Show us yer film shots then!

That's the new style of footwear for suits, it's a loafer style shoe, they're becoming quite popular as I am lead to believe.
 
There are socks, they just sit at the shoe top line, kinda like ankle socks but lower.
 
And I'm sure he has a fag hanging out the corner of his mouth! I even checked to see if you lived in the East... I suppose Yorkshire IS the East... ;)
 
Having strayed so far as to put up a colour pic (shock, horror), I thought I'd redress the balance with a few from around Minehead last month. All Pentax MX and Tmax 400 (which I quite like, apart from the horrid colour that comes out when devving). Probably the 35mm f/2 lens...

1) Decaying boat.

1509EPMXBW06_Adj.jpg

2) Abstract 1

1509EPMXBW07_Adj.jpg

3) Abstract 2

1509EPMXBW11_Adj.jpg

4) Posts

1509EPMXBW08_Adj.jpg

5) Panorama of Trees

1509EPMXBW14_Adj.jpg

Not sure whether the two abstract ones really qualify as such!

The treeline was annoying; I glimpsed this wonderful treeline by the side of the road on the top of the Brendons while driving. It was behind a highish hedge. I managed to stop at a gate near the treeline, but couldn't get through because of a bull nearby in the next field (that I would have had to walk past). So I trekked back along the road looking for a place to get through the hedge, and when I finally did get a view I was a long way back. Not what I visualised (and colour would have been better) but I still like it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Andrew. They were extraordinary posts, pretty well weathered!
 
Sorry to hijack the thread, but the images on Photobucket are reported as "1,024px × 692px (scaled to 858px × 580px)" and on TP as 1024x692 (ie, unscaled). Does anyone else see the unscaled one on TP as much less sharp than the scaled one on Photobucket? Or is it my imagination?
 
Few from my rolls used while I was away getting married :)
400h @100 and have asked developer to +1 brightness and warmth
 

Attachments

  • 1442853677892.jpg
    1442853677892.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 30
  • 1442853692802.jpg
    1442853692802.jpg
    63.5 KB · Views: 27
  • 1442853707224.jpg
    1442853707224.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 29
  • 1442853725754.jpg
    1442853725754.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 28
  • 1442853748567.jpg
    1442853748567.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 28
abdoujaparov said:
Sorry to hijack the thread, but the images on Photobucket are reported as "1,024px × 692px (scaled to 858px × 580px)" and on TP as 1024x692 (ie, unscaled). Does anyone else see the unscaled one on TP as much less sharp than the scaled one on Photobucket? Or is it my imagination?
Click to expand...

Was that my shots you were referring to, Keith? The boat certainly looks smaller and sharper in PB when you first click on the TP image, but if you then click on the magnifying glass to get it full size, it looks just the same as on TP to me!
 
ChrisR said:
Was that my shots you were referring to, Keith? The boat certainly looks smaller and sharper in PB when you first click on the TP image, but if you then click on the magnifying glass to get it full size, it looks just the same as on TP to me!
Click to expand...

Yeah, same here. I'm wondering if Photobucket is resharpening for the smaller image and it's messing up at full res.

To be honest, photo hosting is a nightmare. God knows how many times Flickr have changed their resampling/sharpening algorithms, and Facebook always looked awful to me until I stared resizing them myself to exactly 960 pixels.
 
Looking back at the original in Aperture, I see I have boosted "definition" a bit and added Edge Sharpening. Two comments worth making: I don't really know what I'm doing with sharpening in post, and quite a lot of shots from my home develop (Ilfosol 3 1+9) and scan (Plustek 7500i usually at 2400 ppi with Vuescan) seem to need quite a lot of it. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.

OTOH the boat shot definitely looks better in Aperture than on here. :(
 
So a couple of weeks ago I introduced a roll of film into a wedding (did it again this week too). I am pretty happy with the results, especially shooting into the sun (which I love to do)

Contax 645 | Portra 400 - Exposed for the shadows and shot at ISO 200. :)

 
Lovely work Gareth, can't beat a bit of Portra.
 
RaglanSurf said:
Lovely work Gareth, can't beat a bit of Portra.
Click to expand...

Thank you. [emoji4]


simon ess said:
Aah, seems my memory is playing tricks.

It's not Portra, and it's not her specialisation.

Apart from that, I was spot on. :D

http://www.bellelumieremagazine.com/overexposing-film/
Click to expand...

She has beautiful work. I have recently done a portrait session exposing Fuji 400H in the same way and am holding off ordering my next batch of film to see which I prefer. I would absolutely love to shoot a full engagement session on film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gazmorton2000 said:
So a couple of weeks ago I introduced a roll of film into a wedding (did it again this week too). I am pretty happy with the results, especially shooting into the sun (which I love to do)

Contax 645 | Portra 400 - Exposed for the shadows and shot at ISO 200. :)

Click to expand...

Gareth that really is an exceptional image, there's nothing about it that I don't like. really great work :)
 
Spain in winter.

 
VirtualAdept said:
I'm annoyed because my 3 year old son took them and they're better than my efforts :mad:
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that's why my 4 year old isn't allowed near the RB67. It's bad enough you lot taking better pictures than me with out the laddie doing the same.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Thank you, Trevor. I am sure some of the technically minded will point out how he is slightly forward of the plane of focus. I really didn't care in this instance though.
Click to expand...

It's not about technical. It's about connection. Keep it up.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Thank you, Trevor. I am sure some of the technically minded will point out how he is slightly forward of the plane of focus. I really didn't care in this instance though.
Click to expand...

Puts the focus on the lady, literally. Can't be bad. Excellent stuff!
 
gazmorton2000 said:
Thank you, Trevor. I am sure some of the technically minded will point out how he is slightly forward of the plane of focus. I really didn't care in this instance though.
Click to expand...

Wot Chris said. It's barely perceptible, but it keeps your eye on the bride, which I'm led to believe is often considered a good thing in wedding photography :P Lovely image, Gareth.

Can I ruin the conversation with filthy lucre - did they pay extra for film, or is it something you've done for yourself?
 
trevorbray said:
It's not about technical. It's about connection. Keep it up.
Click to expand...

I agree! Thanks, Trevor. :)

ChrisR said:
Puts the focus on the lady, literally. Can't be bad. Excellent stuff!
Click to expand...

Many thanks. :)

abdoujaparov said:
Wot Chris said. It's barely perceptible, but it keeps your eye on the bride, which I'm led to believe is often considered a good thing in wedding photography :p Lovely image, Gareth.

Can I ruin the conversation with filthy lucre - did they pay extra for film, or is it something you've done for yourself?
Click to expand...

It's just something I am doing for myself at the moment. Trying to introduce it into a few weddings. I have another roll from the last one that I need to send away for developing. The dream would be 100% film, but I can't see it unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top