PDA

View Full Version : Vintage Photos



Rebo's_Guitarist
01-08-2008, 08:56 AM
I decided to put that nice macro lens I bought a while ago to use.

Yes, I know Snags is dirty......

Enjoy

DarthQuack
01-08-2008, 09:18 AM
Pretty sweet pics. Looks nice Rebo.

bigbarada
01-08-2008, 12:46 PM
I decided to put that nice macro lens I bought a while ago to use.

Yes, I know Snags is dirty......

Enjoy

Silly question, but I've only had one introductory class in Photography, what exactly is the difference between a telephoto lens and a macro lens?

Cool photos, BTW!:thumbsup:

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-08-2008, 02:05 PM
Macro will let you focus in almost as close as you want to the subject and still pick up every detail.

plasticfetish
01-08-2008, 02:19 PM
Exactly. Macro lets you look at things that are very close, and telephoto lets you look at things that are very far away.

Very nice Rebo's_Guitarist! Love the abstract qualities.
What kind of lighting are you using there?

bigbarada
01-08-2008, 04:47 PM
So is it just a very wide angle lens? I always thought that wide angle lens would distort objects too much if they were close up.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-08-2008, 05:27 PM
I used my mini led mag for the blue shades, otherwise I used some can lights with energy efficient floresents.

plasticfetish
01-08-2008, 05:54 PM
So is it just a very wide angle lens? I always thought that wide angle lens would distort objects too much if they were close up.I'm not great at explaining this sort of thing... but I've always just understood it as being a kind of lens that lets you focus on things that are much closer than a "normal" lens would. It magnifies the image, so that it's larger (1:1 or 2:1 and sometimes better) than it would be if you just used a telephoto lens. (There are also telephoto macro lenses though, that let you magnify something that's somewhat far away.)


I used my mini led mag for the blue shades, otherwise I used some can lights with energy efficient floresents.Cool idea using an LED as a spot! I'll have to try that some time. :)

JediTricks
01-08-2008, 09:16 PM
That has a very short focal length! Geez, I don't think I could use a lens that tight, my manual focusing skills aren't good enough and getting up that close I'd probably knock the subjects down. What lens/camera is it?

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-08-2008, 10:04 PM
Sony Alpha 100 w/ Minolta 50mm 2.8 macro

JediTricks
01-08-2008, 10:20 PM
Ah, cool setup, that's a pretty decent prime lens there I gather, I can see it's got no distortion and good color. So, what shot speeds did you use there? (I'd check the exif data, but it's not there since it's been edited down to for-web use.) I don't have steady hands so any macro I take are very long tripod shots, I try to go over a quarter-second, but as rich as your shots are there, I could see you going over a few seconds.

I keep forgetting that Sony bought Konica/Minolta which is why those 2 went together.

bigbarada
01-09-2008, 01:22 AM
I have a Canon Digital Rebel and this is the best I can do using the lens that came with the camera. It goes down to 18mm, but you can see some serious distortion especially when looking at the Chewbacca figure (and yes, I'm one of the five people who bought the Unleashed Bossk).

plasticfetish
01-09-2008, 01:39 AM
Looks pretty good actually. Depth of field isn't what macro lenses are all about, so just about anything beyond the specific focal point will be blurry.

Playing around with the lighting you use is important also. More and brighter lights will give you sharper images, but it all depends on how sensitive your camera is.

...and for the record, I was one of the other five people that bought Bossk. :)

bigbarada
01-09-2008, 02:53 AM
I guess I could fake the macro look by just cropping the photos down, here's that same photo at full size, but cropped down to fit within the attachment limitations of this forum. It's grainy, but that's just because I'm using a 1600 ISO (which is the only way I can get any decent photos when shooting indoors).

I probably should have cropped it down to the vintage Snowtrooper, since this is the vintage forums, but I just love that VTAC Snowtrooper.

I'm sure if I took the time to set up some real lights and got my camera set up on a tripod, I'd get cleaner results. This is just me using my desk lamp and bracing the camera against the desk.

plasticfetish
01-09-2008, 04:29 AM
You know... the nice thing about shooting photos for the internet, as opposed to something for print (a magazine, etc.), is that you donít have to really freak out about resolution. If you have even a little room to set up some basic lighting, and have a camera that will shoot at a decent resolution, you can do very very well. (Photoshop helps when it comes to color correction and sharpening of coarse.)

Iíve always worked with the cheapest possible tools, trying to concentrate not so much on the gadgets, but on how I use them. (Limitations force you to think, and to be creative.) Itís good to buy one camera, and use it for as long as possible... you need to get to know that tool and what it can do... almost by instinct.

Iíve had some studio space to work with over the years, but nothing massive. My lighting consists of about four or five simple clamp lights with a variety of bright flood and spot bulbs. Iíve been using a really basic pocket camera as well (currently a Sony Cyber-shot), with some adjustable settings, but mostly I donít worry about it. Enough light and the camera will do its job, and then the real work... just like in any photo lab... happens on the computer.

But thereís something to be said for playing around and experimenting. Rebo's_Guitaristís idea about using an LED flashlight as a spot for macro shooting is really great. I would have never thought of that... very creative.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-09-2008, 07:35 AM
I dont remember exactly what I used, but it was full Manual setting with my f/stops ranging from f/11 all the way to f/32 with the appropriate shutter speeds, the most being probably 12 seconds.

BigBarada: Most cameras will have a macro function already built into the camera. Its not as good as having a macro lens but it still does the trick. Ill post some examples when I switch to my other computer.

This functions designated symbol is a flower. The trick to using it is to not use your zoom at all, rather physically move the camera closer or farther. Not using a tripod (depending how close you are) will almost garuntee a blurry photo. Big time macro photographers have a special rail guide system that mounts to the tripod, so you can focus within millimeters.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-09-2008, 07:47 AM
Alright I took these two last summer.

1) Was taken with the same setup, Alpha100 w/ 50mm 2.8 Macro. This was my first macro attempt and turned out alright.

2) Was taken with a 4.0MP Kodak DX5960 (I think) advanced point and shoot using the macro (flower) function I mentioned above. I was suprised I was able to get that close.

My first camera, which was ~$300, took comparable pics to my Alpha100 which was a lot more money.

Also chaning your white balance will change your lights color. Thats how I got the LED to come out so blue.

Depth of field can be adjusted by lessening your aperature (raising the f/stop number) and increasing your shutter speed. I want to say that on that Vader I had an aperature as small as I could, f/32 - letteing the least amount of light in, and about a 10 second exposure - letting every detail to soak in as the appropriate amount of light was slowly let through.

bigbarada
01-09-2008, 02:29 PM
That's awesome stuff. So exactly what setup are you using for those and what's the aperture, shudder speed, etc.?

Like I mentioned before, I took one photography class back in 2003, but have been spending the last couple of years learning as much as I can in a "trial by fire" kind of environment. Working for Matt Hughes, I'm his unofficial photographer so I get to document all of his training and I also do pretty much all of the product photos for our store.

So it's been a lot of trial and error for me. I attached one of the t-shirt photos that I took for our store and a catalog (we get Matt's twin brother, Mark, to pose for the photos). This is one of the better ones, but now that winter is here, by the time Mark gets off of work the sun is already almost down. So I'm trying to figure out how to get "cheerful" indoor photos that will make people want to buy the item.

The other two are pics that I took while Matt was training and you can see the motion blur that I just can't seem to get rid of. What would I need to get clean, freeze-frame action under indoor lighting?

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-09-2008, 04:44 PM
More light.

You could always try the action feature. It is usually designated by a guy running. Or if the background isnt important you could set it to the Aperature setting and open the shutter up as far as it will go (lowest possible number) and the shutter speed will coordinate automatically. This will allow you to shoot at the fastest possible speed making them less blurry, given there is enough light. This is also a good time to use your burst mode. 1 out of 12 has to turn out, right?:thumbsup:

Hot shoe flashes are nice, but I dont have one yet.

I havent taken any classes so everything I have learned was from trial and error, or from books / online tutorials. There is a lot of helpful info out there. Helpful people as well.

bigbarada
01-09-2008, 07:27 PM
More light.

You could always try the action feature. It is usually designated by a guy running. Or if the background isnt important you could set it to the Aperature setting and open the shutter up as far as it will go (lowest possible number) and the shutter speed will coordinate automatically. This will allow you to shoot at the fastest possible speed making them less blurry, given there is enough light. This is also a good time to use your burst mode. 1 out of 12 has to turn out, right?:thumbsup:

Hot shoe flashes are nice, but I dont have one yet.

I havent taken any classes so everything I have learned was from trial and error, or from books / online tutorials. There is a lot of helpful info out there. Helpful people as well.

I try to use only the Manual setting on my camera, but the aperture will only open up to 4.0 and only then if the sensor detects enough light (otherwise it will reset it to 5.0 or 5.6 automatically). I'm not sure if that's a limitation of the camera or just me not knowing how to override the default settings.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-09-2008, 08:25 PM
That would probably be the limitation of the lens. It should all be on your lens. My macro says 1:2.8, meaning 2.8 is the lowest it will go. The lower it goes the better, but also $$$, especially for macro.

I dont know if you can change your lenses on your camera, but you could always upgrade-

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-24-60mm-F-2-8-EX-DG-Lens-for-Canon-Rebel-XT-XTi_W0QQitemZ350013343347QQihZ022QQcategoryZ106845 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This is pretty much your all around lens, but is also 2.8

If not, its limitation of the camera.

bigbarada
01-09-2008, 08:53 PM
That would probably be the limitation of the lens. It should all be on your lens. My macro says 1:2.8, meaning 2.8 is the lowest it will go. The lower it goes the better, but also $$$, especially for macro.

I dont know if you can change your lenses on your camera, but you could always upgrade-

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-24-60mm-F-2-8-EX-DG-Lens-for-Canon-Rebel-XT-XTi_W0QQitemZ350013343347QQihZ022QQcategoryZ106845 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This is pretty much your all around lens, but is also 2.8

If not, its limitation of the camera.

THis is what I have, a Canon Digital Rebel XT, 8 Megapixel:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11154

I also have a 75mm-300mm telephoto lens that says f/4-5.6 so I think it's my lens, not my camera.

Thanks for the link, I'm expecting a couple of paychecks this week, so it looks like I'll be picking up one of those lenses.:thumbsup:

JediTricks
01-10-2008, 07:30 PM
I guess I could fake the macro look by just cropping the photos down, here's that same photo at full size, but cropped down to fit within the attachment limitations of this forum. It's grainy, but that's just because I'm using a 1600 ISO (which is the only way I can get any decent photos when shooting indoors).It's not too shabby, though that pic is noisy as hell. Try using lights pointed from across and below the subjects instead of over them (LED flashlights work pretty well, though you may have to compensate for their slight blue tone, but if you also use regular indoor lighting it should balance it out, unless it's a CFL which puts out ugly, crappy light). Even my Canon A630 digicam can take indoor shots less noisy than that, and I try never to take it over ISO 200. Shoot RAW under iso 800 and then see if you can turn the pic up in after effects, the shots may already have the data and the ISO 1600 is needlessly noising that.

Attached is a shot I took in macro with my digicam during a quick-n-dirty shoot for Steve's other site (I didn't end up using it, going instead for these less-close shots (http://photos.actionfigs.com/showgallery.php?cat=2576) which as you can see didn't agree with the lighting when the subject was too wide, but I wasn't in the mood to futz around). The light sources are a 10-LED pedestal flashlight and a second 21-LED handheld flashlight (both very cheapo kind), plus a little photoshop level-tweaking, the F-stop is f4.1 (I'm not sure why I used that aperture size anymore, it's been a few months since I took this) at 1/8 of a second (I think I was resting the camera on a box that was a little too shaky for anything slower) and I think ISO 100 (though for some reason, it's not in the exif data). If my little digicam can do that, your DSLR can do better.



Rebo, cool bug pics! Those autofocus or did you dial them in yourself? I can't manually focus to save my behind, even though my digicam has a pretty decent manual focus system and my mom's DSLR has a prime lens very similar to yours.


BB, for a "cheerful" indoor shot, you'll want something akin to portrait mode (your camera may already have this), you might want to try a high F-stop number to close the aperture and blur the background, and you'll want to get creative with lighting so that the background is well-lit without blasting the subject. And if at all possible, stay away from using the camera's flash alone, they're always your last resort.


My digicam can go as low as f2.8 and as high as f8. Canon's "Plastic Fantastic" (aka the "Thrifty Fifty") is a 50mm f1.8, it's not great build quality but it takes great, sharp photos and is a fraction of the cost of a pro version:
http://www.jpgmag.com/stories/1325 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_i

plasticfetish
01-10-2008, 10:23 PM
Yeah, the blue LED thing isn't such a big deal if you limit how you use it. With >> this (http://photos.actionfigs.com/showphoto.php?photo=17721) photo, I used a single bulb LED to light the inside. Had to go back in and color correct that area just a bit, but it worked pretty well for what it was.

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 10:49 PM
I can see what I really need to do is spend some time setting up the proper lighting. Just shining a big bright lamp on the subject isn't going to cut it.

plasticfetish
01-10-2008, 11:32 PM
For the most part, digital cameras are like video cameras, in that they're light hogs. It's also important to have a few lights, and to surround the subject as best as possible... if you want to smooth out the cast shadows some.

If I could afford it, I'd buy one of >> these (http://www.kinoflo.com/Lighting%20fixtures%20with%20Remote%20ballast/Foto-Flo/Foto-Flo.htm), and maybe one of >> these (http://www.kinoflo.com/12VDC%20Systems/Mini-Flo/Mini-Flo.htm) also. :love:

bigbarada
01-11-2008, 02:05 AM
For the most part, digital cameras are like video cameras, in that they're light hogs. It's also important to have a few lights, and to surround the subject as best as possible... if you want to smooth out the cast shadows some.

If I could afford it, I'd buy one of >> these (http://www.kinoflo.com/Lighting%20fixtures%20with%20Remote%20ballast/Foto-Flo/Foto-Flo.htm), and maybe one of >> these (http://www.kinoflo.com/12VDC%20Systems/Mini-Flo/Mini-Flo.htm) also. :love:

Those look like they would work perfectly for what I need, why do I not see prices listed?

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-11-2008, 07:18 AM
Those look mighty nice. I just bought a portable lighting studio ~50.00, for some more macro experimenting.

I also got CS3 the other day. Pretty nice.

The spider was manual focus, the grasshopper was not.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-12-2008, 03:11 PM
I did this one really quick last night so I could play around with editing. The front, right, me looks too fake. Oh well, it was fun.

bigbarada
01-12-2008, 03:14 PM
Back to the topic of this thread. I just got this Boushh Leia in the mail today. She has a Taiwan COO and probably one of the nicest faces I've ever seen on a vintage Leia.

I know, still grainy as heck and I'm just using the ambient sunlight that was bouncing around my bedroom; but for now we'll just call that my "style." lol

bigbarada
01-12-2008, 03:18 PM
I did this one really quick last night so I could play around with editing. The front, right, me looks too fake. Oh well, it was fun.

Actually that looks pretty cool, I thought it was a photo of four people at first, until I realized they all looked the same.:o

I see what you're talking about with the bottom right photo of you, but I think it's just the selection mask around the hair that gives it away. But hair is always going to be hard to mask out just because.... well, it's hair!

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-12-2008, 03:30 PM
Leia looks nice, good depth of field with the goons in the background.

sjd9299
01-12-2008, 09:45 PM
Actually that looks pretty cool, I thought it was a photo of four people at first, until I realized they all looked the same.:o

I see what you're talking about with the bottom right photo of you, but I think it's just the selection mask around the hair that gives it away. But hair is always going to be hard to mask out just because.... well, it's hair!

Yeah, try it again wearing a different hat in each one. That way it wll be easier to cut around.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-13-2008, 06:42 AM
Yeah, I thought about that. I doubt I will set anything up again until I can have better lighting. Was fun though.

JediTricks
01-14-2008, 04:39 PM
Pretty cool pics gang!

That Leia makes me sad, when I was a kid that was 1 of 2 figures I desperately wanted and could never find in stores (the other was Luke Jedi), instead finding nothing but crap like Squid Head. It's a really good-lookin' fig, nice shot - though I would suggest a different backdrop color behind her just so you can see her hair.


Rebo, you need to "vintage" that pic more so it looks more authentic AND hides the matting better. Nevertheless, very nifty.

TeeEye7
01-14-2008, 06:33 PM
Back to the topic of this thread. I just got this Boushh Leia in the mail today. She has a Taiwan COO and probably one of the nicest faces I've ever seen on a vintage Leia.

I know, still grainy as heck and I'm just using the ambient sunlight that was bouncing around my bedroom; but for now we'll just call that my "style." lol

Nice, soft light with no harsh shadows. A great way to show off the figure's features. Good choice of diffused light IMO, because the shiny plastic would give off distractive glare or "hot spots".

At work, we use diffused light a lot for details on metallic objects (like serial numbers on guns) for photos used in court. Some plastics can have the same challenges like on Leia's face.

Great job, BigB!

JediTricks
01-15-2008, 04:32 PM
Reflected light also works really well for that (provided you're not using a mirror :p), we were using umbrella reflectors when we were doing photography for business.

TeeEye7
01-17-2008, 09:12 PM
Yep. We use umbrellas, soft boxes, and quite often a simple piece of white butcher paper for reflected light concerns at work.

99% of the time we're doing crime scene photography, but we also end up doing portraits of the brass, group and individual shots of academy students, promotions/award ceremonies, special events (I feel like Jimmy Olsen, sometimes :rolleyes:) and even a type of "product" photography for our various publications or website. That's the reason we have the toys listed above.

JediTricks
01-18-2008, 02:05 PM
I spent years suggesting Steve try a softbox for his photography (I felt his flash work was too harsh on the figures, washed them out), finally he's started using a flash diffuser (basically the same thing on a smaller scale) which works pretty well, and is of course much more portable.

Check it out, this guy has a recipe for a DIY softbox: http://lactose.blogspot.com/2007/03/hobo-diy-softbox-for-perfect-portraits.html
That is friggin' rad!


Dude, that is so funny! You should say to the brass right as you're taking the pic "I snapped 10 dead bodies with this camera just last week!" :D

plasticfetish
01-18-2008, 02:46 PM
You know what's cool about that guys box? I've seen lighting guys (on sets that I've worked on) cut and tape things like that together on the spot from scraps of foamcore in pretty much the same way. I dunno about the aluminum foil, but his trash bag diffusion is priceless.

(Reminds me how I need to buy a small roll of diffusion paper...)

JediTricks
01-18-2008, 03:26 PM
Yeah, that trash bag was the best part for me, that would never have occurred to me on my own. One of the responders in the blog suggests using fireproof foil, it's a little more expensive and has to be got at a hardware store, but they say it is far tougher.

bigbarada
01-18-2008, 07:34 PM
Speaking of vintage photos, has anyone seen the Kenner "product photo" prints that Brian's Toys is selling?

http://www.brianstoys.com/store/category.aspx?categoryID=3598

I'd like to get the "93-back" photo from the old Planetary Map, but will probably just get the 8x10 at those prices. But I guess it's like an art print, they have the corner on that little market so they can charge what they want.

The prototype Boba Fett might be cool too.

BTW, I'm going to build one of those softboxes, that's awesome!:thumbsup:

TeeEye7
01-18-2008, 08:19 PM
Dude, that is so funny! You should say to the brass right as you're taking the pic "I snapped 10 dead bodies with this camera just last week!" :D

If you only knew how true that statement is, JT :yes:.

Rebo's_Guitarist
01-19-2008, 07:02 AM
I dont understand....So they just ran prints from originals? If so, = Lame

I bought a soft box last week. Its nice, but I havent had much chance to use it yet.

Bel-Cam Jos
01-19-2008, 09:23 AM
With all of you throwing out all this jargon and technical Bocce, I gotta get in on this.

The following pic was taken about fifteen years back, with a 35mm camera in a room with lights on. It was close up by moving the camera nearer to the objects, creating a look and style I like to call "blurry." Enjoy.

TeeEye7
01-19-2008, 01:06 PM
"Blurry" because of slow shutter speed and shallow depth of field.

I now know "blurry" is a word in Bocce! ;)

JediTricks
01-23-2008, 05:08 PM
I think "blurry" is a popular art form.

bigbarada
02-15-2008, 12:19 AM
Here's a new one of some of my more recent acquisitions, even though it kind of looks like Amanaman leading a troop of Ewoks into battle.:)

JediTricks
02-16-2008, 04:01 PM
Yeah it does, and it makes Ewoks seem cooler. ;)

Bel-Cam Jos
02-17-2008, 09:48 AM
Yeah it does, and it makes Ewoks seem cooler. ;)In the "vintage" days, JT, that wasn't an issue for my fellow SW fans. Amazing what a black blur on the back of an action figure card did to pique our collective (pun always intended) curiosity. Circa 1983, Ewoks were cool, as toys and in the films. :thumbsup: But 25 years later... :rolleyes:

JediTricks
02-17-2008, 03:43 PM
It's funny, as a kid, when the ewoks came out, I thought they were kinda lame even though I looooooved ROTJ, but all the adults around me went ewok-crazy.

Bel-Cam Jos
02-18-2008, 11:13 AM
They had a weird language, it was cool that they could win with "natural" ways (but I do recall playing with an Ewok with a blaster rifle, from that brief scene in the film) that my friends and I could duplicate (in flower planters, with balsa wood and tools, strings or cords, little rocks, etc.). Even liked the names: Wicket (the W. Warrick was weird), Logray, Paploo, Romba, Lumat. Okay; Chief Chirpa was cheesy, I'll give you that.

Rebo's_Guitarist
02-23-2008, 06:16 PM
Heres one from the 365 set I started. Day 16.

JediTricks
02-23-2008, 07:27 PM
NOOOOOO!!! How could you open your figures? ;)

Rebo's_Guitarist
02-24-2008, 07:01 AM
As long as I kept the cardbacks and bubbles they are still worth the same as moc are they not?

Bel-Cam Jos
02-24-2008, 09:27 AM
As long as I kept the cardbacks and bubbles they are still worth the same as moc are they not?I believe that value is based on MOC: Mint Off Card. Or MayNotBe Overly ConcernedWithMonetaryValue.

Rebo's_Guitarist
02-24-2008, 09:36 AM
Yes, the second one:thumbsup: Like I could afford MOC anyways.......

bigbarada
02-26-2008, 04:37 PM
Got my camera out today and decided to try some stuff out.

The first one is a recreation of the "play scenario" image from the vintage A-Wing box. It's probably one of silliest of the toy scenarios that Kenner came up with, but that's what makes it so memorable.

The second is a close up of the A-Wing Pilot, thinking to himself, "Only I could have luck this bad."

The third is just a shot of Threepio and Artoo with two A-Wing Pilots preparing an A-Wing Fighter for flight in the background.

JediTricks
02-26-2008, 05:47 PM
I think it looks like he was a traitor and was handing over premium Rebel technology to the enemy, but the Empire was distrustful of the situation.

Bel-Cam Jos
02-26-2008, 07:57 PM
JT, didn't I have a dream about that, or was it something I was sniffing? :pleased:

JediTricks
02-28-2008, 01:02 AM
JT, didn't I have a dream about that, or was it something I was sniffing? :pleased:
Hmm, looks like the server's getting glitchy again, that's clearly Tycho's post yet it's attached BCJ's name to it.

omnithx
03-07-2008, 07:32 PM
Here's some photos of my "new" sandcrawler. Can't believe this thing still works, although the batteries only lasted one day. :p

omnithx
03-07-2008, 07:47 PM
A couple more vintage shots sullied with new figures invading the scenes.

omnithx
03-07-2008, 08:06 PM
Last photos today of some more of my vintage stuff, including the remnants of a battle on Hoth that decimated some of my figures.

JediTricks
03-08-2008, 02:35 PM
Geez, that Hoth setup really looks crazy, any kitchen sinks you got lying around in there? :D

Pretty cool stuff, the Micro Collection shot was my favorite because I have a major affinity for that line.

omnithx
03-08-2008, 06:40 PM
Yeah, the Micro Collection stuff is cool, I still need Hoth. Here's some more pics, including more Micro, Hoth as it usually is and the whole set of vintage loose. That cardboard Death Star is my favorite thing in my whole collection.

Rebo's_Guitarist
03-09-2008, 07:18 AM
Where did you pick up that proto Fett in your av? I have always loved that one.

sjd9299
03-09-2008, 11:43 AM
Where did you pick up that proto Fett in your av? I have always loved that one.

IDK, that looks like the standard 12" Fett to me. It is hard to tell from such a small picture.

Rebo's_Guitarist
03-09-2008, 12:02 PM
Yep, my bad. My work monitor sucks the big one.

omnithx
03-10-2008, 07:34 AM
Yep, standard Fett. In immaculate condition though, getting one with all the bells and whistles took a while. Still looking for a 12" Luke grappling hook, if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd sure appreciate it.

Bel-Cam Jos
03-10-2008, 07:09 PM
Still looking for a 12" Luke grappling hook, if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd sure appreciate it.Well, Luke himself threw one up in the Death Star chasm. Check there. :rolleyes: Those types of accessories are tough to find (i.e. Millennium Falcon training remote ball and string, Y-Wing bomb, Snowspeeder tow cable, etc.).

sjd9299
03-11-2008, 04:36 PM
Ebay is your best bet. I have had a few but I sold all my extras about a year ago. Sorry. If I see another I will let you know.

omnithx
03-11-2008, 04:57 PM
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. I get 50% of my Star Wars from ebay anyhoo. All the regular loose access. websites seem to have low quantities of original weapons, even repros are selling out.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-14-2008, 05:09 PM
The "Original 12"

Half are updated as I played with most of my toys as a kid, half are from the bottomless pit of extras my Mom always got me that saw little if any play time.

The mail-away stand is from my childhood, Mom always got me all of the mail-aways. Thanks Mama :thumbsup: :love:

JediTricks
03-18-2008, 03:04 AM
You ain't gonna find THAT on ebay!

omnithx
03-18-2008, 08:24 PM
These days everything (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-1751-2978-71/1?AID=5463217&PID=1467700&loc=%68%74%74%70%3a%2f%2f%63%67%69%2e%65%62%61%79% 2e%63%6f%6d%2e%61%75%2f%56%69%6e%74%61%67%65%2d%53 %74%61%72%2d%57%61%72%73%2d%4d%61%69%6c%65%72%2d%4 5%61%72%6c%79%2d%31%32%2d%46%69%67%75%72%65%2d%44% 69%73%70%6c%61%79%2d%53%74%61%6e%64%5f%57%30%51%51 %69%74%65%6d%5a%32%33%30%32%33%30%35%32%38%37%32%3 0%51%51%69%68%5a%30%31%33%51%51%63%61%74%65%67%6f% 72%79%5a%32%34%37%35%51%51%73%73%50%61%67%65%4e%61 %6d%65%5a%57%44%56%57%51%51%72%64%5a%31%51%51%63%6 d%64%5a%56%69%65%77%49%74%65%6d) is on ebay. lol

JediTricks
03-18-2008, 11:32 PM
Funny, I don't see Deoxy's figures on there. :p

jjreason
04-03-2008, 07:52 PM
They're lookin' pretty fresh, Deoxy. You must be more gentle than you're letting on. :p