thus spoke maniac in 'Foto Amateur Art' :: six billion people can be wrong

maniac 19.06.2005 - 22:17:10 level: 1 UP New

aha, on to tu ma vlastne pekne popisane ;)
http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/photo/equipment.txt

I currently use Canon EOS 3 and Canon EOS 300D bodies (the latter is a digital
SLR). My cameras are equipped with Speedlite 550EX, I also have two 420EX
slaves for studio photography. My current lens set consists of TS-E 45/2.8
(tilt-shift), 50/1.8, 28-135/3.5 IS USM, 70-300 IS USM, 10-22 USM, and some
other stuff.

I am often able to use EOS 20D, Speedlite 580EX (with bracket / off-shoe
cable), Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (whoa!), and some other cool stuff I
love; but this is not a rule.

Some photos were taken with cameras I owned in the past: Canon EOS 300,
Canon EOS 30, Canon AV-1, Canon PowerShot A10 (very few pics), a homemade
pinhole camera, etc. I also used to own Speedlite 380EX, some third-party
zooms (28-200, 100-300, 200-400) back then.

I own a studio setup with three 4800K 500W tungsten lamps, and some other
equipment (a teleconverter, macro adaptor, a very cool Manfrotto tripod).
I use many films, but tend to stick with Kodak Supra and Portra most of the
time; for cross-processing, I use Elite Chrome, EIR, EPR... black-and-white
is mostly Ilford Delta 3200, SFX 200 (IR), Macophot IR820x; I like Konica
Impresa 50, but it is sort of hard to get down here. Done a couple of shots
on Kodak HIE.

I have a decent color darkroom setup, and usually do not alter my photos
digitally; even digital pics are typically not altered beyond the most
basic adjustments. Almost all unusual effects seen here can be contributed
to darkroom tricks, uncommon films or processes, or just weird lighting.

Older photos were scanned from prints using a crappy $40 scanner. Most
of the newer stuff is scanned from negatives with Minolta Scen Dual II,
powered by VueScan. The latter two products made probably the most
significant difference in the quality of my work, making some photos
remotely resemble sharp pictures.