-artistic pictures for ya'll