Show us yer film shots then!

Andysnap said:
'Ere 'ang on, Betws-y-Coed isn't by the sea.....:thinking:
Click to expand...
tis if you ve got a telescope,,,,,,,and how did you manage to take any photos on a Voigtländer,,,,,they dont normally stay in your little grubbies long enough !!!
 
soupdragon said:
A Boat.

Hasselblad 503, 80mm cfe, fuji velvia 100.

How do I get the picture in the post bigger?
Click to expand...
Hi Tony :) You can host your file externally (on something like http://imgur.com) and link directly to it, which means you can set the size. Or, as you have done, you can attach it to your post. We can click on your attachment and see it in a larger size - it looks fine as it is! Beautiful shot.
 
Hasselblad 503cw 150mm lens. Children in the garden.


url=https://flic.kr/p/U8pzbR]
34214366625_9d5d0cf60a_b.jpg
[/url]img353 by biotecbob, on Flickr
url=https://flic.kr/p/U8pEoV]
34214384145_fbc745612b_b.jpg
[/url]img357 by biotecbob, on Flickr
 
I have recently (last week) bought a Chinese Phenix rangefinder camera (apparently made in the Seagull factory). It is very reminiscent of a Japanese rangefinder from the late 50s or early 60s. I am really impressed with it. The only fault is the rangefinder itself. This worked fine during my initial examination of the camera but once I loaded film, all trace of the rangefinder spot in the viewfinder disappeared. These shots are either focused at infinity (most of them) or I have guessed the distance (obviously badly with the push bike). Film is Agfa Vista+ developed and scanned by Snappy Snaps in Lincoln.

Phenix-01-1_edited-1.jpg Phenix-07-1_edited-1.jpg Phenix-12-1_edited-1.jpg Phenix-14-1_edited-1.jpg Phenix-16.jpg
 
Wista 45 Field, Fujinon 135mm f5.6, OOD Kodak Portra 160NS.

Tin-Shed by Andy, on Flickr
 
Andysnap said:
Wista 45 Field, Fujinon 135mm f5.6, OOD Kodak Portra 160NS.

Tin-Shed by Andy, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Andysnap said:
Wista 45 Field, Fujinon 135mm f5.6, OOD Kodak Portra 160NS.

Lake-Bala-1 by Andy, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Andy,

These two 4X5 photographs are with out doubt the best I have seen for a very long time.

The first has great dappled sunlight,with a very good background and the focal point of the shed, make the photograph look very lord of the rings.

The second is a great landscape and some may say,you should have cropped differently,I say congratulations, great large format work.
 
medwaygreen said:
Andy,

These two 4X5 photographs are with out doubt the best I have seen for a very long time.

The first has great dappled sunlight,with a very good background and the focal point of the shed, make the photograph look very lord of the rings.

The second is a great landscape and some may say,you should have cropped differently,I say congratulations, great large format work.
Click to expand...

Thank you Richard, very kind of you. I was very lucky with the weather and I was on my own so had plenty of time to make sure I got settings and composition as right as I could.
 
Last edited:
Two and three taken together tell a depressing (to me) story. More of a sad indictment, really.
 
Glad it works OK, Nige, some nice shots there. I find my Yashica 635 seems to like Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and Ektar 100, so perhaps give them a try in your 124G on a sunny day and see what you think?
 
Mr Badger said:
Glad it works OK, Nige, some nice shots there. I find my Yashica 635 seems to like Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and Ektar 100, so perhaps give them a try in your 124G on a sunny day and see what you think?
Click to expand...

Thanks. Acros is something on my list to try (120 or 135), but which I haven't gotten around to yet. I'd originally planned on shooting a roll of FP4 that I already had, but the weather was a little dull when I went out, so I picked up some HP5. Lo and behold, after loading the film, the Sun did appear, meaning I was forced to shoot most pictures at f/11 or higher and lose out on some of the shallower DOF look I was hoping for. As a result there's one shot on the roll that's very busy and a bit overexposed, but apart from that and the first shot on the roll that was accidentally double-exposed due to the idiot (me) who loaded the camera incorrectly, all the rest have come out fairly well. Not prize-winners by any stretch, but decent enough for my trial run.

I'll post a few more tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Two and three taken together tell a depressing (to me) story. More of a sad indictment, really.
Click to expand...

Would you care to expand on that, Stephen? I'm not a religious man myself, and much of the actual meaning of the symbolism goes over my head past a basic level of understanding, but I find churches to be interesting and often beautiful places so I'd love to know what you took from my pictures. It's always nice to know that a picture can have meaning beyond it just being a photograph.
 
Certainly - but it will run the risk of opening a debate on religion which I think is against the spirit (and rules) of this section of the site.

When it comes to finding meaning(s) in an image, there are always two sides: the intent of the the producer and the understanding of the viewer. Getting any sort of correspondance will depend on at least some common ground of understanding (even if the producer has to provide it in a statement). In this case, it will be the viewer providing the statement. One theologian made a cutting remark about those who practiced eisegesis rather than exegesis of the text; eis- (from Greek) measning "reading into" rather than ex- meaning "drawing out from". This may be an example of eisegesis :D. Actually, I'm sure it is.

My starting point is the difference between the two crosses at the church. The front view - the first impression made - shows the cross as not a symbol of Christ's sacrifice to redeem the church but as a useful object to hang out the washing to dry. A symbol emptied of all significance. If it does promote anything, it's sacerdotal garments and hence the importance of the clergy and the relative unimportance of Christ to the church. This is strengthened by placing a clearer reference to Christ only at the back of the church - Christ is relegated to the back of the church, almost thrown out of the back door.

Additionally (and here we are entering more completely into my religious views) it's a crucifix and not a bare cross. That is a Roman Catholic symbol not a protestant one for a very important theological reason. Protestants (at least those who like me share the beliefs of the protestant reformers) regard the death of Christ as a sacrifice once offered, never to be repeated (the clear teaching of the letter to the Hebrews), and validated as accepted by the resurrection. Hence the empty cross signifies the atonement. In Roman Catholic (and high church Anglican) theology on the other hand, Christ's sacrifice isn't a once and for all event; it lacks power and needs to be repeated by a priest in the mass. Hence the importance of the clergy. I can therefore see this as minimising Christ even more, and enhancing the power and importance of the clergy by putting Christ at the back, and making sacerdotal vestments the first symbol of the church seen. A church that exalts the priest and dethrones Christ.

Other interpretations are possible; this is mine.
 
StephenM said:
Certainly - but it will run the risk of opening a debate on religion which I think is against the spirit (and rules) of this section of the site.

When it comes to finding meaning(s) in an image, there are always two sides: the intent of the the producer and the understanding of the viewer. Getting any sort of correspondance will depend on at least some common ground of understanding (even if the producer has to provide it in a statement). In this case, it will be the viewer providing the statement. One theologian made a cutting remark about those who practiced eisegesis rather than exegesis of the text; eis- (from Greek) measning "reading into" rather than ex- meaning "drawing out from". This may be an example of eisegesis :D. Actually, I'm sure it is.

My starting point is the difference between the two crosses at the church. The front view - the first impression made - shows the cross as not a symbol of Christ's sacrifice to redeem the church but as a useful object to hang out the washing to dry. A symbol emptied of all significance. If it does promote anything, it's sacerdotal garments and hence the importance of the clergy and the relative unimportance of Christ to the church. This is strengthened by placing a clearer reference to Christ only at the back of the church - Christ is relegated to the back of the church, almost thrown out of the back door.

Additionally (and here we are entering more completely into my religious views) it's a crucifix and not a bare cross. That is a Roman Catholic symbol not a protestant one for a very important theological reason. Protestants (at least those who like me share the beliefs of the protestant reformers) regard the death of Christ as a sacrifice once offered, never to be repeated (the clear teaching of the letter to the Hebrews), and validated as accepted by the resurrection. Hence the empty cross signifies the atonement. In Roman Catholic (and high church Anglican) theology on the other hand, Christ's sacrifice isn't a once and for all event; it lacks power and needs to be repeated by a priest in the mass. Hence the importance of the clergy. I can therefore see this as minimising Christ even more, and enhancing the power and importance of the clergy by putting Christ at the back, and making sacerdotal vestments the first symbol of the church seen. A church that exalts the priest and dethrones Christ.

Other interpretations are possible; this is mine.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Stephen, that's enlightening. Not being religious myself, a lot of the meaning of these objects passes me by, but it's always good to gain an understanding of what they mean to others. The church is not one I've ever visited before (just driven past it a few times) as the village where it stands is a little off the beaten track, but there is some background and history on the place here: https://www.achurchnearyou.com/ulley-holy-trinity/
 
I don't think for a moment that the vestments were draped on the cross to dry, I think it was done to symbolise the love they have for Christ, and their 'closeness' to him, and that Christ's love will prevail. To me, seeing the vestment draped tenderly over the cross like that also gives me the impression of a symbolic disarming of a weapon of death, something along the lines of that powerful photograph of the hippy girl placing a flower down the barrel of a soldier's rifle during the anti-Vietnam war protests in the 1960s. Anyway, that's my interpretation. :)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I don't think for a moment that the vestments were draped on the cross to dry, I think it was done to symbolise the love they have for Christ, and their 'closeness' to him, and that Christ's love will prevail. To me, seeing the vestment draped tenderly over the cross like that also gives me the impression of a symbolic disarming of a weapon of death, something along the lines of that powerful photograph of the hippy girl placing a flower down the barrel of a soldier's rifle during the anti-Vietnam war protests in the 1960s. Anyway, that's my interpretation. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, they were definitely not just thrown over a cross. The cross also has what appears to be a crown of thorns. I'd assumed that it was something placed there in reference to Easter (although I may be showing my ignorance there) - the same cross and vestements can be seen on the Google Streetview shot of the church taken in April last year: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x48799e1e1ad45151:0xc0f642ff1b9744af!2m19!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m13!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/ulley+church/@53.3827321,-1.3016358,3a,75y,351.97h,90t/data=*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sFnehEpV6HrL0z7mO1-rd8Q*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x0:0xc0f642ff1b9744af!5sulley+church+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sFnehEpV6HrL0z7mO1-rd8Q&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBgoK1or_TAhWkAsAKHTKEBnYQpx8IcTAK
 
Last edited:
Snip
FishyFish said:
Yes, they were definitely not just thrown over a cross. The cross also has what appears to be a crown of thorns. I'd assumed that it was something placed there in reference to Easter (although I may be showing my ignorance there) - the same cross and vestements can be seen on the Google Streetview shot of the church taken in April last year:
Click to expand...

I can see how other interpretations could be arrived at though. Anyway, this is getting a bit 'deep' for a Tuesday morning, so perhaps we should move on and post some more photos? :)
 
Go on then, more photos it is.

Another from last weekend with the Wista and the 135mm fujinon.
The-Bridge by Andy, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top