Jump to content
fotografr

Ancient Work #03

Recommended Posts

Leslie Schultz spoke and read in our little town just this August.  She was very well received by the public and critics. Oh, she is also easy on the eyes.

 

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, a fine portrait. I believe the grain you refer to actually allows the eyes to have a greater clarity in contrast to it.

The image also a has a Mona Lisa quality, whatever that is worth. I actually prefer your pic. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pico said:

Leslie Schultz spoke and read in our little town just this August.  She was very well received by the public and critics. Oh, she is also easy on the eyes.

 

That's very interesting. When I did this photo her name was Leslie Schultz-Black. I guess Mr Black is no longer in her life. It's fascinating to dig out these old portraits, mostly done as part of a news story, then try to find what the person has done over all these years. Is she still this attractive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fotografr said:

This one's from 1983. At the time I took it the woman, Leslie Schultz, had just published some writing (poetry, I think) that was well received. She went on to publish several books. I'm not crazy about the portrait, but it reminds me of the grain we used to have to deal with when shooting low light situations. This was shot at 1600 ISO. We have it so much easier now.

 

 

The sharpness and her loveliness makes up for the grain, which I think adds to the character of the shot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, A miller said:

and you gave up film photography why???

Big mistake IMHO...

I really had no choice. In the span of two years, 1999-2000, virtually every one of my clients (mostly magazine & newspaper editors) were insisting on digital files. This was not only a speed issue, but also cost. I was able to send digital files which could go directly to print (no halftones) via upload as opposed to shipping film either via FedEx or counter-to-counter on a commercial airline at significant cost, and which then had to be processed in-house and scanned.  I held out as long as I could and was determined to finish my career with film, but it wasn't possible for the type of work I was doing. It would have been economic suicide for my business had I not switched over.

Edited by fotografr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I really had no choice. In the span of two years, 1999-2000, virtually every one of my clients (mostly magazine & newspaper editors) were insisting on digital files. This was not only a speed issue, but also cost. I was able to send digital files which could go directly to print (no halftones) via upload as opposed to shipping film either via FedEx or counter-to-counter on a commercial airline at significant cost, and which then had to be processed in-house and scanned.  I held out as long as I could and was determined to finish my career with film, but it wasn't possible for the type of work I was doing. It would have been economic suicide for my business had I not switched over.

All fair enough in so fat as it goes.   But the vast majority of the photos that you have shared on LUF have been non-work personal photos, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I really had no choice. [... pardon my editing ...] I held out as long as I could and was determined to finish my career with film, but it wasn't possible for the type of work I was doing. It would have been economic suicide for my business had I not switched over.

You are a genuine photographer who worked through the migration from  film to today's digital. You migrated to the prevalent digital paradigm in order to continue contributing to the benefit of the rest of us and I deeply appreciate your tenacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A miller said:

All fair enough in so fat as it goes.   But the vast majority of the photos that you have shared on LUF have been non-work personal photos, no?

Not really. Probably two-thirds have been work related. The theater work I've posted has all been client related, the vast majority of portrait work has been done on assignment. Even the scenics have mostly been either directly for clients (calendars, story illustrations) or for stock. It's only been in the last year or so that I've stopped shooting for income and at this point I'd have a hard time going back to film. I still have an appreciation for it but it would be like going back to vinyl for my music. I'd have to reinvest in all the equipment for it.

Plus, there's the absolutely wonderful MM 1, which in my opinion produces very beautiful film-like images. I enjoy using it almost as much as I enjoyed my last film cameras, the MPs.

 

Edited by fotografr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fotografr said:

Not really. Probably two-thirds have been work related. The theater work I've posted has all been client related, the vast majority of portrait work has been done on assignment. Even the scenics have mostly been either directly for clients (calendars, story illustrations) or for stock. It's only been in the last year or so that I've stopped shooting for income and at this point I'd have a hard time going back to film. I still have an appreciation for it but it would be like going back to vinyl for my music. I'd have to reinvest in all the equipment for it.

Horses for courses, Brent.  I respect your decision, even though I don't fully comprehend it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it a lot Brent. It looks by far better and has more style than any digital photo which has been "analogized" on the PC. You have more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, benqui said:

Like it a lot Brent. It looks by far better and has more style than any digital photo which has been "analogized" on the PC. You have more?

Thanks very much. I'm in the process of sifting through more than a half-million negatives, most of which you wouldn't want to see. But as I come across some that I think might be interesting to people on the forum I'll be posting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I empathize 100% with Brent on this. I too spent most of my life shooting film. For me, a common scenario was load two Leica M's (in the dark!) and shoot 13 rolls of 800iso  35mm c/n at a full dress rehearsal of whatever theatrical event. Typical out of pocket expense for the shoot was $500+. In  latter years I switched to digital (when I judged it was up scratch) and suddenly found myself with $500+ left in my pocket, plus my 'shootability' lifted dramatically. This was with respect to the particular style of work I was engaged in. Privately, I still shoot film (for the love of it) when I can afford it and I still own more film cameras than digital, whatever that means.

Both media have their specific parameters of superiority but should never be compared as "which one is better!" I do shoot more digital than film these days, but I did spend one whole year shooting exclusively a Leica 111f, excluding paid work, and published a book "12 Month's With A Leica 111f". There is no doubt in my mind that the camera(s) one uses does have an influence on one's work and this is a great reason to consider varying what you use, if only to freshen up your style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a book I'd very much enjoy seeing. The contents are undoubtedly as stunning as the kit positioned in front of it. What a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 2:39 PM, fotografr said:

That's a book I'd very much enjoy seeing. The contents are undoubtedly as stunning as the kit positioned in front of it. What a great idea.

Brent, my website lost the link, but here is a direct link to Blurb, where you can peruse the book. I hope you enjoy it.

http://au.blurb.com/distribution?id=5040722/#/project/5040722

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, erl said:

Brent, my website lost the link, but here is a direct link to Blurb, where you can peruse the book. I hope you enjoy it.

http://au.blurb.com/distribution?id=5040722/#/project/5040722

For some reason, the link won't let me in. It keeps making me sign in and since I have a Blurb account, it takes me to my own books but won't show me yours. Perhaps I have to register for the Australian version. I'd like to try a test. Here's a link to one of my books. Please let me know if you're able to open and preview it. Thanks.

http://www.blurb.com/b/2334383-we-are-wisconsin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fotografr said:

For some reason, the link won't let me in. It keeps making me sign in and since I have a Blurb account, it takes me to my own books but won't show me yours. Perhaps I have to register for the Australian version. I'd like to try a test. Here's a link to one of my books. Please let me know if you're able to open and preview it. Thanks.

http://www.blurb.com/b/2334383-we-are-wisconsin

Nope. It won't work for me. There must some blocking/checking system at Blurb that only lets the 'owner' of the links in by that route.

I will (later in the day) look for  a method of access. It must exist or what is the point of it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, erl said:

Nope. It won't work for me. There must some blocking/checking system at Blurb that only lets the 'owner' of the links in by that route.

I will (later in the day) look for  a method of access. It must exist or what is the point of it all?

Or it could be that the Australian and USA systems are not cross compatible. Maybe I need to sign up on the Aussie side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×