Katie - It's also why I've started making a conscious effort to shoot film in areas where I had stopped. When I go back and look at my favorite images over the last thirty years or so, most of them were shot on film and most of them on Plus-X. For most commercial work, it's almost impossible to shoot film these days as no one wants to wait or pay for processing and scanning, which I understand, but I'm trying to slip in a bit here and there, whenever possible.
Whenever I see LaGrange, Tx, I think of the classic Willis Alan Ramsey song Northeast Texas Woman, which mentions that town among several others.
Peter Figen wrote:
Not a new shot but a new scan. Walkin' Jim Stoltz died a couple of years ago of cancer, but not before making a name taking long, really long walks, walks that lasted from weeks to years. Appalachian Trail, a 5000 mile cross country trek in the 1970s. When he married Leslie in the Grand Canyon, they both walked back to Montana together. Jim was a singer and a songwriter and great teller of stories, including his personal encounter with grizzlies. I met him in Big Sky, where he lived and shot some photos for him. I'm still surprised how damned nice Plus-X really was. Even if it wasn't the absolute sharpest film, it had beautiful tonality. Don't remember much about the details other than it was an RZ. Probably a 90mm RB lens and most likely a Norman 400B (or two of them) into a Balcar umbrella. ...Show more →
What a wonderful setting, and story to go with an excellent photo! I will now find out more about this soul! You know I have a group of semi famous singing cousins Los Lonely Boys, that I would enjoy shooting, and per chance they will be performing in my city soon, I wonder if I could muster up the courage to ask them to photograph them! I mean its not their status but the insecurity that I have with photography, and now I am going with just film!
Los Lonely Boys are fantastic. If they're you're cousins that's a great way to get access. They will surely not say no. Just be prepared to go a fantastic job and don't go in with any expectations of whether they might actually any images.
I've done this a few times, but never with any relatives. Back in 1991 I contacted the management company for Guy Clark, Townes Van Zandt and Robert Earl Keen, sent them a promo package and they agreed to let me photograph them near Fallon, Nv., which turned out to be an eight hour drive from L.A. Out of the one day in the Nevada desert, I ended up taking what is probably the most iconic image of Townes Van Zandt out there today. He used it until his death, but what really came out of it was a lasting relationship and personal friendship with Robert Earl Keen. So far I've done five of his CD covers including the last two, which I'm particularly happy with.
I also did the same thing with bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley and banjo virtuoso Pat Cloud. I spoke with Dwight Yoakum on the phone but could never coordinate a shoot. Oh well.
The bottom line is that you have nothing to lose by asking and potentially a whole lot to gain. If they like what you do, you could get hired the next time or referred for other projects. The shot I posted of Jim was taken when I was in Montana shooting a couple other local Bozeman area bands. This just happened because I was in the area and we both had time.
Peter Figen wrote:
Los Lonely Boys are fantastic. If they're you're cousins that's a great way to get access. They will surely not say no. Just be prepared to go a fantastic job and don't go in with any expectations of whether they might actually any images.
I've done this a few times, but never with any relatives. Back in 1991 I contacted the management company for Guy Clark, Townes Van Zandt and Robert Earl Keen, sent them a promo package and they agreed to let me photograph them near Fallon, Nv., which turned out to be an eight hour drive from L.A. Out of the one day in the Nevada desert, I ended up taking what is probably the most iconic image of Townes Van Zandt out there today. He used it until his death, but what really came out of it was a lasting relationship and personal friendship with Robert Earl Keen. So far I've done five of his CD covers including the last two, which I'm particularly happy with.
I also did the same thing with bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley and banjo virtuoso Pat Cloud. I spoke with Dwight Yoakum on the phone but could never coordinate a shoot. Oh well.
The bottom line is that you have nothing to lose by asking and potentially a whole lot to gain. If they like what you do, you could get hired the next time or referred for other projects. The shot I posted of Jim was taken when I was in Montana shooting a couple other local Bozeman area bands. This just happened because I was in the area and we both had time. ...Show more →
Thank you very much, for the encouragement, I hope I can get the nerve! I kinda blundered an opportunity once in the past when they visited my grandma, I didn't know it, and I thought my sister was just jibing me! They will be performing here in around August since JoJo had to recover from an on stage accident! The thing is that i just started film, i have no flash, and no training other than self taught, and that ain't much! I just would wish it to come out more on the what is considered professional look! Dwight Yoakam is one of my favorite musician, I hope he comes through someday! It must've been neat to speak with him! Thanks again!
Peter, fantastic portrait and great backing story. Being an avid outdoorsman and a fan of long walks (never nearly as far as Jim) that story really piqued my imagination. Thank you for sharing.
Peter Figen wrote:
Not a new shot but a new scan. Walkin' Jim Stoltz died a couple of years ago of cancer, but not before making a name taking long, really long walks, walks that lasted from weeks to years.....
Amazing image and story. Thanks for sharing this. It also reminds me that I need to hike the AT and the PCT before I die (or get too old to do it).
Thanks. Jim was my kind of guy too. My longest day was probably a 17 mile hike in Glacier to Triple Divide Peak, but that would be just a warmup for Jim. I seem to remember him telling me that he had a Vasque boot sponsorship and would go through several pairs over a summer. I was so sad when I found he had died - someone so vital and healthy and fit. Hopefully I can start hiking again later this year after new knees.
My longest hike was about 16 or so miles, go lost (went down wrong trail) in the Great Smokies on a solo backpacking trip and decided to backtrack. Another day with a friend, got lost in a March snowstorm in the Nantahala range in N.C. and ended up hiking 12 or so miles in knee deep snow. I'm a past section hiker on the AT and do some sort of hiking most weekends.
Always sad when someone so full of life has it taken away before there time. Anyways, back to posting pics.
Here is one from the first roll of film I put through my reconditioned 1958 Yashica Mat LM about 3 years ago. Believe portra, processed and scanned at local camera shop back then. Car show on the square where I live.
Need some help from some of the film gurus on here.
I just started shooting film again recently. First couple of rolls of Portra 160 I shot with my wife's old Canon film Rebel were processed and scanned at NCPS and I was quite happy with the results...
Wanting to go totally manual I picked up a Yashica FX-3 and shot a roll of Portra 400, all with the C/Y 50 1.7. To test the Yashica's meter I compared it with my film Rebel and my dSLR - it seemed to be underexposing by about a stop so I shot the roll at ISO 200.
I had them processed and scanned at a local lab as I wanted to try them out and support a local place, but they look washed out and low contrast.
Is this because:
1. They are simply overexposed?
2. Problem with scanning/processing?
3. Problem with the film?
4. Some other issue?
Here are a few examples....
Scan without editing....
After editing in LR....
Scan without editing...
After editing in LR....
Here's one with minimal editing that I was pretty happy with...
michael49 wrote:
I had them processed and scanned at a local lab as I wanted to try them out and support a local place, but they look washed out and low contrast.
Is this because:
1. They are simply overexposed?
2. Problem with scanning/processing?
3. Problem with the film?
4. Some other issue?
Can be any of the above, but from what I've heard, a very common problem these days is that some labs use the same chemicals way too long. Finding a good lab can be a challenge, and I would rather mail the film to someone I trust and wait a few days for the film than have it destroyed because the local lab can't make a profit doing quality work.
Avoiding the first three is rather simple:
1. Camera bodies are cheap these days. The last year, I've bought brand new in box Nikon F80 (N80), Contax 137 MA and Contax 137 MD for less than $100 each. Buy one that exposes properly.
2. I still do my scans on a 10 year old Epson 3200, and it does a decent job. Some of the cheaper flatbed scanners actually do a good job even on 35mm unless you want really large prints.
those are really good scans, but scanned film really does better in PS than LR IME.
here, I did the truck between your extremes:
I left your watermark but if you're not cool with me posting that just say so and Ill take it down.
your scans look like portra scans. you seem like more of an ektar person though, or maybe slide? portra scans with gentle tones and I think your scans were nice the way they came and probably would have just sharpened them during resize and called it a day, but I like pastels personally.
redisburning wrote:
your scans look like portra scans. you seem like more of an ektar person though, or maybe slide? portra scans with gentle tones and I think your scans were nice the way they came and probably would have just sharpened them during resize and called it a day, but I like pastels personally.
hope that helps.
+1, i suspect NCPS probably boosted the files a little after scanning while your local lab didn't. personally i'd prefer to have an untouched scan. portra doesn't have the punchy saturation that a lot of the color films do and i really like that.
redisburning wrote:
your scans look like portra scans. you seem like more of an ektar person though, or maybe slide? portra scans with gentle tones and I think your scans were nice the way they came and probably would have just sharpened them during resize and called it a day, but I like pastels personally.
hope that helps.
+1
As others pointed out, I also think you should try some slides or maybe ektar
this is an Epson V500 scan of one of my very first film shots, using my awesome Rollei 6008 Pro., with the Polaroid back, and Fuji Color FujiFilm FP-100C! It is a restroom horrible selfy, but then, I converted to b&w because it was a tad uglier than it is now! i used my cellphone so, the other examples are from my galaxy s3, because i was to excited to wait! i am a total beginner with this, and i kinda failed miserably, but thank God that board member carstenw helped me along the path, and kept his cool despite my total lack of everything! Thank you for viewing, and i cannot wait to show better shots using 120!
Maybe I should shoot some slide film, I've always shot negs because I've been afraid to shoot slide film because of the narrower latitude in exposure, but maybe its time to give it a go.
I also think I'm just used to the punchier colors and contrast of digital files. I didn't consider the fact that NCPS may have boosted the scans.
i like your edit Peter, thanks. Maybe its time to finally pony up for PS - thousands in gear and I still haven't bought PS - I've been pretty happy with LR.
I'll have to look at some Ektar examples. How about Velvia - anyone use that for general shooting, or do most find that too saturated?
Good stuff, Americo! A couple look like they weren't focused right, but judging by the one shot, you got the hang of it now. What kind of focusing screen do you have, a split view one?
- I've been pretty happy with LR.