It's absolutely stunning how detailed and sharp they are.
Thanks Heinz. I was about to say the same about your velvia shots! I think I've never seen such high contrast look that good actually.
----------------
And Patrick, I like your color protraits too! They are way better than the B&W ones in my opinion, which have all looked a bit too darkish. I suppose you overexposed these on purpose?
Here's a few from me w/ the Fuji GW670III - I will always love medium format, but I think honestly for my film shooting endeavors I just want to get a 35mm rangefinder. I'm having trouble shooting this thing on the street. Draws way too much attention haha!
Patrick -- Those shots of the girl are hauntingly beautiful. Really excellent.
Martin -- You B&W shots are looking great, especially the minute detail on the cars.
OTOH, the color is way off, and you are right to look into it. I don't see any neutral grey or blacks (it's shifted toward purple/yellow), and contrast is too high. Whether it is developing or scanning, you'll have to figure it out. To check the development, you could have a roll commercially developed and then try scanning. Your light sources should be fine as all part of "daylight". Good luck on getting the color sorted out.
Gunzorro wrote:
Martin -- You B&W shots are looking great, especially the minute detail on the cars.
Thanks! That's what medium format is for.
OTOH, the color is way off, and you are right to look into it. I don't see any neutral grey or blacks (it's shifted toward purple/yellow), and contrast is too high. Whether it is developing or scanning, you'll have to figure it out. To check the development, you could have a roll commercially developed and then try scanning. Your light sources should be fine as all part of "daylight". Good luck on getting the color sorted out.
I don't see how the colors are "way off", but slightly not as they should perhaps. Contrast is high because I want it to be high, and there are no "rules" for what contrast you like. I find many film images on the net to be completely washed out (especially B&W) and disturbingly boring because the photographers seem to think that film images should not be post processed.
Don't get me wrong. It's educating to hear what you guys think, but I know pretty well what I want and I wouldn't publish stuff I wasn't happy with. But I'll definitely take a look at the scanning next time. Worst case is that I'll do it "raw", even if I know I'm gonna hate it.
----------------------
I haven't developed anything since my last post, but here's an old self portrait. Now, THIS is technically "wrong" in every way. Stand development with no agitation at all gives some unwanted effects, to say the least...
So you play chess and like minimalism. Doesn't surprise me Have you tried Go? Very nice portrait, btw.
It think Jim's "way off" and your "slightly off" are a direct result of your different backgrounds with respect to photography. Jim earns at least part of his income on architectural photography, IIRC, and colour for him must be accurate, or he will have trouble with some customers. You are much more interested in the aesthetic properties of the photos, and "off" could be "better" for you, it depends on the effect.
Personally, I like being able to do everything, and I like learning how to do it. Therefore, I would like to be able to make highly colour-accurate photos on demand, although once I know how, I doubt I would do it much.
carstenw wrote:
So you play chess and like minimalism. Doesn't surprise me Have you tried Go? Very nice portrait, btw.
It's not chess! That's some sort of chart in an old book on chemistry. I actually just pulled it out of the shelf for the portrait, but I like both chess and chemistry.
It think Jim's "way off" and your "slightly off" are a direct result of your different backgrounds with respect to photography. Jim earns at least part of his income on architectural photography, IIRC, and colour for him must be accurate, or he will have trouble with some customers. You are much more interested in the aesthetic properties of the photos, and "off" could be "better" for you, it depends on the effect.
You're probably right. I haven't earned a nickle from photography and I don't intend to ever do so. It's just for fun and to challenge myself.
Personally, I like being able to do everything, and I like learning how to do it. Therefore, I would like to be able to make highly colour-accurate photos on demand, although once I know how, I doubt I would do it much.
Yeah, the whole thing with trying new things and push your own limits is what life is all about, right? I mean, I started photographing in 2005 and I've only shot ~50-100 rolls of film in my entire life. I've developed them all at home (except for one that was E6) and I've done all of the scanning and editing myself. If I was to send it away, I could as well just stick to digital.
The C-41 thing was just a new challenge. I'll learn and I won't take the joy away by letting others do it for me.
Bifurcator wrote:
Wow, you don't look anything like your avatar.
No, but I'm very much like him. How about you and your avatar?
Makten wrote:
I haven't developed anything since my last post, but here's an old self portrait. Now, THIS is technically "wrong" in every way. Stand development with no agitation at all gives some unwanted effects, to say the least...
could you please post some more of those technically wrong images, Martin?
From the same roll. Don't remember what film, but probably Ilford HP5+ or Tri-X @ 800. Stand development in Fomadon R09 (probably 1:100) for at least 20 minutes without even the mandatory initial agitation. As you can see, there are terrible halos and coarse grain. But it worked!
Edit: By the way it's snow, not sand. And it was like -20°C.
Hi Martin -- I wasn't trying to beat up on you -- I admire your work, and your "eye".
Carsten has me pegged pretty well.
I do like lots of variation in the arts, and try not to get too stuck in a mould. I prefer to shoot "straight" and then make any variations -- like make it sharp, and soften or enhance color later if that's the feeling I want. I try to start with what can't be achieved through alteration, and that leave a score that can be played in many ways. (But maybe a bit boring!)
As long as you are getting the results you want, that's what's important.
Hello,
Would a Mamiya AFDII be a good starter platform?
I already enjoy the use of two MF Mamiya lens w/ my 5DMkII.
Hmm, I would then also have to get a really good scanner...
But then, IF, I ever win the lottery, I could MAYBE afford a digital back.
And, purchase AF lenses, wow, what a thought!
Decisions, decisions, Mamiya AFDII, or keep holding out for a Kodak SLR/C...
I would love hear other peoples opinions and experiences.
Thanks!
I was about to say the same about your velvia shots! I think I've never seen such high contrast look that good actually. 
: Mawz, this is amazing. It seems that the highlights are not blown at all.
