AbramG wrote:
I too have often wondered this, it seems to be a rather common practice, though I don't completely understand why? Is it to minimize a boring sky? What if you have an EPIC sky?
I'm looking forward to shooting more 35mm film again actually, I'm making a move back to a 1V body to utilize all my EF lenses.
do you not just shoot compositions? every good photo I see in a book I try to copy with the boring stuff in my backyard. just to learn how to do it and add it to my repetoire. plus, if you know the rules it helps you break them on purpose rather than by accident. a lot of people never move beyond that, and that's perfectly fine.
also, a picture. sorry about the dust that went crazy on my negative, Im going to have to try hanging it somewhere different next time
Just came back from all around Izu and Yamanashi shooting nudes with a visiting model on GW690...shame I can't post those..:P
But once I develop I can post a view of Fuji instead..
Krosavcheg wrote:
Just came back from all around Izu and Yamanashi shooting nudes with a visiting model on GW690...shame I can't post those..:P
But once I develop I can post a view of Fuji instead..
rattymouse wrote:
What kind of film did you shoot?
Fuji X400, Velvia100, Ilford Delta 100 and XP2 400 tried to get rid of the old rolls of Velvia.
The shop was nearly out of Delta and XP2..so I grabbed as much as I could. Delta 400 was all out so I obviously settled for XP2..
dswiger wrote:
Posted this in the landscape forum, but want some film type critique
The light was flat/overcast, I was shooting 20+ yr FP4 &
I think it might have been 1/2 - 1 stop under.
I am still trying to get this LF routine down.
Had to be careful to keep the highlight details w/o going black on the shadows
when scanning so I suspect it was a bit compromised to start with
Shot with a Toyo 45A, Nikkor 150, 1/10, f32, some tilt.
Thanks
Dan
Excellent composition. I like it a lot. It looks like you have a bit of a hot spot in the waves that I expect is from the scanning more than the film (it's possible to low out film highlights but here it looks like over exposure of the digital file). Were you trying to get the exposure right in the scanner software? If so you might try scanning again but aim for a flat low-contrast file and process for contrast after. It's lovely as it is, but you asked for film-centred critique so that's mine.
I know. It's a magnificent camera, but I'm afraid I haven't touched it since I got my X-pro 1 and now that I have a 1V on the way again, I'll be occupied with that camera for 35mm.
I always force myself to sell a camera when I buy a camera, to keep things from getting out of hand, I'm no collector.
I know a guy, in fact he is one of the more talented photographers I know, who did a ton of great work on a Hexar AF. recently he's been distracted by medium format this or the other and sold the Hexar and I wish he hadn't =/
well, some people can use anything and it makes no appreciable difference. other people are just meant to use a certain camera.
if you gave me a Hexar AF you would get the same pictures back that I made with my M2 and 35 biogon. In fact when I shot the biogon I dont think my pictures were that different than my 50 Planar shots, and I sold the biogon because I couldn't see the whole frame and the MFD gave me too little subject magnification. Actually it just made me angry it wasnt 50mm lol. For a couple of pictures I actually had to go back to the negatives and check frame numbers because I just couldn't tell.
I had a friend in college who would have taken 100% completely different pictures just with two frankly similar lenses. I guess that is the difference between creativity and intelligence in photography. The creative person will be inspired by their tool to explore its limits and the intelligent will figure out how to resume business as usual as if nothing had changed.
35mm is my comfort zone, I also really enjoy 28 and 50mm as well. I'm flexible though, I can work with most any focal length, but 35 + 85 are safety lenses.
