- This topic is empty.
Aoluain – WTCD 2009
-
I also could’nt make it to lo-fi II but did get out
after work for a walk with sam I took the Balda Baldixette
and a roll of Neopan 400.1. building boom
2. collection
3. company
4. up and over [double]
5. curiosity
Thats a nice set of pictures. 2,3 and 4 would be my favorites. Like the processing on No2, looks like a convincing Lith print
Well done
M#2 for me too Alan. Pity about the scratching on it though. Have you got dust/grit in the camera maybe?
#4 of the dog looks like something straight out of my mothers old photo album, and is very deceiving date wise in the sense that it looks like it was shot in the early Seventies. If there was a young child with a wooly/Aran type jumper on, standing to the right with half of their body cropped off, then it definitely would look like something from my mothers photo album. Nice shots, and nice effects, who needs digital photography.!!
Great set Alan-
Particularly like the tree,
though I think I might have been swayed by your title,
a juxtaposition I might not have made too much of without it-Like the collie too, well caught-
Like nfl’s comment elsewhere, not too impressed by the frames,
but not a big deal, apart from the obvious,
putting something extra in is guaranteed to take away from the picture,
for some of the people who look at it…Good to see these WTCD pictures go up-
miki g wrote:
#2 for me too Alan. Pity about the scratching on it though. Have you got dust/grit in the camera maybe?
nose oil…
2 and 5 are my favourites.
Forget about the nose oil as recommended by Joseph (maybe I’m a bit slow and he was actually taking the P) but I presumed this was all added afterwards for effect. I think the recent posts from the WTCD show that old and primitive technology still has a lot to offer and that it’s the photographer, not the tools, which ultimately makes a good photo.David
Secretions, David, they’re ok, same refractive index as the film,
and fill in the scratches- like fluid mounting.use the other stuff for chilblains…
jb7 wrote:
Secretions, David, they’re ok, same refractive index as the film,
and fill in the scratches- like fluid mounting.use the other stuff for chilblains…
I’ve used the nose oil myself on many occasion and my students wilt at the idea but it does work when done properly. I thought you might have been joking about it in your post above as I figured that the scratches might have been added in photoshop afterwards for effect and not actually on the original neg. :)
Thanks all forthe comments.
Em I dont generally add too much to me lo-fi
images. Mostly a contrast boost and/or a tone.The only added feature in #2 is the tone.
Nose oil has been mentioned before by Joseph . . .
and I too thought he was extracting the urine.on the frame/mount/border its just meant as
a frame but I understand it could be distracting
I think JTS mentioned this before but I didnt
cop it as with NFL’s comment elswhere :oops:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
