I like film...(open thread)

[DirkR440]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

a picture from Bellinzona (Switzerland)

Rolleiflex 3.5F and Rollei RPX 25

 

Bellinzona by Dirk Raffel, auf Flickr

[EoinC]

Ha, ha, yes, I have had a lot of this in my head but was recently incentivized by a 50% coupon that I received from Blurb

I'm impressed with both books, Adam. Looking through the previews, the quality (as we have seen in your postings here) is excellent.

 

One thought for the future, though, is to maybe vary it a little. I found that the full light shots (pages ~18-19) of the "Anonymous" New Yorkers positively stood out from the string of contre jour shots, as did the train and park shots in Spectacular Sunrises & Sunsets of New York City. Knowing your work, there are plenty of wonderful shots to choose from.

 

Great work, and this variety issue may just be me, with the attention span of a lower percentile goldfish.

[EoinC]

Dear Henry - you must be very familiar with that joke at HCB used say regarding this matter:  When you are looking to buy a book you don't ask what kind of typewriter was used !!!

Either way, it won't make it into any of my artistic presentations outside of LUF, Flickr or similar venues

I agree, Adam - When I look at a hard-copy photo, I almost don't want to taint the experience with the technical ingredients involved - I want to appreciate it for what it is. It is different when posting on this thread, which is almost like being in a darkroom with some co-conspirators.

[Doc Henry]

Dear Henry - you must be very familiar with that joke at HCB used say regarding this matter:  When you are looking to buy a book you don't ask what kind of typewriter was used !!!

Either way, it won't make it into any of my artistic presentations outside of LUF, Flickr or similar venues

Adam it was a suggestion but if I have to make a book like you I will only put the camera brands

no need to put the optics or the rest.It is quality material , I speak of the brand. Why hide it ?

 

This allows customers or reviewers to locate just about your photos that it is not the level of a Kodak Instamatic

Me I look at the pictures but at the bottom end of a page for example just a few written words of the material

writing small.

 

I did not specify in my previous post that I do not want that every photo we put the material. We have misunderstood

I just look at the pictures reviews and photo books I bought , they all put at the end of the book a few words about the material

The same in LFI  just the brand no more !

 

That said a great work of several years Adam 

Rg

Henry

Edited November 29, 2016 by Doc Henry

[gsgary]

You got that right. And from Tmax no less which is thought to have less latitude than, say, Tri-X

And it's MF film I think it makes a difference, in photoshop MF film can be manipulated much more than 35mm

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[A miller]

I'm impressed with both books, Adam. Looking through the previews, the quality (as we have seen in your postings here) is excellent.

 

One thought for the future, though, is to maybe vary it a little. I found that the full light shots (pages ~18-19) of the "Anonymous" New Yorkers positively stood out from the string of contre jour shots, as did the train and park shots in Spectacular Sunrises & Sunsets of New York City. Knowing your work, there are plenty of wonderful shots to choose from.

 

Great work, and this variety issue may just be me, with the attention span of a lower percentile goldfish.

Great feedback, Eoin.  Thanks very much.  I think that this is somewhat of a risk with choosing narrow topics like sunrises and sunset and then shadows/silhouettes (btw I regard the first "full light photo you mentioned on page 18 as a shadow b/c it is of my head ).  And with this the photo selection on each page, pairing of photos and overall organization and flow is really important.  Perhaps I have not optimized this but I do think it is really important and I will go back and consider how I might be able to improve on this.  Worst case I can just upload a new version of the book from Lightroom and I'm off to the races   thanks again, dear friend.

 

Adam it was a suggestion but if I have to make a book like you I will only put the camera brands

no need to put the optics or the rest.It is quality material , I speak of the brand. Why hide it ?

 

This allows customers or reviewers to locate just about your photos that it is not the level of a Kodak Instamatic

Me I look at the pictures but at the bottom end of a page for example just a few written words of the material

writing small.

 

I did not specify in my previous post that I do not want that every photo we put the material. We have misunderstood

I just look at the pictures reviews and photo books I bought , they all put at the end of the book a few words about the material

The same in LFI  just the brand no more !

 

That said a great work of several years Adam 

Rg

Henry

I see your point, Henry.  You are right - photo books do usually have a fair amount of text in them that guides the reader through various thoughts, stories and descriptions.  My intent with this book wasn't really an official publishable book but rather a hard copy of certain subsets of the photos in my portfolio.  Think of it as a promotional tool that I can supply to galleries, interior designers, framing and mounting shops who showcase and sell photographs and hotels and even beauty salons that have seating areas with reading material.  There is no shortage of these places in NYC!  A real publishable book would involve a lot more work and, as you say, some sort of real storyline and more background.  I am not there yet.

 

I was just being playful earlier with how I stated my opinion and did not mean to annoy you  

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I think that this is somewhat of a risk with choosing narrow topics like sunrises and sunset and then shadows/silhouettes (btw I regard the first "full light photo you mentioned on page 18 as a shadow b/c it is of my head )...

Thanks, Adam. I'm really pleased that you took my comments in the spririt intended, as you are already far ahead of anything I have done.

Looking through both of the previews this morning really got me thinking (at 4am, that is an achievement in itself!). The thought that came to mind (not specifically relating to your books, but generated from thinking about them) was 'is there a difference between a collection of great images, and a great collection of images?. Which, in turn, made me consider the starting point in the book-building (I use a term that is familiar to me in its nautical counterpart) process:

Does the theme start at the capture stage?

Does the theme clarify when finding commonality between captured images?

Does the theme get changed / extended to include images that are at the theme-margins?

Does the theme restrict, such that it excludes another theme that may be developing?

 

These are questions that can only be answered subjectively and circumstantially. I know, from my own images, that the result often contains different perspectives and properties to that which I was aiming at during the capture. I like the idea of the conflict that must be a component of building your compilations by, on the one hand, being disciplined and specific, and on the other, being creative and open to changes in direction.

 

So, in my philosophical voyage of discovery, Adam, was there any stage during the 'book-building' of either book, where you came across images that seemed connected, and you would like to have included, but did not quite fit the theme? The reason this thought was triggered was that many of your great series of shots of people on the streets of NY in Winter would fit well with the "Anonymous" part of the theme, but possibly had less dramatic shadow / light factors, and therefore were excluded(?).

 

Again, I'm not saying there is a right or wrong - I'm just interested in the thought process, and the conflicts encountered in creating such a work.

 

Cheers,

Eoin

Edited November 29, 2016 by EoinC

[Guest )-(]

Good luck with it Adam. Personally I don't enjoy the 'writing a narrative' aspect of presenting photos, unless they are actually telling some kind of specific story or history.

Yes, we might want to know a few details, who, where, how, but beyond that... I don't feel it personally, unless the text that is written comes from somewhere from before the photographs were taken.

 

Probably outside a French restaurant. Definitely from Sydney CBD backstreets, Ektar, MP. Probably 50 Summicron DR.

[A miller]

Thanks, Adam. I'm really pleased that you took my comments in the spririt intended, as you are already far ahead of anything I have done.

Looking through both of the previews this morning really got me thinking (at 4am, that is an achievement in itself!). The thought that came to mind (not specifically relating to your books, but generated from thinking about them) was 'is there a difference between a collection of great images, and a great collection of images?. Which, in turn, made me consider the starting point in the book-building (I use a term that is familiar to me in its nautical counterpart) process:

Does the theme start at the capture stage?

Does the theme clarify when finding commonality between captured images?

Does the theme get changed / extended to include images that are at the theme-margins?

Does the theme restrict, such that it excludes another theme that may be developing?

 

These are questions that can only be answered subjectively and circumstantially. I know, from my own images, that the result often contains different perspectives and properties to that which I was aiming at during the capture. I like the idea of the conflict that must be a component of building your compilations by, on the one hand, being disciplined and specific, and on the other, being creative and open to changes in direction.

 

So, in my philosophical voyage of discovery, Adam, was there any stage during the 'book-building' of either book, where you came across images that seemed connected, and you would like to have included, but did not quite fit the theme? The reason this thought was triggered was that many of your great series of shots of people on the streets of NY in Winter would fit well with the "Anonymous" part of the theme, but possibly had less dramatic shadow / light factors, and therefore were excluded(?).

 

Again, I'm not saying there is a right or wrong - I'm just interested in the thought process, and the conflicts encountered in creating such a work.

 

Cheers,

Eoin

 

Very interesting perspective, Eoin.  I think that collection of great photos vs great collection of photos is a great way of making your point.  And there is a lot to ponder on that.  I had thought about doing a 2016 edition of my favorite cityscape photos as a broad set, whether with a special sunrise/sunset or otherwise.  This may have made for a more dynamic book.  Same for people watching in general vs a subset of my "Anonymous" series.    Lots for me to think about and I thank you for the "food"

[A miller]

Good luck with it Adam. Personally I don't enjoy the 'writing a narrative' aspect of presenting photos, unless they are actually telling some kind of specific story or history.

Yes, we might want to know a few details, who, where, how, but beyond that... I don't feel it personally, unless the text that is written comes from somewhere from before the photographs were taken.

 

Probably outside a French restaurant. Definitely from Sydney CBD backstreets, Ektar, MP. Probably 50 Summicron DR.

Thanks very much, Coogee.  I appreciate your feedback and insights. 

Nice photo  I am sure Henry will like it

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Great feedback, Eoin.  Thanks very much.  I think that this is somewhat of a risk with choosing narrow topics like sunrises and sunset and then shadows/silhouettes (btw I regard the first "full light photo you mentioned on page 18 as a shadow b/c it is of my head ).  And with this the photo selection on each page, pairing of photos and overall organization and flow is really important.  Perhaps I have not optimized this but I do think it is really important and I will go back and consider how I might be able to improve on this.  Worst case I can just upload a new version of the book from Lightroom and I'm off to the races   thanks again, dear friend.

 

I see your point, Henry.  You are right - photo books do usually have a fair amount of text in them that guides the reader through various thoughts, stories and descriptions.  My intent with this book wasn't really an official publishable book but rather a hard copy of certain subsets of the photos in my portfolio.  Think of it as a promotional tool that I can supply to galleries, interior designers, framing and mounting shops who showcase and sell photographs and hotels and even beauty salons that have seating areas with reading material.  There is no shortage of these places in NYC!  A real publishable book would involve a lot more work and, as you say, some sort of real storyline and more background.  I am not there yet.

 

I was just being playful earlier with how I stated my opinion and did not mean to annoy you

Adam

I've published 5 coffee table books and there is more writing in your message above than in all my books put together.........................I want to show off my pictures rather than my ability of righting  

[Brabu]

.... Baltic Sea, Germany...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M4 + Zeiss Planar 2/50 - CHM100 - D76

[Brabu]

....again Baltic Sea ...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M4 + Planar 2/50 - CHM100 - D76

[Ratzfatz]

 

....again Baltic Sea ...

 

GraalMüritz (5 von 6).jpg

 

M4 + Planar 2/50 - CHM100 - D76

 

 

Hi Barbu,

 

the combination of CHS and D76 looks quite grainy... especially the second one. Is there any differences in the process?

Thank you.

 

Regards

Gregor

Edited November 30, 2016 by Ratzfatz

[Brabu]

...no differences in processing...it was quite dark at the moment when I shot the last picture, pushed with one stop... here is another one from the same film some days later but with more light, also pushed with one stop...Rugby in Berlin...I don't know where the grain is from...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M4 + Summarit 2,5/75 - CHM100 - D76

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

...Beautiful vanishing line in the middle of mountains , useful electric poles and wires for this picture.

I like the fine grain of this film , "natural" grain I mean , not created with software please !...

 

Henry - I've been following this thread on and off but, throughout, keep on coming across numerous not so subtle digs at digital aspects, such as "digital grain." My feeling is that one can love film without hating digital. I also notice that you're interested in comparisons with digital, particularly the Leica M-Monochrom, about which you asked someone some pages back — it seems difficult to find things in this thread, so I don't have the reference.

 

I've been thinking for the last nine months been about returning to film and have started a thread called, Go back to film? Sell the M9-P/MM? Wanna talk me down? It's only three pages and has numerous examine of Tri-X and M-Monochrm shots that may interest you.

 

On page 3, I come to a conclusion (posts #92, 96 and 100) that, right now, as long as there is this excellent, small hand-development lab in Chiang Mai that I use, it’s worthwhile for me to continue shooting film — and, if I go back to digital, it is likely to be in “binges” of six months or a year and then return for a binge of film. 

 

Conceptually I've thought the following: if you think of two circles (digital and film) intersecting for the bulk of their areas, leaving on either side a crescent that does not intersect — take the crescent of the film circle: that's the area of film properties, or "look", that one cannot get from digital without "major fakery." That's what makes me interested in film. In the referenced thread someone on has been kind enough to draw these circles to make the concept vivid graphically.

 

An example of what drives my film shooting can be illustrated through the two sets of photographs below — one film, one digital; one set of unposed street portraits and the other a set of landscapes in the same locality. Now, remember I’m only thinking of 35mm and Tri-X for film, not taking into account medium format or slower films, which could change the size of the crescents.

 

M-Monochrom | DR Summicron-50 | ISO 320

Bangkok

 

M6 | DR-Summicron | Tri-X @ ISO 1600 | Stand development for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes

Chiang Mai

 

 

M-Monochrom | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640

Wiang Pa Pao

 

Leica M6 | DR Summicron-50mm | Tri-X @400 | Stand development in Rodinal

Wiang Pa Pao

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Edited November 30, 2016 by Guest

[gbealnz]

Circles and crescents, I like it.

Either way you slice it, all four of your illustrative shots are stunning.

I enjoy both mediums myself.

Gary

[Doc Henry]

 

.... Baltic Sea, Germany...

 

GraalMüritz (1 von 6).jpg

 

M4 + Zeiss Planar 2/50 - CHM100 - D76

 

 

 

....again Baltic Sea ...

 

GraalMüritz (5 von 6).jpg

 

M4 + Planar 2/50 - CHM100 - D76

 

 

 

...no differences in processing...it was quite dark at the moment when I shot the last picture, pushed with one stop... here is another one from the same film some days later but with more light, also pushed with one stop...Rugby in Berlin...I don't know where the grain is from...

 

Rugby (27 von 30).jpg

 

M4 + Summarit 2,5/75 - CHM100 - D76

 

 

Mathias,

The grain is really wonderful on these pictures.

This beautiful grain that many software photos want to imitate but that is not the same fortunately for the film.

What's CHM100 ?

Thanks for posting and you're always welcome 

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

Henry - I've been following this thread on and off but, throughout, keep on coming across numerous not so subtle digs at digital aspects, such as "digital grain." My feeling is that one can love film without hating digital. I also notice that you're interested in comparisons with digital, particularly the Leica M-Monochrom, about which you asked someone some pages back — it seems difficult to find things in this thread, so I don't have the reference.

 

I've been thinking for the last nine months been about returning to film and have started a thread called, Go back to film? Sell the M9-P/MM? Wanna talk me down? It's only three pages and has numerous examine of Tri-X and M-Monochrm shots that may interest you.

 

On page 3, I come to a conclusion (posts #92, 96 and 100) that, right now, as long as there is this excellent, small hand-development lab in Chiang Mai that I use, it’s worthwhile for me to continue shooting film — and, if I go back to digital, it is likely to be in “binges” of six months or a year and then return for a binge of film. 

 

Conceptually I've thought the following: if you think of two circles (digital and film) intersecting for the bulk of their areas, leaving on either side a crescent that does not intersect — take the crescent of the film circle: that's the area of film properties, or "look", that one cannot get from digital without "major fakery." That's what makes me interested in film. In the referenced thread someone on has been kind enough to draw these circles to make the concept vivid graphically.

 

An example of what drives my film shooting can be illustrated through the two sets of photographs below — one film, one digital; one set of unposed street portraits and the other a set of landscapes in the same locality. Now, remember I’m only thinking of 35mm and Tri-X for film, not taking into account medium format or slower films, which could change the size of the crescents.

 

M-Monochrom | DR Summicron-50 | ISO 320

Bangkok

 

M6 | DR-Summicron | Tri-X @ ISO 1600 | Stand development for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes

Chiang Mai

 

 

M-Monochrom | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640

Wiang Pa Pao

 

Leica M6 | DR Summicron-50mm | Tri-X @400 | Stand development in Rodinal

Wiang Pa Pao

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

Mitch difficult to compare because not the same shot.

But I already notice one thing the skin is whiter on the second photo and black is deeper black on the fourth

The fact that the face is smooth and perfect in the first picture catches me a little.

Is that in reality a skin is so perfect and so smooth like that ?

It is beautiful to see, it impresses at first, but it is not sustainable we look at the photo then we move to another...

The second portrait is perhaps imperfect but I find it less flat, more consistent, has thickness, the skin is not perfect.

And it is for this reason that I say "artistic" in the true sense of the term.

A skin is not smooth, anatomically speaking, in short not perfect, it has pores (well reproduced by grain of film) and are not smoothed.

Lines and edges of the faces or arms are soft not cutting and at the limit too sharp, too much accentuation of the "structure" in MM.

making the picture synthetic, flat , it is sharp everywhere. Reason : the camera software does not know the nuance it's a robot (reason : one single layer of photo diodes with square pixels "smoothed" by camera software). Not the case of film which has a certain thickness !

 

This is my first impression.

As Gary said the two supports are good, yes , but only for the immediate, the result right away and then that's all. A synthesis image through electronic pixels without more ... and I don't speak about moiré, aliaising that you already know etc....

With color is even more convincing need always correction like when I have color pictures with my 2 M digital.

A film is kept but a memory card we do not know with the evolution of computers maybe that in 10,20 years we can no longer see your pictures.

 

One last thing , an impression on b&w argentic paper is better than what we have with a post of 900 pixels long on a forum.

 

Thank you for your interest in the film and good photos.. and you are always welcome here.

Film is not dead , long live to film

 

One last thing, when I saw pictures here in MF , color as b&w , no need to spend money in an HD1 or S

 

Best regards

Henry

Edited November 30, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

Good luck with it Adam. Personally I don't enjoy the 'writing a narrative' aspect of presenting photos, unless they are actually telling some kind of specific story or history.

Yes, we might want to know a few details, who, where, how, but beyond that... I don't feel it personally, unless the text that is written comes from somewhere from before the photographs were taken.

 

Probably outside a French restaurant. Definitely from Sydney CBD backstreets, Ektar, MP. Probably 50 Summicron DR.

 

Coogee nice red and welcome to France

Adam is right

Thanks for posting

Best

Henry