Hi Dawid and all,
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>"Proud Truck Driver"
>At a long delay caused by road works in the middle of the Karoo (Cape
>Province, South Africa) this truck driver noticed me with my camera
>and wanted me to take his photograph.
><
http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs51/f/2009/260/6/c/Proud_Truck_Driver_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
Superb work. So life-like... I can nearly feel the smell of the tyres :-)
>Capture: OM-1n, 24/2.0 at f/5.6, PanF at ISO32, hand-held
Do you think is there a big difference between the response of PanF @ 32 vs.
the rated 50? Love that PanF, but I always expose it @ 50 -- or 100, as I do
with most cameras' meters.
>Print: 8x10 split-grade wet print, partially toned in Thiocarbamide
I never tried split-grade... seems interesting.
>"Grainy Decay"
>This is one of the first ever images I made through the OM system. The
>angelic serenity of the gracefully decaying leaves caught my eye.
><
http://fc09.deviantart.com/fs51/f/2009/260/f/4/Grainy_Decay_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
This one seems to lack some contrast, at least for my taste.
>Capture: OM-1n, 90/2.0 Macro at f/16, Ilford Delta3200, hand-held
>Print: 5x7in "straight" print (grade 3 or so) in the darkroom through
>a busted 50-year-old Agfa condenser enlarger, extremely emphasising
>the grain (I have later come to prefer the softer look of my current
>diffuser enlarger, it makes a HUGE difference)
My enlarger is of the condenser type, never tried a diffuser... the usual
advice is that the higher contrast of the condenser (with "silver" B&W film)
may be the payoff for the emphasized grain, dust and scratches. Do you
agree?
>"Apparition of Evil"
>Alone in the dark I saw this evil creature sitting on the wall. For
>the first time in ages, I felt fear of the dark. I know it's just a
>bunch of dead leaves, but it stirred something inside of me. I felt
>it... watching... me.
><
http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs51/f/2009/260/6/5/Apparition_of_Evil_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
Scary! ;^)
>Capture: OM-1n, 90/2.0 Macro at f/2.0 (45s exposure, it was PITCH
>dark), Ilford HP5 @ ISO400, tripod
>Digitisation: Directly scanned from film (evil!!) on V700
Not a bad result, though.
>"Montecasino Rearranged"
It's funny... I usually take some coffee at the 'Central - Montecassino' --
a restaurant in the past, now full of slot machines... with the busty
Ecuadorian waitress, etc. ;^)
>A scene outside of Montecasino, Fourways.
><
http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs50/f/2009/261/5/4/Montecasino_Rearranged_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
>Capture: OM-1n, 24/2.0 at f/2.0, Kodak TMZ P3200 @ ISO3200, around
>1/8s shutter speed, hand-held
Excellent work. It shows what the 24/2 can do -- in the hands of an expert,
of course.
>Comments: I know ISO3200 film has low resolution, but even so, there
>cannot be many 24mm lenses in the world that look this good at f/2.0.
>Also, see the amazing depth of field even at f/2.0 if you focus on a
>subject 5m+ away from the camera. Yet, focus close and the 24mm can
>render extremely shallow DOF. Such a versatile lens.
Couldn't agree more.
>"Playing Field"
>A very fast-running and vividly-coloured beetle on the beach. It was
>quite a task to sneak up on the little guy without him darting off. In
>this photograph, I wanted to emphasize the empty space available to
>this creature, which surely must be something amazing at this scale.
><
http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs50/f/2009/261/7/c/Playing_Field_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
I'm not a fan of beetles, but impressive picture however.
>Capture: OM-1n, 90/2.0 Macro at f/11, FP4 at ISO125, hand-held
>Print: 8x10in "straight" print (grade 1.5) in the darkroom through a
>busted 50-year-old Agfa condenser enlarger
<snip>
> I wish I captured this
>image on PanF.
Surely. I'm not a fan of FP4, either.
>"Starry Eyed"
>Just a snapshot of my wife in one of our favourite restaurants, and
>extremely dark restaurant lit only by candlelight (to hide the bad
>decor, I imagine :-) The diagonal was an experiment, it makes the shot
>feel a bit "uneasy" yes, but I felt I wanted to capture "more" than
>what was in a level frame.
><
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs51/f/2009/261/3/3/Starry_Eyed_by_philosomatographer.jpg
>
>Capture: OM-1n, 24/2.0 at f/2.0, Ilford HP5+ at ISO400, hand-held,
>around 1/4s
Great composition and tonal range. It doesn't look like a 24mm shot.
And steady hands, BTW ;^)
>Comments: Why does anybody need ISO 25,600 again?
Never say never...
>GRAIN
>Wow, scanning 35mm film directly sucks (compared to making a darkroom
>print and scanning the print).
Interesting observation, especially Re: grain.
>Bottom-line: If you are into doing film (in
>this day and age) don't ever bother with scanning film directly, it's
>exceptionally poor compared to making analogue prints.
The problem is when you have a colour slide :-(
>The second grain-related observation, is the massive difference
>between a diffusion and a condenser enlarger.
Another interesting conclusion. Is there an 'universal' way to make a
condenser enlarger behave like a diffuser one? I mean, putting some kind of
diffuser in the filter drawer or so...
>RESOLUTION
>With higher-ISO film, who cares about resolution? It's all about the
>look.
It's my hands what usually put the resolution limit on my pics...
Very nice work and comments, thanks for sharing.
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
