Show us yer film shots then!

FishyFish said:
It's a lovely shot Jonathan. I think one thing that might add a sense of confusion is that I *think* we're looking downstream in the photo. The vast majority of long exposure shots of flowing water tend to be taken looking upstream, often towards a waterfall or weir or something with the trails of milky water coming towards us, and I think having it theother way around might add a slight element of strangeness.

Now you're going to tell me it's looking upstream, aren't you? :D
Click to expand...

I see what you mean :) and you’re quite right, this is looking downstream.

I’ll have a go at cropping some off the bottom and repost it. Would appreciate your thoughts on the new version, but this will likely be tomorrow at any rate :)
 
Woodsy said:
I see what you mean :) and you’re quite right, this is looking downstream.

I’ll have a go at cropping some off the bottom and repost it. Would appreciate your thoughts on the new version, but this will likely be tomorrow at any rate :)
Click to expand...
Dare to be different. I knew I liked something about that one.
 
FishyFish said:
I knew I'd have very little chance of holding the camera steady in this situation, so in for a penny, in for a pound with some ICM . :)

I think it was a 1 second exposure with a deliberate pan to the left.

Olympus OM-2n
Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.8
Fuji Superia 100 (expired 2008)


Bugs and Sylvester ICM by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That’s probably the first ICM that I can honestly say I quite like..... just enough blurriness whilst still able to see what the subject matter actually is. Bravo!
 
Just tried out my new “vertical “ set up for enlarging large prints and oh my it is so much easier than horizontal.
Here’s a 12x16 wet print showing one of the images captured of the local river the morning after storm Alex hit us .

In comparison to how high the river got during the evening, this scene shows it to be relatively calm.

It is also back to front, purposely , as I find the perspective more pleasing.

B4FA193A-1E21-49BA-B203-F2B726527124.jpeg
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Olympus OM-2n
Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.8
Fuji Superia 100 (expired 2008)


Anyone for ice cream? by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Seeing your VG shot reminded me of something similar that I took in Ibiza years ago with a T 70 o_O and 28mm lens and only realised that I should have shown the ice cream top after seeing the JPG :-
XvvGZT4.jpg
 
Woodsy said:
Always happy to hear feedback Chris! I'm interested to know what you find confusing about it?
Click to expand...

It's the blurred bit in the bottom section. Each time I see it, it looks like a wave about to break!

Knowing it's looking downstream, if I concentrate I can make it look like flow lines... look away and back and there's that wave again. More than likely something weird about my visual processing system (and I should talk, with all those ICM shots last year, that @Asha so disapproved of!).

But I would indeed like to see a crop, if you think it worth it.
 
Here’s the other exposure showing the river Bevera (Sospel) in spate , wet printed 10x8.
Like the previous print, it’s never going to be ‘clear’ as the amount of mist / spray that was apparent at the scene renders any shot to be foggy.

This was quite a demanding exposure to capture , being directly into the sun, but was the best composition to show the river in this state.
Similarly the print hadproved demanding too .....following a test strip and an earlier 10x8 attempt, this is the best so far having increased contrast.
I’d like it A3 but not sure wether to concentrate on the negative scan as a quick adjustment of curves brings more clarity but that perhaps takes something away from the image as in some ways I rather like the dreamy kind of look and it’s ‘soft’ sun star to this result.

I’ll have to sleep on it and leave the darkroom set up for tomorrow in case the boredom of computer post processing becomes all too much lol.



035BD8A5-4725-4FE9-BAAE-1E6AF4BD0C30.jpeg
 
ChrisR said:
It's the blurred bit in the bottom section. Each time I see it, it looks like a wave about to break!

Knowing it's looking downstream, if I concentrate I can make it look like flow lines... look away and back and there's that wave again. More than likely something weird about my visual processing system (and I should talk, with all those ICM shots last year, that @Asha so disapproved of!).

But I would indeed like to see a crop, if you think it worth it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so to complicate matters, the original crop just hit explore, so I'll leave that version with the crop that it had to begin with. For the sake of the thread however, I've made this version. In cropping off the bottom, and with the crop rotation that was required also, I had a little more room to breath at the sides. As such, this version has just a tad more width to it as well. What do you think?
img494_c.jpg

I had to compress the living p**s out of it to get the file size down, even after resizing, so apologies for that!
 
Woodsy said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

Excellent and am sure 1 billion of the public would agree with me..if you are looking for nit picking I like shots a bit wider as I'm not a square-ish fan...but that's just me. :rolleyes:
 
Woodsy said:
Ok, so to complicate matters, the original crop just hit explore, so I'll leave that version with the crop that it had to begin with. For the sake of the thread however, I've made this version. In cropping off the bottom, and with the crop rotation that was required also, I had a little more room to breath at the sides. As such, this version has just a tad more width to it as well. What do you think?
View attachment 295400

I had to compress the living p**s out of it to get the file size down, even after resizing, so apologies for that!
Click to expand...

It looks good Jonathan. I might be tempted to crop it even further though - in line with, or just above the rock where the foreground white water ends. It's the autumnal trees that make the image for me and having that as the focus works. I've made an example crop to show what I mean (hope you don't mind!):

Woodsy's autumnal river scene.jpg
 
FishyFish said:
It looks good Jonathan. I might be tempted to crop it even further though - in line with, or just above the rock where the foreground white water ends. It's the autumnal trees that make the image for me and having that as the focus works. I've made an example crop to show what I mean (hope you don't mind!):

View attachment 295405
Click to expand...

Ooo, that spoiler functionality is rather good isn't it.

No no, I don't mind at all! :) I'm not personally a huge fan of the lack of lead in. For me it makes the image basically a focal point, with little to guide the eye around. I understand what has been said about the bottom/water being confusing, so I guess the composition has ultimately failed a little in that, for me the water is a required 'area', but for most, it seems the subject matter forming the lead in has not worked.

I'll definitely take this on board. I must admit I struggle with more this type of slightly more enclosed landscape - I usually prefer to shoot more wide open scenes with plenty of room to move - so honest opinions are always appreciated :).
 
Woodsy said:
Ooo, that spoiler functionality is rather good isn't it.

No no, I don't mind at all! :) I'm not personally a huge fan of the lack of lead in. For me it makes the image basically a focal point, with little to guide the eye around. I understand what has been said about the bottom/water being confusing, so I guess the composition has ultimately failed a little in that, for me the water is a required 'area', but for most, it seems the subject matter forming the lead in has not worked.

I'll definitely take this on board. I must admit I struggle with more this type of slightly more enclosed landscape - I usually prefer to shoot more wide open scenes with plenty of room to move - so honest opinions are always appreciated :).
Click to expand...

Everyone has a different eye for these things, and what works for one, might not work for another. Plus you have the additional factor that you were there to make the photo at the location, so my cropping part of it might remove some of the reasons why the composition caught your eye in the first place.
I'm much the same - sometimes someone will suggest removing an element they find distracting in one of my photos but which, for me, is an intrinsic part of the picture because it reminds me of being there when I made it.
 
Not used my lovely 1960 ROLLEIFLEX 2.8 F Planar for a long time so gave it an outing into Hartswood, Brentwood, loaded with 02/2013 dated Fuji Superia 400 kindly sent to me by a Flickr Friend. I rated it 200 ASA. The Rollei Selenium Cell Meter agreed with my Weston Master V so I used it with the Incident Light Diffuser. I had to 'Hand-Hold' as I am not really allowed to carry heavy Tripods after my Operation -- so I used wide apertures ,f5.6, f4 and one at f2.8.
This one was stopped down as much as I dared before getting a slow shutter speed and risking Camera Shake --
Rollei 2.8 F Planar Fuji 400 03 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Rollei 2.8 F Planar Fuji 400 04 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Rollei 2.8 F Planar Fuji 400 05 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Rollei 2.8 F Planar Fuji 400 07 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
Woodsy said:
Ooo, that spoiler functionality is rather good isn't it.

No no, I don't mind at all! :) I'm not personally a huge fan of the lack of lead in. For me it makes the image basically a focal point, with little to guide the eye around. I understand what has been said about the bottom/water being confusing, so I guess the composition has ultimately failed a little in that, for me the water is a required 'area', but for most, it seems the subject matter forming the lead in has not worked.

I'll definitely take this on board. I must admit I struggle with more this type of slightly more enclosed landscape - I usually prefer to shoot more wide open scenes with plenty of room to move - so honest opinions are always appreciated :).
Click to expand...

I did have something like Nige's hidden crop in mind when I made the first comment... mainly from either scrolling down so I could only see the top part, or holding my hand in front of the monitor! While I still like it a lot in that version, I do take your point about the lead-in, and I certainly like your second version better than the first. [...]
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
I really liked that one, David. It's hard for me to judge aspect ratio as I have to scroll up and down for many portrait images, but was that a vertical pano shot, eg XPan?
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris . No it was a single image shot with moderate wide-angle (90 mm) on largeformat film camera with vertical shift adjustment , and I cropped sides slightly in post-scan editing .

cheers
db3348
 
Mr Badger said:
Fifty shades of green.
Click to expand...

:thinking: Now I'm not the most intelligent member on here but, FIFTY ! :thinking::thinking:

In any case it needs to be in monochrome, at least then the title would mean summat :naughty::exit::LOL:
 
Asha said:
:thinking: Now I'm not the most intelligent member on here but, FIFTY ! :thinking::thinking:

In any case it needs to be in monochrome, at least then the title would mean summat :naughty::exit::LOL:
Click to expand...
I can understand your difficulty, with it being more than ten and you running out of fingers and thumbs to count them on! ;) Besides, I can't spell 40. :D
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
:thinking: Now I'm not the most intelligent member on here but, FIFTY ! :thinking::thinking:

In any case it needs to be in monochrome, at least then the title would mean summat :naughty::exit::LOL:
Click to expand...

Here you are Asha get counting :D.....Agfa slide taken about 50 years ago unlike Kodachrome it has faded slightly and had to revive it in Photoshop. Today people looking would say "yeah nice" but 50 years ago was a wow projected on a screen and just can't remember if neg colour film could compete at that time for colours etc (well my old colour neg shots couldn't):-
Anyway shot in Ireland and living in London (50 years ago) had never seen greens like this, shame I only had a Pentax 50mm (maybe 35mm?)
l6ufUZj.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top