Ricochetrider

OK sorry for the double post above, was trying to delete the "thumbnail" pic but couldn't seem to do it... anyway these are the shots before and after that pic of my GF and. our. 2 friends. Neither seem as grainy although, zoomed in they get grainy... maybe its just a scan thing. I think these were scanned on a Frontier scanner. Richard also offers Noritsu scanning, and for a higher fee, will drum scan as well. Also, maybe this is just my imagination and if I decided to print these they'd be fine.

Oh and before I get any further, these are scans from the processing lab, Richard Photo Lab in Los Angeles. I had asked online for recommended labs and after looking around a bit, chose these folks. I've chosen their medium quality scans-18mb, approx. 2050x2790 pixels or higher. The scans were downloaded into my Mac desktop, and using the native apple post editing software, I auto-balanced the light, levels, and curves in both the color & B&W shots. This B&W shot looks OK from this distance but gets really grainy when you zoom in on it.

Here's one with the Ilford XP2 Super film, which I thought was teh C41 process B&W?

Ok here are the scans. 1st image with the Portra 160

Wow, great answers! Thanks especially to Alan & Joe for your in-depth replies & for sharing your knowledge, but thanks to all for taking the time. To address the other question, or part of the equation, why would some of my shots be grainy? The grainy images were shot mid day, either in sun, or hazy sun, (Portra 160) or on a reasonably bright cloudy day, in the case of the Ilford HP2 C41 B&W film. (I will confirm that film for these shots) Old film? Also, happy to put some of the grainy images up for you to see, if that is helpful.

OK so I asked a photographer friend about reciprocity and he said it's basically adding exposure time to low light photography using different ISO films... to quote: "Reciprocity is a formula for adding time to really long exposures. Film handles long exposures differently so usually need to add time to shutter at a certain point..." By that I assume he means exposure values for ISO 400 (or higher) would be different than ISO 100 or ISO 50 (or lower), and that every film is different so each would require its own settings in a low light situation.... ?

Hi guys and thanks much for your having indulged my seemingly (to me anyway) endless questions and meandering forays into photographic knowledge (& discovery thereof). SO here's another question, although I confess Im not sure what exactly I am asking. But here we go: Having done some reading on shooting under various conditions, And having learned only a tiny bit here & there about some things related to photography, I THINK I get that reciprocity refers to the "exposure triangle" , IE; how aperture, ISO, & shutter speeds can vary in a sort of circle to achieve basically the same effect under varying conditions, camera ability, etc... IOW say my 500CM camera, for example has limited settings for well pretty much everything (or more so, the lenses do?) So I can't get high speeds, and the aperture ranges from f2.8 to f16. Based on that, I so far with whatever result, have either metered then adjusted up or down to attain an exposure that works for the camera, tried to meter with my digital camera set to whatever ISO I was shooting at the time, or consulted my "sunny 16 rule" chart which covers anything from ISO 100 & up in pretty much all sorts of daylight conditions- and done the same. SO while I am (maybe) not so completely lost as to why this works the way it does, I believe I understand the basic notion of reciprocity... ? I'm asking :-) Meanwhile, I have done a fair amount of shooting with assorted 400 speed films. Although at some point I shot a couple rolls of some old Portra 160. Mostly, when the results are good, they're pretty good. Although at some point some of the portra 160 stuff came out grainy (at least he scans & proof prints seemed grainy to me. I also shot some Ilford HP2, I think it was? A C41 process B&W film and some of those shots also seemed a bit grainy. As stated, I adjusted up or down the scale of reciprocity to attain something I could get to, using the available settings on my 500CM with the 80mm lens... Trying, of course, to keep it in the neighborhood for prevailing conditions (daylight, overcast, bright, no shadows, etc) I haven't put the negs on a light table or anything but having seen the scans and proof prints... is there any reason to believe the negatives would reveal anything different than what I've seen already? why would some films be grainy? Outdated, old, or expired, maybe? Also... are there limitations as to what say, a 160 ISO film should be able to do? VS a 400 ISO film? In theory, are lower ISO films supposed to be finer than those of higher ISO values? And if so, should I use a lower ISO film for, say trying to shoot brightly lit things at night? With smaller apertures and longer exposure times? Does reciprocity cancel out conditional anomalies, and allow most things under most conditions? Thanks again! Tom

I. can't get too deep with this but I know a couple people who make a living at photography. One is a mid sized city photojournalist. His job has changed considerably, in that the "newspaper" he once worked for is no now an online news source. Much of what they want is "content" which, by most accounts, means "just shoot a bunch of stuff for us to pst on our website. Hs coverage of sporting and other events gets press, but he, as the "senior" photog, is under pressure from all sides. The other person I know who makes a living in photography ;lives in NYC and used to shoot mostly fashion. He did a fair amount of "commercial" work as well, shooting stuff for magazines and advertising imagery as well. These days, since every kid has a camera, most places he formerly worked are now paying crap wages to younger kids who are making a subsistence-type living basically negotiating their way via the so-called "gig economy". He does pick up the occasional gig where his years of expertise come into play. The 3rd person I know who was trying to be a professional. photographer got hooked. into a school portrait situation and did really well for a short while- earning accolade and awards.I n the end, I'm not certain what happened- other than the school portraits being totally seasonal, maybe he just could not figure it out year-round. I think his "career" as a photographer lasted maybe 3 years or so. None of these people shot film professionally, the 2 long term guys haven't shot film in ages. Neither of these guys has submitted anything of any higher quality than a JPG file in like forever. So the question of "if more people shot film would it create more jobs?" I would guess is theoretically sound under certain circumstances, but more on an individual, case by case basis than it is with real-world or commercial photography as a profession. Will people make a living at "fine art" photography shooting film? Will some wedding and portrait photographers be able to offer an analog, film-only service to certain customers? I would answer "yes" to both questions., but I'm not sure that "job creation" would result from a few lucky (and really driven, super hard working) people seeking out a living doing such. That said, considering the current "revolution" in film and analog photography.... who knows, right?

Rembrandtplein, Amsterdam NL Nov 2018

Little Italy, NYC Dec 2018

Thanks, everyone!

Thanks. I believe that traditions are made to be broken, and of course delivering art that fails to adhere to expected norms or mores sets people off kilter, as such it is unsettling for those who come into viewing art with expectations. Probably all great artists have, at some point, defied traditions in oder to break the glass ceiling in fulfilling their own vision. And so... I know that anything is possible. When something feels right it docent have to be because it adheres to a particular set of rules. One thing I found interesting about reading the Avedon "working" book was seeing his set-up procedures- shading the camera/lens and shading the subject as well. I often wondered hw he achieved the result of having zero shadows... maybe some of that was thru dodging or burning but I also think he just had that technique figured out by the time he went "out west". I hope to take compelling portraits myself some day, and will definitely look at the photographers you mentioned above. Of course a compelling portrait might begin with an interesting subject and again, Mr Avedon was pretty good at cherry picking his subjects, then also pretty good at getting what he wanted out of them. Interesting how he would sometimes stand in front of or beside the camera and wait for the exact second to pull the trigger. For better or worse, and history seems to be favoring him by now. Again, I apologize to janedragon and again I ask the OP, "are you shooting anything currently?"

I'm learning as well, in a much more. haphazard, less structured way... and getting some results I like... as well as much good info from you guys (and gals?)! SO, this above post I quoted leads me to the matter of "exposure triangle" although I guess the 3rd leg of this triangle (which isn't mentioned) would be the OP's suggestion that he is using ISO 200 film? Thus far, in my own zig-zagggedy learning path, I have: used my digital camera to meter certain shots (with mixed result, not always or even mostly good); used a chart based around the "sunny 16 Rule" when outdoors (almost exclusively with good result); used my light meter with mixed result (probably I wasn't using it correctly when I got unfavorable result, possibly just lucky when I did get favorable result?). Having only JUST found out that films have what I've learned is a "box speed" IE ISO 400 film = f4 @1/125... (as the example stated) I (think) I see what some of my shots have come out grainy? (IOS 160 film, some Ilford C41 B&W). Then again, I'm shooting whatever setting- making some attempt to record as much as possible in terms of conditions, subject matter, film used, etc - BUT just having the film developed by the lab normally, IE with no push or pull. My logic, however twisted is that I can compare shots to notes to see what worked or did not work; by not pushing, pulling, or otherwise altering the base of my technique, I arable to see what worked and what di not work.... In the end however, I have often failed to record every single shot's details, (I probably recorded ~50% of all rolls of film shot) and I have also yet to go back and compare the images to the notes in the examples where I did write everything down. I do feel like I'm learning, after all and I'm still out there shooting film- although I do have a backlog of 7 (and counting) rolls to get developed. My goal, as much as anything else, is simply to have fun and exercise some level of creativity to satisfy my own self if for no other reason. Having said that, I have a theoretical project in mind that could end up being long-ish term, involving some travel etc. I applaud the OP for making a solid attempt to be more studied or purposeful in his methodology... good luck with it all! I myself hope to take a class in B&W photography this winter or spring.

Thanks. I do try to absorb others' work without judgement or at least in setting aside my own lies or dislikes- actually I view my own taste for things an obstruction to objective viewing; since I'm trying to learn a lot right now it is especially helpful for me to just let myself fall into what others are doing or have done. In the end, will I find influence or inspiration? I hope so. Just got a copy of Avedon At Work In the American West and it's a pretty good look at him and his way of getting those portraits. Some of the subjects he visited again and again, or revisited/kept in touch with. For better or worse, I guess. He took a lot of heat at the time, from various people in various ways.

Would you suggest maybe a slightly shorter exposure for this then? An aperture change? Hate to keep dragging this out but I'd love to know what you guys with much more experience would do differently? Thanks to all.

Thanks. I just ordered a copy, "like new" condition, ebay, 3.99. There's a "newer" version of this book but the title now includes the word "digital". This version seems to be more about film...

Since this has evolved, somewhat, into discussion of portraiture classic and otherwise, and since I'm contemplating some form of portraiture myself, Id like to pose a question (OK maybe 2) Have you all seen Richard Avedon's Portraits? and also his In The American West portraits? He removes his subjects so completely from any existential context, leaving only the subject with a small written description of who they are. White back ground, no shadows, even. How is this body of work considered by this crowd? Like/love/hate/dislike? Why are (or were) these portraits so compelling? Thanks and apologies to Janedragon for the hijack. Janedragon, are you studying other photographers' (famous or otherwise) works in portraiture? As for learning, I'm learning too... I have yet to take any courses but I plan to. Meanwhile I'm out shooting rolls of film, trying to gain some understanding of what works (or not) and learning to use my camera, learning more about composition etc. Are you shooting at all currently? Good luck in your own photography!