- This topic is empty.
100 year old lens, obsolete film, movement, and solarization
-
But I still like it- others may be reaching for plastic lined bags.
Shot with a 140mm Petzval on Polaroid 55,
four second exposure, so some subject movement.
Thanks Neal, for standing in-
always willing to help test the oddest optics.Solarization of the negative as a result of exposure after peeling apart-
Superb image, Joseph!
Really like it a lot. :D
Would look great as a CD cover.
(maybe for Noel Gallagher’s next solo album…don’t look back in anger, i heard you say… 8) )
Brilliant!! Very Sarah Moon.
Really like this Joseph, completely bonkers! I’ll bet the print looks great?
Was the solarization an accident?Sinead
Thanks you three, appreciate the comments-
This was taken on a little no-name magic lantern lens I picked up in Covent Garden Antiques Market last week for £6.
It’s a little short for 4×5, I should really be on the lookout for a something a bit bigger-
unfortunately, a little bigger usually means a lot more money-This is it-
Sinead, I have solarized this stuff before,
you can use a flash to guarantee the effect, just after peeling apart,
but I was a little surprised to see it happen here-
maybe I didn’t allow it to develop fully…The print isn’t like this, the black bits are black-
the film solarized after the print was pulled…Dunno Joseph…
It is interesting, the effect, given the equipment used… but only you would pull it off.
If it we’re anyone else half of us would be moaning that they’d gone to town on the Lightroom and Photoshop presets.
I do like the composition.
I’m torn.
J
I have to say, I’m with NFL this time..
really a cool experiment, but hard to explain to people that don’t know.
most of them will think about PS filters….Thanks for the comments John and Gigi-
though I’m not quite sure how I should decipher them-Liking the composition is a good thing, as is the comment about the the cool experiment-
in fact, neither would work without the other-
Thanks for mentioning that…This is the print that I peeled off-
I think the composition relies on the solarization of the blacks-
I had a comment on the other place from a very experienced photographer
who noted that solarization on T55 occurs when it’s peeled apart before it’s completely developed.
And that’s what happened here-
although it was given the recommended time, the temperature was slightly cooler than it should have been.Regarding the film v digital debate, well we probably shouldn’t go there-
sure, you can attempt to replicate almost anything in photoshop,
but I reckon that the one element you’d have difficulty with here would be the uncorrected coma,
which gives the Petzval its characteristic swirl,
and shows up in the out of focus areas in the background.Perhaps more difficult than stripping in a sunset…
I also have some difficulty with encompassing a massive amount of pixel pushing within the term ‘photography’.
but we’ve had that conversation too,
and as always, each to their own…The one thing that I don’t like about this picture myself is the movement of the subject-
and that’s completely my own fault, I left it a bit too late,
and the light had gone…One other thing (that I’m not too concerned about) is the marks left by the processing-
there’s not too much T55 left in the world,
and those marks can be characteristic…Thanks again for the comments, and critique-
How do I say this…
I do prefer the idea of something being faulty because it was naturally sort of faulty… as opposed to the idea of forcing something perfectly normal to be ‘grungy’, or thereabouts, by way of conscious pixel pushing.
I better say that your photo is in the former category mentioned above, the naturally faulty… meant more as a compliment.
I really do like the peeled print version. The swirling effect is excellent.
I’ll stop there… before I start making even “morer lesser” sense.
J
The really odd thing about using T55 was that
it was quite normal to bin the print,
while treasuring the negative.
Most people preferred the negative.
The Jim Galli (esque) swirl really suits the Polaroid here.
I’m interested to read the process for producing this image ( and alo admittedly ignorant to most of it ) – but astounded at the tools used!!
But I have to say the first image “bothered” me – it just appeared too damaged and I was a bit irritated that I wasn’t “getting” it – I could see the composition working and the blur lending a sweep to the image .. but I couldn’t bring myself to like it – totally personal taste I guess !
The second print scan works much better for me – even though the tones are more greyish – I really like how the image seems to sweep and curve to his face and then with his gaze out of the image . This one for me JB
Again back to the astonishment about the tools used !
L
Seoirse wrote:
The really odd thing about using T55 was that
it was quite normal to bin the print,
while treasuring the negative.
Most people preferred the negative.
The Jim Galli (esque) swirl really suits the Polaroid here.
Seems strange, but I’ve binned my fair share of negs, just using the print for a proof-
I wouldn’t dream of doing it now…Yes, Mr Galli, popularizing these lumps of antique glass from his Nevada lens mine,
has managed to single-handedly push the price of the more desirable ones through the roof…Thanks nfl, I still get the sense you’re just a little bit ambivalent…
I’ll come back to the print in a minute, but just to say, I’ve just got another lens-
a 185mm ƒ/2.5 cinematic projector lens, and for less money than this one-
let’s just hope it’s a Petzval- it should cover 4×5 nicely…Lorraine, thanks for taking the time to comment,
especially since you, ahem, found yourself, em, bothered by it…If I’d only ended up with the print, I wouldn’t have shown it-
it’s just not special, and its obvious flaws outweigh any interest, to me-No need to be astonished by the tools, it’s a lens,
quite sharp in the middle, it would do quite well on digital or 35mm,
since the centre is quite sharp-
though perhaps it would lack some contrast.And no coatings, of course…
I know that my interest in big film and odd lenses is a source of mirth for some people,
who’d much rather buy their shiny toys in a shop-
but small images demand precise optics, and those that stray from the path of maximum resolution are damned.Big glass on big film is a minority interest, particularly here-
but I do have an interest in how different pieces of glass draw an image,
and the larger formats are ideally suited to exploring this.This lens design is about as far out as it gets-
there are others where the effect is more subtle…The film, though, is spectacular,
my favourite film of all time, and actually, really quite astonishing-ok, some science, you may skip this bit-
The film is exposed, then drawn through rollers, in contact with the paper,
breaking a pod of gooey developer which spreads between the two sheets.In addition to developing the film, an image is also transferred to the paper,
although I’m not quite sure how that bit works…Anyway, in this picture, the really dark bits didn’t get any exposure at all- Neal’s coat-
and so the developer didn’t get exhausted at all-
so when I peeled off the print, the film was exposed, and immediately developed to the tone you see here.Whereas the print just shows a morass of black,
the partially reversed negative clearly shows the outline of the coat,
which, in my view, makes for a much more satisfying composition.This is an unpredictable effect, but I think it works here-
Apologies for seeming to disagree with you-
I know there’s a danger of making some people’s head explode when I do that-
(not you Lorraine…)
but again, each to their own…So thanks again all, for all the comments-
Glad it’s been of some interest-j
Hi Joseph. An interesting image and interesting explanation of what was involved. I also prefer the first image. The black streaks on his jacket are not so evident in the first and I think the solarisation adds interest to it, as does the swirling effect. Good to see people are still experimenting with the more unusual equipment and techniques. Well done.
;) ‘bothered’ but in a good way ;) –
for me it’s a positive thing to feel challenged in exploring an image. Looking again Im still getting to grips with it in the sense that I can see what attracted you to different parts the image and the aspects you highlight. I find it interesting
I’m very much from the ‘shiny toy’ school of photography – but my interest there is rarely technical and most of what draws me to photography is the creative, emotive and narrative – regardless of methodology-
anyhoo – I felt I should go somewhere towards explaining my ‘ bothered’ response to the image. I see that as a good sign ;)L
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
