Enchanted Lily

I used a Gralfex 4x5 camera.. i dunno how or why it turned out like

this...

 

thanks!!

I'd say that you either

 

A) Have a beat up lens (fungus or plenty of scratches)or ate a pepperoni pizza and globbed a nice fat thumb print there. Open up the aperture, set the shutter to "B", open it and look through the lens at a point source (a light bulb) and see if it's a sharp image or diffuse.

 

B) You lost contrast from internal relections (e.g. should have used a lens hood)

 

C) You printed the photo yourself with an old diffuser enlarger with the aperture wide open

 

D) You printed the photo yourself and your chemicals were exhausted.

 

E) Any or all of the above.

 

Am I right?

 

Contrary to Mr. Elicks diatribe, I like this photo. I reminds me of work that f/64 used to produce (the creative group, not the aperture).

 

To see MY images, click on the attachment, and select "open file from current location", and it will take you to my photo.net folder.

Well the lens is sharp. I did have it wide open.

 

I would guess something to do with developement.

This was done at home..

I think that it is stunning! In my humble opinion it makes me feel serene and I think that you did a very good job.

I agree with Michael Zellhorn about the serenity of this image. To me, it is lovely, mysterious and intriguing. It makes me want to peek behind the dark recesses of the lillies to see if winged fairies are hiding there, and the slightly unfocussed quality compliments the mysterious feel. I'm curious to know what Douglas Elick was so pissed off about when he commented on this image. Thanks for the "enchanting" pic, Pete!

I too agree with Michael Zellhorn. I think that it is stunning! I think that

you did a very good job! The whole thing looks so peaceful and wonderful.

 

 

im not sure what a speed grahic is, is it a 5/4 camera, if it is i cant understand why hes put non film in, i think if its done with 5/4 its often possible to open up the lens much further than on smaller formats, it is often common practice when doing 5/4 portaits to put a stocking over the enlarger lens when printing, the reason being that at such high quility every bump and hair is visible, i think its been shot normaly and printed with a stocking over the lens to soften it. did you do that?

There's no focal point.... it appears to be out of focus (although that may be the scan), depth of field needs sorting out (either have non focal points completely out of focus... or completely in... having them 'nearly' in focus looks bloody awful with this subject matter) composition is dire.

Very nice 'feel'. I seriously doubt that anything was _wrong_ with the lens, development, or printing. The soft, glowing effect that makes this image special can be caused by opening the lens all the way up and placing a reflective subject against a dark one. The shallow DOF (possibly combined with slight 'mis'focus) creates a halo around the highlights. A soft filter (much like the nylon stocking idea) will also do this.

It is fairly obvious that you have an attractive photo here.

Anybody actually think he may have used tungsten lights, a trick filter, and a soft focus attachment? I'm also thinking infrared film. He wanted us to rack our brains, or he would have told us what was up with it. I've been looking at this guys work, and he's no joker. Think people.