- This topic is empty.
film is not dead, hehe
-
The second one is a cracker. Maybe too much light on the nose under her left eye, but it doesn’t really matter if you look into her eyes… enchanting.
Yes, second one is gorgeous alright-
looks like sunlight?
I must try to work on some stronger side lighting on my own-Were you wearing your white shirt for this one,
or was something more formal used to pick out the eyes?It looks like you might have had plenty of density on that neg-
The first one looks much more controlled in terms of lighting and exposure,
though the perspective on the face indicates a shorter than usual portrait lens-
which helps the proportion of the hand-
and makes it look quite delicate-I’m sure that everyone was happy with both of these,
but the second elicits a much more emotive response-Nice to see film again too-
though I might like to see the first just a little bit larger-j
Thanks guys, yes the second certainly had some density in the neg :) A very sunny day and a white shirt (how did you know about that?) The first was for an actor and shot in a furniture shop window in London :)
We reckoned the second shot looks like the Icelandic Pop Queen Bjork.Si
Love that second image Si, wonderful framing and obscene contrast
levels. Fantastic. Blown schmoan…Rob.
I really like the ‘grain’ of the films… it is a pitty that it is so few used now.
And I am glad to see that I am not the only one to have “burnt zones” on my images, and be proud of it. I really do not think that it is an inconvenience.
Very nice shot, Simon!Has to be the second one. Aside from the blown highlights which I like, the grain is terrific.
Got to agree with Luc that its a shame we don’t see more film used.Love the second one the tight framing, eye contact and the way the hair frames the face.
Simon how did you get the film to digital, what method did you use?
John.
Allinthemind wrote:
A very sunny day and a white shirt (how did you know about that?)
You mentioned it here, not so long ago-
Funny the things you pick up-
When I’m photographing interiors I’ll wear black,
in case I turn up in a stray reflection-j
Hi John,
It’s scanned from the neg using the scanners auto-contrast functions. Being film, there is still detail in the “Blown” bit and if I made a wet print from it,m I’m sure some of the grain would soften up and the white bits not be so white, ah the beauty of film. The story behind that shot was that most of the roll was shot with cloud cover and I was going to push the film a stop or so (which I did). The shot still worked out ok but a touch less contrast may have been better :) I think we forget that on digital you can change the camera setup for every single shot.
It was at this time that I was switching to digital (Nikon D100), so was using both cameras and comparing (Around Feb 2005 I think). The first thing I noticed and didn’t like about digital was the way the darker tones dived to black, the thing I loved was the ease and the clarity. In these 2 shots there is detail in the hair and dark coat. It took some working out and my toning effort is at best poor on these 2. It wasn’t so long ago but digital had come a very long way!
Si
All these photos are wonderful Si.
I might add another poll in the chat section – I’ve just had an idea.
Excellent all of them Si… Love the film grain in there!
Superb work as usual!!!!Cheers,
Rod
Simon are these 35mm and do you remember what film type?
Would make you think of shooting the odd roll of 35 just to keep your hand in.
John.
HI John,
I do sometimes shoot the odd roll of film to keep my hand in, mostly because we still teach it at the school. Some of the people that come to us originally with digital cameras then discover film and want to have a go.
The first and last shots would have been Fuji Neopan Across (135), the 2nd was almost definitely Efke50 Pushed, it has a unique look being a single layer emulsion; you can get really sooty blacks and almost silver highlights. It responds really well to push/pull and has a heavy grain.
Si
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
