'Sikh Textile Merchant - Thailand - 1994'

This Sikh (Indian high caste) textile merchant has his street portrait

taken in a merchant's busy alleyway in Bangkok's Chinatown,

hailand with a film camera. This is from 1994, but is it's first showing

anywhere, and although it Is classified as rework and rescan, it

simply is a new scan and first exposition. Your ratings, critiques and

observations are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very

critically or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge to

help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

Thank you!  (for letting me know, not for ranking it highly; as I don't reward for high marks, but for commenting I give big thanks).

john

John (Crosley)

Hi John, this is a great portrait. I like the close crop and very evident grain in the film. The tone and high contrast also make for a very nice picture. I do however feel that it is a tad out of focus, especially around the eyes where a little detail is missing. Otherwise I think it's great.

I looked at the negative scan and assure you it was in focus, even on the eyes, but overall the quality of this capture for sharpness is not the best and part of that just is comparing film to digital.

This was taken with a wonderful lens, a legendary portrait lens, an 85mm f 1.8 portrait/short tele AI Nikkor manual lens, but the film was subject to extremes and I think might have had some deterioration due to high head/humidity from Bangkok and other extremes and maybe even poor processing.  

Come to think of it, probably most of all, poor processing, because I can't fault equipment or focus, but can fault the high amount of grain for a daylight Tri-X capture.

In those days I didn't develop and just took things to the drug store -- that was all that was available where I lived -- later Bay Photo's little local stores developed into one giant nationwide leading processing system, but then it was just local stores and a gleam in its founder's eye and from each store it seemed quality varied somewhat, even if processing was done centrally -- for reasons I think now lost in history.

A close friend about that time or shortly after ran all their operations in one capacity or another, then ran a 'franchised' Bay Photo store about the time digital took off and went bankrupt -- just sorry timing because he was a terrific businessman and a wonderful guy and mentor -- all because of a quirky changeover in the way photos were taken.  He'd know the answer to all Bay Photo historical questions, but he's now far away and mostly out of touch, sadly.

This nice guy depicted had once worked on cruise ships (serving American passengers from the East Coast?) I think, and at least had been to America (whether or not he had worked on cruise ships). 

For a Sikh in Bangkok's Chinatown back textile alley, he had been around and was most patient with me as I fumbled about, being out of practice and reviving my photography temporarily to satisfy a friend in Germany who was both a photo student and instructor and by now has become a very famous photographer (of dance).

(See her depicted in my photo - The Nude Photography Class -- which she taught and invited me to as her guest.)

It also may be that this negative was slightly overexposed -- making it thicker and more grainy -- I don't think it's any longer available for comparison.  Perhaps also the grain  got 'clumped' in processing because of wrong temperature/wrong chemical balance.  Things were more complex in those days even if you took things to the 'drug store' - because very often they were incompetent, and unless you took film to a pro lab or did it yourself, you were at someone else's mercy -- God help you sometimes.

Thanks for the helpful comment.

john

John (Crosley)

On a second look, in addition to far too much grain from a thick negative, I was using a lens with a VERY SHALLOW depth of field in a shadowy area, and I think I recall I used a pretty high shutter speed, which means I think I shot this pretty close to wide open or even 'wide open' which means the depth of field with this f 1.8 lens was very narrow, so parts (planes) would be in focus while near planes (forward and backward) would not be in pleasing focus -- due to the shallow depth of field.  It may not have been wide open, but sufficiently wide to create that effect.

On viewing the photo, that's the best explanation I can give for focus, together with the grain (with whatever is the proper explanation for that, above).

It was NOT the lens for sure/it was one of the sharpest lenses in my kit.  However, if I had just come out into the humidity from inside Chinatown's air conditioned hotel, it may have picked up a patina of moisture, causing 'fog' on the lens, that I was unaware of - Bangkok is HOT and HUMID almost year around except around March or so and a little bit around December when it's a little moderate.

john

John (Crosley)

If the photo does not pass the test (by your own admission) does "why" matter?

This is a place for critique.

These are old and sometimes historic photos, and I'm exposing at least this one for the first time.

I'm interested to find which pass the test and even which may soar (one or two have done VERY well on reposting as reworked. 

This is not a repost and is the first time anyone's ever seen it; I value others' opinions.  its drawbacks are not too substantial on consideration but probably would keep it out of an exhibition if there ever were one.

That's all and that's why I seek others' opinions - they count for more than a little sometimes and keep me from being too myopic or even self-deluded.

john

John (Crosley)

So what was it that was scanned? Certainly not the negative. A flatbed scan (reduced to a few kilobytes) of a 4x6 print from the "local store" is not a serious image to post. Not an image that adds value to your portfoilo. You have lots of imgages that do not have to be defended. As for grain. I like grain.

I just read "I looked at the negative scan and assure you it was in focus" implying you scanned the negative. So why was the scan not posted?  If the negative scan was in focus the posted image would be in focus. If the negative was scanned (I doubt) then the scanner would be the weak link in the chain and the most likely cause for the fuzziness....not fog or processing.

'In focus' is subjective and varies according to a number of factors.

I'm not going to have more colloquy with you on this matter.

I appreciate that you are consumed with the issue, but I am not.    I have said what I'm going to say.

john

John (Crosley)