Just One

jeffreaux2

...but two versions....

Xandertures

Both are obviously great, but I enjoy the vintage look of the second. Nice work as always!

Agnieszka

I like the photo, and obviously your daughter looks beautiful in it (as always), but I think in this photo her lower legs look larger than they are

kidzmom

Ooooh! Great capture Jeff! I love BOTH...but probabally would find myself printing #2!

adbsgicom

I'm still not sold on the whole desat look. Love the first one.

To Angie's point, you could pull the crop in a bit (like to just where the crease of the back of the knee is no longer visible). Then you'd be cropping the arm just above the elbow and not having the cut off hand in the LL as well.

Wil Davis

I prefer the B&W, and agree with Angie re. the chubby calves.

…also she looks a bit unstable in that pose, almost as if she's falling over backwards!

Gorgeous girl, though - very pretty!

- Wil

jeffreaux2

Agnieszka wrote: »

I like the photo, and obviously your daughter looks beautiful in it (as always), but I think in this photo her lower legs look larger than they are

The exaggeration is an anomoly of that old camera. It is...unfortunatly....not well suited to portraits as it really likes to bend the edges at close range. I am trying to find a lens set to allow for closer focusing in hopes that I can do some head and shoulder type shots with it.

Its an 80mm F3.5 lens, but on medium format that is equal to somewhere around 35-40mm on a full frame DSLR (thats just a guess:D).....so....a wee bit wide for serious portrait work. Some well know people shooters have used the same camera/lens with a close up adapter for some stunning portrait work though....and thats what Id like to put together. It is NOT an interchangeable lens.


Thanks for commenting:D

Llywellyn

Is this one image processed two different ways, or one pose photographed with two different cameras? I ask because in the second one, I notice some severe distortion in her face compared with the first (i.e., her left eye [on our right] is much higher in the second photo than the first--same with the cheekbone).

I love both, but the distortion in the face on the second I find a bit unnerving.

Beautiful capture of your daughter, regardless.

jeffreaux2

Llywellyn wrote: »

Is this one image processed two different ways, or one pose photographed with two different cameras? I ask because in the second one, I notice some severe distortion in her face compared with the first (i.e., her left eye [on our right] is much higher in the second photo than the first--same with the cheekbone).

I love both, but the distortion in the face on the second I find a bit unnerving.

Beautiful capture of your daughter, regardless.

Thanks for commenting...

It is the same image from same camera. The second version was created by an action I downloaded. Ill I have to run that action and look to see if any of the layer treatments would have caused that. I think it's called "Holgaroid", and most of the treatments introduce faux light leaks and other anomolies...so.....it's very possible that THAT is where it was introduced.

The camera is an old med. format TLR. It seems to want to "spin" (for lack of a better term) the out of focus parts of the image...almost as if they were rotated a tad...at speed...during the capture. It works out fine on portraits as long as the subject is entirely within the slice of pie thats in focus. Otherwise, things get pushed around. THAT, plus the widish angle of the lens has caused the leg distortion here.

At least thats my story!
...but this camera is still very new to me (only 36 exposures taken so far) and it will require a little more time before I can predict what it might be doing to the images before I press the shutter.

Not a portrait below, but it is a perfect example of the "spin" blur on the out of focus areas. Check out the near forground.

Scott_Quier

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

The exaggeration is an anomoly of that old camera. It is...unfortunatly....not well suited to portraits as it really likes to bend the edges at close range. I am trying to find a lens set to allow for closer focusing in hopes that I can do some head and shoulder type shots with it.

Its an 80mm F3.5 lens, but on medium format that is equal to somewhere around 35-40mm on a full frame DSLR (thats just a guess:D).....so....a wee bit wide for serious portrait work. Some well know people shooters have used the same camera/lens with a close up adapter for some stunning portrait work though....and thats what Id like to put together. It is NOT an interchangeable lens.


Thanks for commenting:D

I was just going to make comment about perspective distortion, but you beat me to it. Regardless, I think you can probably get this lens to work for portraits .... you just have to be a bit more careful with your posing.

All of that aside, I don't think you are bing properly challenged when your daughter is the model - every shot I've seen of her (and this one is no exception) is a "keeper."

divamum

:lurk

Been following your current film-to-digital threads with interest Jeff, and just haven't had a second to reply. Yeah, those girls of yours really do make the job pretty easy (or at least it seems that way!) They're both so beautiful. I love the vintage treatment alternate, too.

kidzmom

Love the spinning foreground effect on the landscape shot. Amazing! Makes me want to find one of those old gems!!!!

jeffreaux2

kidzmom wrote: »

Love the spinning foreground effect on the landscape shot. Amazing! Makes me want to find one of those old gems!!!!

Kelly,

Mine is a Yashica Mat 124G. Yashica had a long affair with twin lens reflex cameras, but this was the last model in production. They are readily available on EBAY. I paid $124 shipped for mine, and bought a $10 kit to replace the light seals. The foam rubber was badly deteriorated into a gooey mess, but the guy I bought the kit from had excellent instructions for getting it cleaned up and in good...or better...condition than new. So, for under $150 I have a camera that shoots very sharp medium format images. It's no Hasselblad, but it can get the job done.:D

I also found...and bought...a wide angle lens set and telephoto lens set. The pair I bought are like new....and the tele set had never been mounted. Both had original boxes. For these I paid another $125. Steep when compared to the price of the camera, but I felt that I would have no problem recouping the cost if I ever sold them. I was sure the telephoto set would put me in a good position for portraits, but am finding out now that a close up adapter set is what I REALLY should have bought.

I like the camera. It has it's faults, but they give the images character...IMO.

I have scratched my head more than once trying to figure out how to "spin" the bokeh on a digital image in photoshop....but have no solution for duplicating the look with an image from the 50D.

jeffreaux2

Scott_Quier wrote: »

I was just going to make comment about perspective distortion, but you beat me to it. Regardless, I think you can probably get this lens to work for portraits .... you just have to be a bit more careful with your posing.

Hey Scott...thanks for chiming in...

It actually works great as long as the subject is in the focal plane. This is pretty near the close focus distance and has been cropped....a wee bit.




Farther away here.....no problem at all.



....and one to show how sharp the bugger can be.....


No people here, but you can get a feel for how the focus falls off in this one. One limiting factor is a 1/500 max shutter speed. With ISO160 film, it forces a smaller aperture for som brightly lit shots.....so the creative use of focus depth can be a challenge. The bottom of this one was blurred in CS3.

kidzmom

Wow, those are amazing images!!!!!! The price is really attractive and well worth it for the pure fun effect! Is the processing costly? Do you get prints or just go directly to digital from film?

jeffreaux2

kidzmom wrote: »

Wow, those are amazing images!!!!!! The price is really attractive and well worth it for the pure fun effect! Is the processing costly? Do you get prints or just go directly to digital from film?

I have the negatives developed and scanned at a local camera shop. He charges ~$5 to develop the negatives (12 exposures) and then about $10 to scan them. I am shooting color film so that I always have the option later for color or black and white. These prices seem reasonable to me, but I may buy a scanner to do that part myself. A flatbed scanner capable of scanning a negative with decent quality can be had for $150 -$200....so you can see where that piece of gear would pay for itself fairly quick.

Developing color film myself isn't really an option. Research tells me that developing BW film is a fairly simple matter, but that the fine requirements in temperature control make color developing....at home....an entirely different story.

I havent printed anything just yet, but do plan to put a photo book together of a project I have embarked on that I intend to shoot entirely on film.

Fun? ...Yes

Am I learning anything? ....absolutely! Shooting with film...12 exposures per load....requires a big slow down from the pace I normally shoot. When every shot needs to "count" it forces a more methodical approach in everything required from the photographer for the image. This particular camera design also has the characteristic of having a viewfinder that shows a horizontally reversed image in the viewfinder. What you see on the left in the finder is actually on the right in the real world. It's all completely reversed. THAT...plus the square frame create some challenges in framing and composition that again......force you to slow down.....take everything in....and be more methodical in the approach.

I am enjoying the re-discovery.:D

run_kmc

YES.

Keep it up.

You mentioned shooting all color and converting to monochrome, but I might suggest trying out a roll or two of B&W film to see if you like it, if only for the option of shooting a nice, slow 50 speed film. Add a deep red filter that cuts two stops of light, and you can shoot below f/8 in the sun.

I like Tri-X for a nice, smooth image, or Ilford FP4 for something more contrasty. Ilford PanF is nice, too.

Mitchell

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

Am I learning anything? ....absolutely! Shooting with film...12 exposures per load....requires a big slow down from the pace I normally shoot. When every shot needs to "count" it forces a more methodical approach in everything required from the photographer for the image. This particular camera design also has the characteristic of having a viewfinder that shows a horizontally reversed image in the viewfinder. What you see on the left in the finder is actually on the right in the real world. It's all completely reversed. THAT...plus the square frame create some challenges in framing and composition that again......force you to slow down.....take everything in....and be more methodical in the approach.

I am enjoying the re-discovery.:D

I am enjoying this adventure. I found this last bit of information most interesting. I often find myself rushed behind the camera and firing off photos without enough forethought.

Seems like you are reaping the rewards of slowing down and really thinking things through. Kudos to you!