mark_l

Hi,

<p>

I asked this question on one of my photos, but would like to hear

from the members of this forum as well. In these types of photos, is

having a working knowledge of flash photography a necessity/added

value? Does using it take away some of the "natural" look of the

shots, even though I used some bounce cards to reflect some light

back in the shadow area? </p>

<p>

I love shooting in available light, and generally dislike the look of

flash photography, but am wondering if I'm missing out (in regards to

this type of photos) because there are several photographers here who

use flash in ways that appear non-typically "flash". I hope that

makes sense, any thoughts?

</p>

Here's the link to the work in question: <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=401113">Link</a>

Hi Anya,

 

I recently did a photo shoot with just this exact type of photography in mind. We had a makeup artist do the makeup, and she used a lighter shade of red lipstick, maybe halfway between light pink and regular red. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=339481&ratings=false is the folder where some of the photos were posted. I used PlusX 125 in HC110e to develop. The thing we wanted to avoid was too dark a color for the lips. Using the darker pink gave us enough darkness for that glamour look, but also allowed for the lip texture to come through. A key thing was to use a lip pencil to outline the bow shape of the lips for that really defined clean classic look.

 

Eye makeup, you can see what we did. Accenting the eyes with mascara and eyeliner heavier on top, lighter on bottom and making sure the brows are also darker, and defined makes for a more appropriate look. The attached photo is PS'd for the color shot, but looks fairly representative of the actual colors. Also attached is my shooting partner's shot on Kodak T400CN to help you see how the colors translated. Hope this helps!<div></div>

Hi Mark,

 

I use Plus-X exclusively right now as my primary B/W film. Previously, I used the C41 chromogenics and was very happy with them, rated at EI200, but wanted to try my hand at traditional processing of b/w. I tried a roll each of Tri-X and APX100, before settling on PlusX125 in 35mm format. I develop with HC110 dilution E.

 

Tri-X for my tastes was a bit too grainy. APX 100 is nice, but for 36 exp is more expensive then Plus X. It is definitely less grainy then Plus-X, but Plus X has a really nice look (to my eyes) that resembles the Robert Capa shots from his book Robert Capa: Photographs. I have some recent ones in my photo.net portfolio that you can look through. There are shots from XP2Super, T400CN, Plus-X, and I think an HP5+ shots.

 

For speed, 125 is fast enough for me, especially since I can handhold a 100mm/2.8 lens at 1/60th with pretty sharp results. I like it also because I can do selective focus in daylight, whereas with a 400 speed film, I'd have to shoot with a really closed down aperture.

 

My best response, and this is the one that other forum people gave me when I first ventured out is to buy a roll of each, shoot what you normally shoot, and develop in the developer of YOUR choice. Then you can figure out what you like best for YOU. I had thought Tri-X would have been my end all be all since it was used in so many people's work here on photo.net that I respected and admired. But for my uses, Plus-X turned out to be the one I liked best. Good luck and have fun!

First one is Tri X, and second is Velvia? I'm basing this on the very deep blacks of the 2nd one, and the more open crispness of the first. Whichever one it ends up being, I still definitely prefer the look of the first one, albeit improved by a bit of burning in. The second one looks kinda mushy for some reason.

I have a Hewes SS reel as well, and the same thing happened to me. What I found is that the leader section has to be snipped more than I thought, or else the tail end will not fit within the reel and hang over. I made the mistake of snipping off the tail part to fit, and ended up cutting out 3 frames. But no splotches on what was left!

I'd bring my two Canon Ae-1/Ae-1 Program for Plus-X in one, Reala in the other. 28/2.8 with polarizer, 50/1.4SSC (for available light), and 100/2.8. I wouldn't bring a tripod or monopod, since with a bit of creativity I could likely find a variety of ways to prop the cameras, and the monopod/tripod adds bulk and too many options. Less options leads to less worrying about what to use when and more enjoyment of where I'm travelling. I'd probably would get a Lowepro backpack style camera bag too, and use it as a daypack and as my carry on luggage. That's pretty much it.

I used to have that problem with an older BT-55, and this is my solution. Take a piece of transparent tape (Scotch tape) (about 1") and tape it across the groove of the hood, so that it kinda dips and follows that groove. The problem with the fit is that they used these little rubber inserts that degrade or flatten with age. The tape makes the hood "stick" more since it lessens the slack. Its very effective, and if you use two pieces of tape, in different places, it works even better. Hope that helps!

HC110E/Plus-x<div></div>

I would recommend an Elan II/IIe. Before I went back to Canon FD, I had a Canon EOS system based around an Elan 2 and was very happy with it. It does exactly what I want it to do, with a better viewfinder than the Elan 7 (imho). I only went back to my FD system because I could get more lenses for a given budget and I prefer shooting manually for most functions. The prices you are looking at are a bit high for the first 3. The Eos 5 I have seen go for 250, the Elan 1 for 100-125, and the Elan 2 for average 125-150. Check the "auction site" or the photo.net classifieds.

Las Vegas<div></div>

Lex,

 

I really like the idea that you of the photo.net galleries being presented as if by an art gallery curator. Given the varied tastes of many of photo.net's contributors and members, it would be fun to have a day assigned to you in which you, as a photo.net member, could highlight those photos that you felt were worthy of sharing with the general photo.net public. It is a positive, creative, and fun way to bring added exposure to those artists and photographers whose works were overshadowed by this whole (unnecessary) ratings/counterratings drama.

 

Granted, at most, there would be 365 curators out of I don't know how many members, but the idea is that on any given day, the gallery would hopefully reflect different tastes of that particular curator.

 

I'm thinking that at the very least, it should be an option on the gallery page, such as "Today's Guest Curator is: (insert name)" and the curator could have a little paragraph explaining what kind of photography appeals to them and why. Imagine the educational value of this, to see what motivates a person to like the photographs that they do, and see how how broad or narrow an umbrella that encompasses.

 

This can be in addition to whatever system exists right now, so you could have the POW, the Portfolio choice of the week (which is a great addition to the front page), and then the Guest Curator's Gallery of the week. It could be the top photo chosen from the top 25 photographers of that person's choice, and in that vein, would lead to at least a starting point to see other photographer's work other than the "Top Rated Photos" type thing, in a relatively cohesive manner (since its one single person's perspective on what they want to *share* with the rest of the photo.net populace).

 

This idea is so powerful because it strengthens what I consider one of Photo.net's weakenesses, which is that a diverse body of work is not readily available to the visitor. So far, the best way I have gone about looking for new photographers work to examine is via the No Words posts common in some forums. This would be a helpful tool to streamline that process.

Ray Haack:

 

"Mark, it's like jumping in the water, just jump, then take the interaction as it comes. Don't allow fear to overwhelm you, use it as a charge to get you going. The more you do it the more interesting it becomes. If you have some successes it will help your confidence, and legitimize in your own mind what you're doing. Know your limitations, but keep testing them. Many people are flattered at the interest, or are just cool and go with the flow, and that can lead to good interaction. Even those who react negatively end up being an interesting experience. Most are so busy with what they're doing that they hardly notice you and your camera or don't notice at all. Often you can snap before anyone even knows what happened. But there's no one way to do it. Keeping a smile on your face goes a long way. A camera can be a great vehicle for getting out and exploring the world- I always have the attitude of just being curious about everything. Enjoy yourself and take chances, you'll be rewarded."

 

john van rosendaal:

 

"And Mark, I felt some of the same trepidations last week when I did some street shooting for the first time in a long time, esp. since my Canon 10D is not as small as a digicam or a Leica M. I was shooting in Chicago and found that people were either to much in a hurry to bother with me, didn't notice me in time to even care or liked the idea of having their picture taken. I ended up chatting with a few people after they noticed me. Digital is actually nice for that, because you can show them the picture you just took. There was one girl with a cool t-shirt that I saw walking by. I went up to her to ask if I could take her picture. She was fine with that and turned out to have a great smile. I once read that street photography is basically no problem as long as you're not sneaky and smile a lot. That has worked for me in Chicago, Illinois and earlier in Damascus, Syria."

 

Thanks btw for the encouraging and informative responses to that posting.

Hi!

 

Down below in Marc Williams post, I asked a few questions regarding

how one goes about photographing strangers with/without permission,

etc. I'm posting some of the answers after just for continuity. I

realized something after posting, regarding the use of rangefinders

and street photography.

 

From my (limited) experience shooting in this genre, I have found

that the quietness of a rangefinder (my QL17) is great when inside

quiet places like a museum. Not necessarily because people won't

know I'm there, but more because its kind of impolite to be making

loud noises. However, and this is what is intruiging to me, when I'm

shooting with my much louder Canon FD cameras, I don't feel so self-

conscious. I think its because they are readily heard and seen, so I

don't feel like I am sneaking around.

 

I still am not naturally inclined to photograph strangers, but the

very fact that my SLR's are more likely to be noticed makes me less

nervous about photographing them. I figure, if they make an attempt

to avoid my lens, or not be photographed, I just won't photograph

them. Otherwise, its like an implied permission. What are your

thoughts?

I have a question too. I went out today to shoot some photos for the shootout, and was in a restaurant. The decor was 50's style diner (Ruby's, for those who know of it), and one of the waitresses had an incredible smile. There were several opportunities to either take a photo of the subject talking with another waitress, with the kitchen staff in action behind her, or ask her permission to take a photo of her at the cashier's. The whole time, I lacked the necessary resolve to take the photo, and it really kinda bummed me out the rest of the day. What method do you street shooters use to get over this internal conflict, to the point where you get your shot, especially if you generally tend towards the introverted side when it comes to strangers? Or are the successful street photographers here just naturally extroverted? Nonetheless, this idea was great since I actually got myself out there and shot some photos, even if they all turn out bad. Thanks!

I like the second one better, but with some adjustments. I think the first one is initially more striking due to the more vibrant colors. It benefits from an almost abstract graphic quality. But at the same time, it is not as powerful, due to the flat lighting (fill flash?).

 

The second one, after I did some post processing in Photoshop, seems the better photo. Once I dropped the shadows down to near black, its made the colors pop more. There was more a sense of depth and mystery, compounded with the lighting the suggests high noon in the desert...makes the photo more about something than just colors. Hope you don't mind the tweaking I did.<div></div>

One time I had a Vivitar lens mismounted on my AE1, and it was jammed as well. What I did was slowly work the lens back and forth from the body, while putting pressure upwards (away from the deepest set area) and it came off. I don't know if your's is jammed due to mismounting but if it is, try it. Otherwise, I would use those wrenches with the rubber loops as the gripping surface and attempt to remove the lens. Hope that helps!

Hi Todd,

 

I don't know which software you are using, but it could be the resizing algorithim that causes you have to have wierd looking digital photos. I do know that when you size down to half or quarter the original size of the scan/image, the perceived image looks smoother. Also, I reworked your image a little, adding in a bit more saturation in the mid-high tones, and colorbalancing it towards warm. Done in Photoshop 7.<div></div>

I shot quite a bit of XP2 Super and Kodak T400CN. Experiment with what you like, but for my photos, rating it at EI200 gave me the best results. Very deep and rich blacks, white whites. XP2 Super is very easy to print and scan, and I'd recommend that if you do digital or traditional darkroom. I did get better neutral prints from 400CN though. XP2 Super sometimes came back more green/blue, but that's really the photofinisher's problem, rather than the film. You can see the grain and contrast in some of my photos. Here's a link <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=288245"> Link </a>

Hi,

<p>

I just finished reading Robert Capa: Photographs, who coincidentally

is featured on an upcoming PBS special. I had previously considered

photojournalism to be based on a strictly neutral viewpoint, but I

was struck by some words in that book, wherein Robert Capa says

(paraphrasing from memory) that he photographs things that represent

what he believes in, because if he has to die while photographing, it

had better be something that he agrees with. Something to that

effect, I'm sure someone can correct me.

<p>

But the gist that I got was how powerful photography can be. It

doesn't have to be bereft of humanity, or controversy, or something

that smacks of a personality if we are talking about journalism. It

can be a way of interpreting the world, instead of merely reporting

it.

<p>

I was further reminded of this when I ran across an online article

about Diane Walker (<a

href="http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/dw_intro.html"> Link To

Diane Walker article</a>). Her work covering five of our Presidents

(United States) is simply amazing. The depth to her photos, and the

context with which she annotates them is powerful and affecting.

<p>

Sometimes it seems that there is a tendency to shy away from things

that appear less than ideal. For example, all the airbrushing that

goes on in Maxim, FHM, etc. Not to say that type of photography

doesn't have merits of its own, but when I think back to the type of

photography that affects me, photos that can cause change or at least

reflection...they are photos such as these.

<p>

One thing I also noted viewing Diane's work from that link was that I

could not ascertain what her political viewpoints were. I

appreciated that, since it allowed me to view each president with my

own eyes, uncolored by a strident pro/anti viewpoint. Robert Capa's

work also did much of the same as well.

<p>

Sometimes when there were anti-war photographs posted in recent

months, it seemed obvious to me that the photographer was projecting

a definitive viewpoint. The photographs that I appreciated most were

ones that said less about "think this way"....but more about "this is

the way some people think". For me, Diane Walker's and Robert Capa's

work accomplished this. What are your thoughts on this matter, and

what photographers had an impact on you?

<p>

Actually, I think both of you can be right. I understand what John is saying, that his objective is to create the mood/ambience/perception of a upscale nightclub, with the shadows and swagger imparting a certain feel that he wants to come across as being associated with his "product". Sort of along the lines of Crate and Barrel ads, where its less about a specific product, but about an image of a world it wants to present.

 

Abercrombie does the same with alot of its ads, since it seems to want to project an Ivy League motif, even if the models are half clothed, or the clothes aren't front and center as the subject.

 

I also can see the other viewpoints. I think Mike has a point in that what you are aiming to do might not necessarily be what your photos are achieving. The other significant point that I recall was that your products aren't getting the limelight. In view of your stated objectives, I see this as just being a point of difference between yourself and other's POV regarding product placement photography vs product photography.

 

But, echoing Mike again, I think in terms of product placement, your layout may not be presenting your perspective in the best manner. I think if you want to create more of the ambience of the club, of hip hop, etc...I would suggest less zoomed in images, and more ones inclusive of the environment. Not to make the environment the keynote, but at least include enough of it to give a taste. Also, the last image with the lady getting makeup done seems a bit stilted. The others appear more inline with your objective, but may benefit from a more critical eye.

 

In ads for some of the Las Vegas nightclubs (Studio 54, etc.), I think they included more crowd shots intermixed with a pseudo lounge setting with people interacting in a way that both set the mood and perceptions for the viewer in terms of the "fun" they might expect, as well as give a sense of the club itself. The photos projected upscale by virtue of the clothing and attire, and expressions on the model's faces.

 

My impression (and this is only my opinion) is that the photos by and large imply a gentleman's club scene due in part to clothing choice, but more importantly by the models' expressions. First layout has one lady with legs apart and coy look on her face. I can see why some attribute this look to "soft porn". I know that's not what you intended, but if some viewers are reading that as such, you might consider that a bit.

I was wondering which would give me a cleaner, less grainy image:

Plus X at 125 or Tri-X at 200. Also, if shooting Tri-X (new) at 200,

do I need to adjust my times or just develop normally? Thanks for any

tips.

I think the image looks strange due to a combination of factors. One is that the image is placed in a PS-looking frame. It distracts from the image. Another thing is the rail on the right side. We only see the fade into OOF on the right side, since the girl's arm blocks the rail on the other side. It makes it look uneven. Additionally, the converging rails place the OOF areas on the same line as her head, but her head is sharp. So the two seem mismatched. Kind of like an optical illusion.

 

I attached the image taken out of its drop shadow frame, and the right rail erased (very quick job....just to illustrate). It appears more natural now and more similar to the one that Dennis posted.<div></div>

I use the developer one-shot (5ml in 235 water) so that isn't necessarily an issue. For the fixer, I'm not sure if it oxidizes and gets exhausted....from the archived material, it appears not.

I just finished processing my first roll of film (Tri-X in HC110,

Dilution E) and it seems pretty successful. One thing I did that

saved me a bit of money on film clips, was to use a hangar and attach

to large paperclips to it. Bend the outermost prong of the clip

outward (about 45 degrees) and put it through one of the sprockets on

either side of the 35mm neg. Cheap and easy, and it won't fall down

and muss up your negs.

 

I do the same thing for drying my RC paper. Get another hanger,

attach a large paper clip to it, and then attach a Triangle Type Clip

(the kind that have a metal clip and two handles that bend back and

forth. It won't damage your paper, and it holds my paper securely as

well (5x7").

 

Also, when I'm premixing my chemicals for processing in my one-roll

tank, I use old Martinelli Apple Juice containers (about the size of

a drink box, but round. I mix in the chemicals, put on the lid, and

agitate to mix. Then, when I'm saving the fixer, I put it back in the

bottle, and cap it. Space saver, and its just the right size for one

rolls.

 

Finally, the recommendation for the Hewes stainless steel reels in

previous postings was greatly appreciated. Its so easy to use, and

the film really does feed itself. A good way to practice without

wasting a roll is to get an exposed film processed but left uncut.

Then try threading that roll as your practice. No waste!

I like this photo, and think it would look great in panoramic cropping. Makes it look like a French art-house cinema still.<div></div>