It's been a while since I posted here, so I thought I'd throw a few down for old times' sake. These are tests for a series/story I'll be doing on an upcoming drip to Uganda (mixed with 35mm documentary shooting).
Shot on a Hasselblad 500cm with Portra 400VC, then scanned and converted.
I like where you are going with this, but the first two, with the drop jawed look don't make it for me, get the feeling you are trying to make them look dumb. Number 3 works better, very honest straight ahead image, very anti what is often shown here. Just a different style.
You should try working with some TriX or TMax 400 (if you can get it developed properly). The single emulsion layer will look sharper and no conversion necessary.
I am also curious if these are "candid" images or did you work with the subjects?
I like where you are going with this, but the first two, with the drop jawed look don't make it for me, get the feeling you are trying to make them look dumb. Number 3 works better, very honest straight ahead image, very anti what is often shown here. Just a different style.
You should try working with some TriX or TMax 400 (if you can get it developed properly). The single emulsion layer will look sharper and no conversion necessary.
I am also curious if these are "candid" images or did you work with the subjects?
tomm101 wrote:
I like where you are going with this, but the first two, with the drop jawed look don't make it for me, get the feeling you are trying to make them look dumb. Number 3 works better, very honest straight ahead image, very anti what is often shown here. Just a different style.
You should try working with some TriX or TMax 400 (if you can get it developed properly). The single emulsion layer will look sharper and no conversion necessary.
I am also curious if these are "candid" images or did you work with the subjects?
Tom
Hi Tom --
Thanks for the feedback. I see what you mean by the "dumb" thing -- it certainly wasn't intentional, but those were the most expressive frames so I went with them for the time being. You've given me something to think about, though, so I'll go back to the negs and take another look.
Regarding B&W film: I chose to work in colour after hearing a number of photogs complain about scan quality with B&W negatives...for some reason colour seemed to be working better for them. Have you had much experience with scanning B&W? Is there a particular film you find scans better than others? (BTW -- I have a few boxes of TMAX 400 being shipped to me right now, so your advice is certainly fitting).
Not candids in the true sense, no. A big focus in this series, especially once I'm overseas, will be to try and engage the subject as much as possible in the photograph -- make them an active, empowered participant. I work with the subjects in terms of speaking with them, engaging with them, and maybe moving them to a location where the light is "right," but after that it's up to them. The most direction I'll give in terms of posture, etc. is "look at me for a sec" and that's about it.
I'm more of a Tri-X guy over TMax 400, but YMMV. If you want ISO400 BW film, try Neopan or Tri-X or HP5+ 400 as well and find your favorite. My advice? Unless you really have to, don't use 400 film. A film like TMax 100 will give you much finer grain. Keep in mind that developing yourself you might have to spend some time nailing down your process, so practice before heading off. In my experience, outsourcing BW development is very expensive.
Also, Kodak makes a good BW C41 film (look into Ilford XP2 as well) that you can have processed by your lab normally, and it should scan well. In my experience, it is true that BW film seems to be a little less conducive to scanning, IMHO.
Sure, the single emulsion of BW film may give you sharper results, but I don't really buy into it. Your results look great. Good luck!
