|
Post by philmco on Nov 26, 2005 19:55:51 GMT -5
here are a couple of pics from last summer. and comments appreciated
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Nov 28, 2005 11:22:57 GMT -5
Hi Phil,
The first one I feel is just right for the B&W format. You've got great contrasts across the picture as a whole, and also in the detail of each area of the picture. Is this a detail that you've cropped to, or did you manage to frame it like that?
The second one - well personally I feel that it would benefit from colour. I find that I'm visualising the blue of the sky, the green of the foliage, and the mixture of both across the surface of the water.
Did you use B&W film, or are these desaturated colour shots? And if the latter, can we see the original of the second one please?
Thanks for showing them - the first in particular puts my efforts to shame.
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by herron on Nov 28, 2005 16:52:00 GMT -5
Actually, I rather like both of them, Phil. But I think the second one might be even stronger if a little of the sky were cropped (leaving just that "W" area of sky between the trees). It forces your composition a little closer to the "Rule of Thirds" and puts the emphasis directly on the rowers, and that big expanse of still water they have to cross! Having the horizon straight would help, too, and that would be a comment I would make (since you asked) even in color. Finally, I wonder what this would look like in a straight B&W, without the sepia tone? I know that's a subjective, personal response, but I've never been a big fan of that technique in modern photos. I think it's a good shot, that with a little tweak here and there could be an excellent one!
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Nov 28, 2005 17:31:31 GMT -5
Thanks guys. I had mixed feelings about both shots. They both originated as B&W film. I have posted a comparable color to #2 but without the rowers. It was favorably received. The sepia tone just came about because I didn't remove color from the scan of the B&W print and I sort of liked the look. The scanner likes color but not B&W (I have another posting about a better scanner). In the first one I forced a color removal, in the second one I did not. The first picture, is cropped. I couldn't get the detail in the scan that is there in the original so rather than post a really bad image, I cropped the dark bottom. The tone range in the original print is a bit better. Both images shot with a Hasselblad 500c/m 80mm using Ilford HP5 probably at about EV9 Thanks for the comments. Phil
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Nov 28, 2005 19:27:09 GMT -5
Phil,
The first shot shows soooo much detail and contrast that I think it is great in b&w and would look weird to me in color.
For the second one, I like the way the cut through the middle of the scene is lower on one side than the other. It adds to, rather than subtracts from, that mid line in the middle of the pic blah. I like reflections period and this shows much detail in the reflection rather than just a subtle appearance. And I must say I do like the sepia tone to the scenic, but would not like it in the ol' shed picture.
Darn...I want a Hasselblad so bad...but even at the reduced prices I see today for used ones, it is beyond what I want to spend. Basically because I see prices of $500 or so for a body only, then more expenditure for a back, lens and finder. Perhaps one of these days...but the outfit would definately have to be a user and not just sit on display.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Nov 29, 2005 0:03:17 GMT -5
Phil, The first shot is full of interest and really keeps the viewer's attention. As for the second shot. Couldn't you try making the horizon level? I am afraid all the water will run out of the picture. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Nov 29, 2005 0:47:57 GMT -5
Mickey You are quite right about the level - there is no horizen in the pic but your point is well taken and I should know better. One good thing about the square format is the ability to crop quite generously. I should have done so. I must have been looking at the leaning shack in the image above.
Ron re Hasselblad
It took me a long time to get my Hasselblad rig together as I had to get some more important cameras along the way. The hasselblad camera body itself is the least of the bits, as the lenses are where it is at and they are all very expensive. And then you have to get some backs. Preferably more than one as they are a pain to load quickly. Better to just have another one pre-loaded and put it on. Using a Hasselblad is rather slow as although they are SLR's everything is manual (at least on the 500 series) Tripods are best. They do not have an instant return mirror and it goes off like the "Clap of Doom". You can pre-fire it however and that helps - but then you can't see. Go figure! The images are of course very detailed compared to 35mm - but the DOF is more limited so focussing is critical. I have added a couple of extension rings (these have no glass and cost about as much as a good used 35mm lens for a Nikon) and a proxar lens to do macro work. Very much fun to use but don't sell your 35 mm stuff. By comparison, I would say the Rolleiflex is much easier to use (has a meter, and loads with film faster), also has a good lens - but doesn't do macro work very well and has only one lens choice. Phil
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Nov 29, 2005 1:33:03 GMT -5
Ok Does this work better? Rotated, cropped, levels, color corrected Blah, Blah Blah You know the drill. Phil
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Nov 29, 2005 3:11:09 GMT -5
Yes
I think our photos are good - its the scanning and storage we have problems with!!
John
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Nov 29, 2005 8:14:15 GMT -5
Phil,
I do prefer this one over the original posted. The addition of the kayakers adds quite nicely to the overall scene. The only thing I would have done differently is not have the shoreline run right through the middle of the picture, although the way you have it does give equality to the actual and reflective subjects; so maybe I would have chosen this, looking at the options.
Nice shot anyway!!!
What you relate about building a workable outfit for Hasselblad, is also somewhat true with Leica. I paid $550 on Evil Bay for the original series Leicaflex with the Summicron R 50/2 lens. It is a beaut and works so smooothly except the meter does not function; and two Leica repair shops I contacted said the cost to repair the meter would be anywhere from $200-$500. I just use my handheld meter. I have also looked at lenses, just to have a couple different focal lengths...zowie...the prices are too high for me.
So I will use the Leicaflex with one lens and hand-meter but, you know, that ain't all so baaaad...you get back to basics and moving around more to compose.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Nov 29, 2005 8:18:21 GMT -5
Phil, The second post of the rowers on the lake is SO much better! I must admit the first one didn't make me want to stop and look at it, but you've turned it from a snapshot into a picture. I sometimes get the feeling that people who would cheerfully spend hours in a darkroom making test prints, dodging, burning-in, cropping, checking and generally trying things to get the best possible print from a neg sometimes expect straight electronic reproduction to do it all for them. Are we getting lazy? I'm guilty of it too, but I'm finding more and more that working with a 'digital darkroom' gives me just as much pleasure and satisfaction - and you don't waste so much paper! Using PS to get the best you can from a neg isn't 'cheating', it's just a different technique. I reckon some of the best old-time darkroom printers would have loved it. Making a good picture never did stop at the camera. The other day I totted up the original cost of my darkroom equipment, bought 25 and more years ago. It came to quite a lot more than my computer, software and scanner combined. Take into account the prices at which you can pick up really good cameras now (I shudder to remember what we originally paid for Valerie's professional stuff - two Canon F1s, Hasselblad and a case full of lenses), and I reckon we've got it made today . What I'd like to get when I can afford it is a good thermal printer. I've seen 10x8 results from those, and the tonal range can blow your socks off! Peter
|
|
|
Post by philmco on Nov 29, 2005 13:18:49 GMT -5
Hi Peter I have a conventional darkroom and I just don't use it anymore. I do develop my own B&W film at home but I seldom bother to print them anymore. What I do want to do is improve the quality of the images as they go into the computer. Right now I would never actually use a print I got out of the computer. They are OK for this type of stuff where you can't see it all that well any way, but not for critical stuff. It is hard to really appreciate the quality of MF over 35mm on a small computer screen scanned from a print but with a photo print in your hands it becomes a bit more obvious. It is not enough to just make the image with the camera - now you have to figure out a way to show it off nicely too. Phil But that is part of the fun!
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Nov 29, 2005 14:33:29 GMT -5
Phil, Now that's a picture! I too have a well equiped darkroom. Besides B & W I was making Cibachrome prints. But I have done nothing, other than dust and vacuum, in it for more than two years. As an addicted collector I find I am unable to dispose of the stuff. I must admit that digital has completely taken over my print making. Indeed, I can now do things with prints, both B & W and colour that I never would have dreamed possible before my computer. Perhaps if I ever learn to actually send something to this site I could get the appropriate criticism that I know I well deserve. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by herron on Nov 29, 2005 15:01:45 GMT -5
Phil: That re-done shot with the rowers is so much better with the horizon level and in B&W (as opposed to sepia)! If it were me, I would still crop it as more of a horizontal (bringing the top of the frame down to the shortest tree). That way the trees and sky don't compete so much with the water and reflections, to the detriment of the action of the rowers! The large expanse of water and reflection then leads your eyes right to the rowing action (rule of thirds?) It becomes that excellent shot I mentioned before...one I would wish I had taken myself.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Nov 29, 2005 15:08:00 GMT -5
Phil, I am curtious about the first picture. The shed looks like a pen and ink and wash drawing. How did you achieve that? Mickey
|
|