This is beautiful. You know, I was scrolling down to see the comments and the effect was to crop some of the sky. What do you think about the idea of a square crop for this (croppimg only the top?)
Contax G2, 45mm Zeiss Planar f/2 (shot at f/8), Ilford Pan 400, D76
Definitely one of your all-time best - the way its framed, and the way her hair, and her hand, work with the trees - really nice, Damon! And you didn't waste anytime souping the 'filum.'
This is beautiful. You know, I was scrolling down to see the comments and the effect was to crop some of the sky. What do you think about the idea of a square crop for this (croppimg only the top?)
Hey Rutt, thanks! Will you do me the honor of one of your edits?
Definitely one of your all-time best - the way its framed, and the way her hair, and her hand, work with the trees - really nice, Damon! And you didn't waste anytime souping the 'filum.'
Wow! Thanks BD. I'm a little impatient in regard to seeing what happened after the shoot. I ordered a c41 kit from B&H last night. Wish me luck!
This is beautiful. You know, I was scrolling down to see the comments and the effect was to crop some of the sky. What do you think about the idea of a square crop for this (croppimg only the top?)
You know how much I like square...But there's something about the upward reach of this, and the open sky and branches above Mom's head that is saying to me - don't crop. But...
Wonderful photo. All the Greats have spoken, but I vote for keeping the trees. There's something about their shapes and textures that complement the human figure (that ain't no human, that's my mom!).
You've listed D76 - does this mean you developed the film?
Hi Sara, thanks. Yes, I developed the film myself. I know this is digital grin, but I only use film these days - sold the 5D2. It's filmgrin for me now!
BD, I agree with you about the upward reach.
I tried your idea Rutt, but I couldn't make it work. I thought you saw something I hadn't so I asked for your skills.
Hi Sara, thanks. Yes, I developed the film myself. I know this is digital grin, but I only use film these days - sold the 5D2. It's filmgrin for me now!
BD, I agree with you about the upward reach.
I tried your idea Rutt, but I couldn't make it work. I thought you saw something I hadn't so I asked for your skills.
I loved film and the many hours I spent in the darkroom, but I'm not going back...good for you, though.
One thing that's interesting technically about this shot is that it retains highlight but not shadow detail. I know this is partly an aspect of Damon's style, but I wonder if it's a film vs. digital thing as well? If you had exposed just a bit more, would you have opened up the shadows? Would you have lost the sky? Did the scan have anything to do with it, or is it already decided in the negative?
Deep rich shadows that retain detail are perhaps the most challenging PP goal. Holding detail in both shadows and highlights while retaining a natural drama , even more so. Does film make this easier or harder. I've heard and seen evidence on both sides.
This is a beautiful portrait and unmistakably yours. Don't don't mistake technical curiosity for artistic criticism.
Out of curiosity. I don't really know how film works.
Ok so you develop it, scan it and import it.
Damon, do you then further tweak it in LR or leave it as is? (aside from cropping).
One thing that's interesting technically about this shot is that it retains highlight but not shadow detail. I know this is partly an aspect of Damon's style, but I wonder if it's a film vs. digital thing as well? If you had exposed just a bit more, would you have opened up the shadows? Would you have lost the sky? Did the scan have anything to do with it, or is it already decided in the negative?
Deep rich shadows that retain detail are perhaps the most challenging PP goal. Holding detail in both shadows and highlights while retaining a natural drama , even more so. Does film make this easier or harder. I've heard and seen evidence on both sides.
This is a beautiful portrait and unmistakably yours. Don't don't mistake technical curiosity for artistic criticism.
Hmmm...maybe. I will try to expose a little more this weekend. The scan compromises it a little (I'm not an expert yet) but I think mostly it's me. I want to try to get better shadow detail. This can be my new project.
Out of curiosity. I don't really know how film works.
Ok so you develop it, scan it and import it.
Damon, do you then further tweak it in LR or leave it as is? (aside from cropping).
This is a great learning thread.
I scan them into tif format, then open LR and turn them into jpgs. I usually don't have to do anything except trim the edges a bit because I suck at scanning, I can never get the strip properly aligned!
Well,you did recover some, didn't you? I think that looks nicer. Not to be picky (although the whole thing is picky by definition) I think you lost some of that good highlight detail in the process.
It's really frustrating to try to get this perfect and really only worth it if you think a particular photo is going to take you someplace new (like a magazine cover or a prize or a fellowship.) (Remember Nachtwey and his printer?)
In PS, you's use the negative of the image as a layer mask to keep the shadow recovery from touching the highlights... Oh, but this is film. So I think it ruins some of the fun to get out the heavy PS artillery. Try exposing a couple of rolls a little more and see what happens. Then you can correct. That's film, after all.
Well,you did recover some, didn't you? I think that looks nicer. Not to be picky (although the whole thing is picky by definition) I think you lost some of that good highlight detail in the process.
It's really frustrating to try to get this perfect and really only worth it if you think a particular photo is going to take you someplace new (like a magazine cover or a prize or a fellowship.) (Remember Nachtwey and his printer?)
In PS, you's use the negative of the image as a layer mask to keep the shadow recovery from touching the highlights... Oh, but this is film. So I think it ruins some of the fun to get out the heavy PS artillery. Try exposing a couple of rolls a little more and see what happens. Then you can correct. That's film, after all.
Exactly. I am shooting Ilford Delta 400 at 320 this weekend. Thanks Rutt.
I had one more thought about this. That very composition that everyone noticed is also the reason for the slight underexposure. So much sky pushed the auto exposure to favor the sky over the subject. This might have been a good place for either manual or AEL.
Comments
The more I look at it, the more I like it. Framing is excellent & interesting..
I want that G2.
The shot, I love.
_________
http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
Definitely one of your all-time best - the way its framed, and the way her hair, and her hand, work with the trees - really nice, Damon! And you didn't waste anytime souping the 'filum.'
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Hey Rutt, thanks! Will you do me the honor of one of your edits?
Wow! Thanks BD. I'm a little impatient in regard to seeing what happened after the shoot. I ordered a c41 kit from B&H last night. Wish me luck!
You know how much I like square...But there's something about the upward reach of this, and the open sky and branches above Mom's head that is saying to me - don't crop. But...
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
You've listed D76 - does this mean you developed the film?
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
BD, I agree with you about the upward reach.
I tried your idea Rutt, but I couldn't make it work. I thought you saw something I hadn't so I asked for your skills.
I loved film and the many hours I spent in the darkroom, but I'm not going back...good for you, though.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
patti hinton photography
Deep rich shadows that retain detail are perhaps the most challenging PP goal. Holding detail in both shadows and highlights while retaining a natural drama , even more so. Does film make this easier or harder. I've heard and seen evidence on both sides.
This is a beautiful portrait and unmistakably yours. Don't don't mistake technical curiosity for artistic criticism.
Ok so you develop it, scan it and import it.
Damon, do you then further tweak it in LR or leave it as is? (aside from cropping).
This is a great learning thread.
_________
yeah!
Hmmm...maybe. I will try to expose a little more this weekend. The scan compromises it a little (I'm not an expert yet) but I think mostly it's me. I want to try to get better shadow detail. This can be my new project.
I scan them into tif format, then open LR and turn them into jpgs. I usually don't have to do anything except trim the edges a bit because I suck at scanning, I can never get the strip properly aligned!
It's really frustrating to try to get this perfect and really only worth it if you think a particular photo is going to take you someplace new (like a magazine cover or a prize or a fellowship.) (Remember Nachtwey and his printer?)
In PS, you's use the negative of the image as a layer mask to keep the shadow recovery from touching the highlights... Oh, but this is film. So I think it ruins some of the fun to get out the heavy PS artillery. Try exposing a couple of rolls a little more and see what happens. Then you can correct. That's film, after all.
Exactly. I am shooting Ilford Delta 400 at 320 this weekend. Thanks Rutt.
http://www.jamiecunninghamphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Franconia-NH/Jamie-Cunningham-Photography/165561066804213
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113458738664148