robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Flare or glow - the discussion goes on and on; butno matter what camera or lens at our disposal, it's all about capturing and using light in a way that is satisfying to the photographer. Win some, lose plenty. I was happy with this one... This image was taken with a 1929 Lieca IA - in available light, handheld by pulling the case strap tight to my face - braced against a post - exposure about 2 seconds with the old Elmar wide open - using an old Elmar hood. Film: Jessops brand 200 ASA Diamond. D&P shop processing.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terence_mahoney1 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 <i>no matter what camera or lens at our disposal, it's all about capturing and using light in a way that is satisfying to the photographer.</i></p>My job would be much easier if I had only to satisfy myself. Not that I'm not my own toughest critic, but I do know my likes and dislikes whereas clients are strangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Yes Terence - I understand that stricture. Thanks - got carried away - and - sadly - that brings me back to earth and the real world. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_bruxelles Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 1932 Leica II with uncoated 50mm Elmar.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmdelux Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Looks great, Rob. Color film makes all the diff IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_morris4 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Rob, is that red buoy picture a crop? It's funny that the building (and white boats) look sharp and clear on the right side, but soft at the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Hi Paul - John John - yes - the left side cropped; and I wonder about the softness there. I thought it might be the intensity of the light - and its vibrations - rather than just out of focus. I didn't crop because of the softness - just to concentrate the image. Paul - I love the way the old lens worked here. Daylight film, too. Thanks guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Here's another from the same evening. It works for me - but maybe not for others. I anticipated some blur with the 2 second handheld exposure - but I think it enhances rather than detracts from the atmosphere. Same camera, lens, and film. About the softness on the left of the previous pic, I have another from a little further along the waterfront that shows the same effect: the more intense reflected light showing up as vibration?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian bastin Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Oh wow that's wonderful, Rob. I want to join in this discussion - soon as I can ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly04 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 1935 Leica IIIa, uncoated 1935 Summar 2/50, 1/8th second (I think) handheld, Kodak MAX 400, commercial processing<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Hi Adrian - nice to see you here. Those pics were taken with the old Leica I we once talked about. It's been working overtime. What a great camera and lens! The light's been good, and - for me - light is what it's all about. Chat soon Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Jack - lovely smooth image from that Summar. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly04 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Another, similar. I love the Summar glow.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 The only fun glowing thing I saw was in the movie Skin Deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 You haven't seen Liquid Sky, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian bastin Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Rob, I don't believe Terence was delivering a stricture, or that he meant that he was inhabiting the 'real world'. I don't agree with him that things are simpler when doing what one wants and without constraints from others. Hockney gave a talk at the art school where I was doing graphic design - years ago - his argument was that the only difference between graphics, or commercial, art and fine art is who sets the brief, - you or someone else. It made quite an impression - at least on us graphics students - though, perhaps, it was a bit simplistic (my interpretation, maybe). There is a difference between the application of this notion to photography and to painting/drawing; though, as Robs work shoows, this difference is perhaps becomeing vague ; an image is an image. I never did go into a commercial studio because the point at which I get touchy about being dictated to about what I do is not deep burried, (and I never had a family - I wonder why !) but I've kept a certain amount of professionalism towards clients for portraits and the like. Don't know if I've said bugger all, there. Adrian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Rob -- for what it's worth, that softening looks more like a scanning problem to me. Check the negs on a lightbox with a loupe. They should still be sharp, as it is probably just that your negative holder (or whoever's did the scanning) is not holding the film flat. Of course, it could also be a film flatness problem with the pressure plate of the IA....it is 77 years old after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robweatherburn Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Guys - thanks for all the input - and the comments and comparisons. Stuart - appreciate you raising the possibility of film not being held flat - either in the camera or scanner. I'll try and check it, although I haven't noticed this area softening with normal daylight exposures. Cheers Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon larbalestier Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Here's a recent one shot with the 35/1.4 pre ASPH lux @1.4 tx400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Perhaps the difficulty in knowing whether to call it "flare" or "glow" is that it may be a combination of these things contributing to the unique signature. It just might be, that we should call it "flow" -- a portmanteau word, after the manner of Lewis Carroll, honoring both attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian bastin Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 ....which beggs "glare". One isn't known as a "shining wit" for nothing ! Were Carrol and Spooner acquainted ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian bastin Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Read as 'begs' and 'Carroll'... dear oh dear.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now