robiek

A closeup (portrait)still life of a small Chinese statue...4x5

Polaroid Type52 BW instant film.

Many thanks Laurence.

Doing handheld exposures, with the rather big and heavy Pentax camera, in ambient light easily gives abit unfocused photographs. Somehow there's a feel to this pic' I really like...and I have kept the prints rather small to compensate for the blurriness.

Old reddish carpets bring to my mind one of our most prominent, fellow citizen artist's work; "Demasquee", 1888....

And this leaves me no choice than to mention the other work I keep in high regard by the same master; "Ad astra", 1894 and "The Aino Myth", 1891 triptych to mention a few.

Of course I am in no way comparing my work to the artist of the mentioned true art...but we did go to the exact same school in downtown Helsinki, alas he did so 100 years earlier than me.

(and now I'm just rolling my thumbs awaiting someone to blurt out the name of this mysterious artist...)

Finally turning the shot...and yes, I'm prefering it this way.

Photographed in ambient roomlight, one window but dusk outside.

Stood on a table lurking over the model (she should have been

wearing a helmet as the P67II is quite heavy)

This is just a diptych test. The photographs are taken trough a

curved shower door glass making an uneven pixel effect.

The lens I use is my Takumar SMC 6X7 105mm f/2.4 no filters or other material.

The crushed pixels need further research...

The other experiment included is, perhaps for Haleh and Rina, made by placing the blueish-grey Kodak paper original print on a green cardboard sheet, photographing it under my table light using a small pocket size Casio Exilim allround snapshotter, using no flash. The digital image turns out sepia(like), for some reason...

Gentlemen...thank you for your constructive and detailed critisism. I will probably try my...umm...tripod at any further old-feel-photographs, and then have the luxury of more (or less) and at least better placed light.

To the expert advice by Mark G. however I must slightly disagree, not to the fact that I'm probably inept in handling analog photographic material trough my scanner into the digital formate but to the thought of having intentionally done some PS magic. My guess is that the effect has something to do with .jpg compression.

But now I have the excellent chance to get the procedure explained for future remedy.

This is how I scan the work;

1. I scan the analog print at 600DPI (dust and all)

2. I remove the dust speckles from the appr. 9 000 Kb .jpg picture file with UleadPhotoImpact SE...one by one

3. I add a simple canvas and frame

4. I compress the .jpg file dimension to 100 Kb

5. I download the small file to PhotoNet

Looking at a large blow up of the final small .jpg file I can see unwanted pixelation and some other odd elements.

OK, now I'm all eyes...

Michael, the frame was exposured just like you describe. Stood on a table lurking over the model (she should have been wearing a helmet as the P67II is quite heavy)

Let's see if it turns in time....

The lightsource is an interior floorlamp, I'm holding the P67II in hands and exposure time was from January to February.

Thank you for your encouraging comment.

Not even the chair is from the 1920's...but somehow there's an old

feel...in contrast to very modern body art.

...this

Oh, the vintage chairperson photo...which I took one winter in 1927 or 1926... was downloaded the other way around the earth so it sort of flipped horizontally.

Thanks Jim for the heads up...it got scanned vice-versa....should be corrected by now.

Umm, sort of speaks for itself. My shot at trying to be creatively

funny....

This is a handheld long exposure in ambient light. Inspired by the

old carpet I tried to get a retro-look in this photo, with a

contrast of the tattoo and carpet pattern.

I hide any talent behind my cheap (and practical I might add) scanner.

This is not really my field ...but I suppose us human beings have adorned or altered our bodies in different ways and for different reasons trough recorded history..be how it may I guess any metal jewelry is eventually removable, unlike other type of permanent alterations even more unfathomable by reason (be it religious or artistic).

On a lighter note; Let's hope for an even better New Year 2006.