Nychthemeron wrote:Is that a pic of thisquietarmy up there?
yerp, from his show a week and a half ago
Moderator: Ghost Hip
Nychthemeron wrote:Is that a pic of thisquietarmy up there?
zackv wrote:stop fooling around and shell out the 320$
SPACERITUAL wrote:SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRITUAAAAAAAAAAAAAL
the raytownian wrote:I LOVE MY ODB-3. FUCK THE HATERS.
zackv wrote:stop fooling around and shell out the 320$
SPACERITUAL wrote:SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRITUAAAAAAAAAAAAAL
smile_man wrote:
cloudscapes wrote:drawback is that the white dust on some of the pics isnt there when dev houses do them because they have more expensive scanners that (with some infrared tricks) can get rid of them. I shouldnt expect that from a $100 scanner. in a few months I'll invest in a better one.
oldangelmidnight wrote:This is the classic ILF I love. Emotional highs and lows. Scooped mids in my heart all day long.
Jero wrote:I think it adds to the lofi, analog film goodness! Though I can see it being annoying doing it all the time. Any other things you don't like about that negative scanner? I've been kind of out of the photo game for a while, but I always would shoot film, & have been wanting to get one of those.
Gilmourish wrote:Saw some mention of Dianas on the previous page... I have a Diana F+, a few mates chipped in and got me one after i was going on about film and lomography for ages... got my first two films processed a week or so ago and some of the pictures came out really nicely but most of them were pantsss. I have a dell printer with a scanner bit ontop, if Scan the pictures in would the quality be okay? I just wanna show people now hahaha, There are a few I'm really proud of for someone like me who has no clue!
zackv wrote:stop fooling around and shell out the 320$
SPACERITUAL wrote:SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRITUAAAAAAAAAAAAAL