Less witty banter, more image posting.
Sony NEX-5N, Contax Zeiss 45/2.0 G Planar at f2.0, 12,800 ISO
Sure there's grain, but it's very film like -- if you screwed up the development and got reticulated grain. http://www.boncratious.com/images/knee-pin.jpg
Tired of looking at the world with a half-empty glass attitude, I drank it all, because I _AM_ the center of the universe and I shall have it all. I _AM_ the black pen that draws this black and white picture, and it is too close to focus as I am sometimes too grand and too elusive for someone to understand up close. Neither the pen nor the photo is off axis because I, as represented by the pen, _AM_ the true axis. Is the pen truly black, and not brown? That is the enigma I guess you'll never know. Sure, it has some grain, but it's very film-like.
M8, ZM35 f/2 at ISO 1250, underexposed 3 stops and then pushed back in post. Sure there's grain, but it's very film like - we all know banding was such an issue with film
Here are two more, both with the E-M5 and Leica 25mm f/1.4. The second one is a slight violation of the rules, as it was shot at f/1.4, but I decided that since the lens was a Leica branded lens, it should be OK.
This first, of pliers outside on my deck table at night, has deep seated meaning in the lines. I leave it as an exercise to the viewer to determine what those meanings hold for themselves: http://www.jordansteele.com/2012/pliers_table.jpg
This second (at f/1.4) I title "Unauthorized". What lay beyond? And why has the screen been broken by the handle?
FlyPenFly wrote:
In all honesty, I'm probably going to buy an old legacy camera next month and just shoot B&W for a while. (probably an old Minolta or Nikon, not a Leica)
I have to say the new Leica camera did push me more and finally pushed me to take the idea out of the backburner and into the fire.
If I was going to shoot film again it would have to be MF to make it worth the effort. Looks like that's what Nick Brandt shoots with.... "He uses a Pentax 67II with only two fixed lenses"
Wow, I also just checked out Nick Brandt's online portfolio. That dude's stuff is out-freaking-standing.
I'd really like to know how he got so close to some of these animals, though, especially claiming the non-use of telephoto lenses with a MF body. Does he just stake out in a blind for a week at a time or what?
Gary Clennan wrote:
Yep. I have been a fan of his work for many years. Just incredible, unique, powerful images...
Me too. I've two of his books and seriously considered flying to Stockholm earlier this year just to see his exhibition. Every time i see his work i am awestruck.
Exploration is irresistible for this child. Fear of the unknown is foreign to him. In the dark, damp basement crammed with forgotten belongings collected by his ancestors over countless years, where some children find monsters lurking, he catches a faint glimmer of light reflected from the jewel-like eye of a mechanical cyclops, made of glass so clear it is black, perfectly formed by teutonic masters of an ancient art said to have been forever lost to mere mortals. He can hear its click and whir emanating from the darkness. Caught at the halfway point, should he continue, his fate uncertain? No, not this time. A sweet, melodic voice breaks the seductive gaze of the cyclops, pulls him from the edge of the abyss and back to the light from whence he came. Pudding and cookies.
M9 and 28 Cron. ISO 1250 pushed three stops.
Sure it has some grain and banding, but it's very film-like.
