PDA

View Full Version : Smaller Fomat Nudes



Pages : [1] 2

ndg
2-Oct-2014, 09:24
What about nude images captured on the non-LF film or sensor? Let me kick this off then:
122687
"Hair"
Mamiya 7, 80mm lens, FP4+, HC-110 B

mathieu Bauwens
3-Oct-2014, 06:02
122722

122723

Both; Leica M7, RPX400 @ 1600/D76

ndg
7-Oct-2014, 20:26
"Shy"
122891

Emil Schildt
9-Nov-2014, 02:11
an older image found...

Liquid emulsion - hand colored.

Topcon RE Super..

Painted with light.

ImSoNegative
9-Nov-2014, 06:42
very nice work Grandolfi

ndg
9-Nov-2014, 09:23
"Colored"
124781

IanG
9-Nov-2014, 12:37
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/art_nudes/images/peltigera003.jpg

Mamiya 645S, Tmax400, Pyrocat HD

Ian

Emil Schildt
9-Nov-2014, 13:29
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/art_nudes/images/peltigera003.jpg

Mamiya 645S, Tmax400, Pyrocat HD

Ian

and this is to die for!!!

jumanji
10-Nov-2014, 00:12
These days I'm broke and couldnt afford much LF film, even 4x5. So I shoot mostly 35mm Tmax 400, dev in Pyro HD. Perfect combination, though sometimes it looks much like digital.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7550/15135332393_8ce80cd7fc_c.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3942/15569304118_588242e41f_c.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3947/15135318773_58f22f904f_c.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5606/15569552557_da9f6dd48c_c.jpg

mathieu Bauwens
10-Nov-2014, 12:36
@jumanji.

I really like the mystery on the first one and the eyes on the last one.

Well done.

Peter De Smidt
10-Nov-2014, 14:05
Mamiya 645S, Tmax400, Pyrocat HD

Ian

Terrific work, Ian!

Emil Schildt
10-Nov-2014, 14:09
Kala

Topcon RE Super
Liquid emulsion on paper - hand colored using coffee and cigarette ashes...

Michael Graves
10-Nov-2014, 14:10
and this is to die for!!!

The picture is excellent as well.

Peter De Smidt
10-Nov-2014, 14:21
35mm HIE in PMK.

ImSoNegative
10-Nov-2014, 18:24
Kala

Topcon RE Super
Liquid emulsion on paper - hand colored using coffee and cigarette ashes...

so cool...

John Olsen
10-Nov-2014, 19:20
Other than the fact that we all like nudes, what's this thread doing on a LF forum?

Jody_S
10-Nov-2014, 21:35
I personally enjoy seeing the small format photos of lf photographers. I like seeing if the vision and methods are kept when cost is no longer a factor. I understand why it is necessary to keep nudes in a separate area because people surf at work. So, keep em coming?

Emil Schildt
11-Nov-2014, 10:55
Cille on Wood

Painted with light - liquid emulsion on plywood..

ndg
11-Nov-2014, 12:28
Cille on Wood

Painted with light - liquid emulsion on plywood..

Emil, great image! Your work is really inspiring!

SergeiR
12-Nov-2014, 12:12
Cille on Wood

Painted with light - liquid emulsion on plywood..

awesome.

I got to learn how you do light painting :)

Emil Schildt
12-Nov-2014, 12:39
awesome.

I got to learn how you do light painting :)

I'll teach you...

here's another from the same series...

Peter De Smidt
12-Nov-2014, 12:42
That really is terrific work, Gandolfi.

soeren
12-Nov-2014, 23:24
I'll teach you...

here's another from the same series...

Yeaaahhh A workshop with Emil yes yes yes
Go Gandolfi Go Gandolfi Go Gandolfi ;)

StoneNYC
13-Nov-2014, 08:59
122723

Both; Leica M7, RPX400 @ 1600/D76

This is a really beautiful shot of a really beautiful moment in time for this woman, excellent exposure and definitely emotive.


http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/art_nudes/images/peltigera003.jpg

Mamiya 645S, Tmax400, Pyrocat HD

Ian

I've always loved this shot, the hair the pose, natural setting, very pleasing.

Christo.Stankulov
13-Nov-2014, 12:44
I love this one!

Cille on Wood

Painted with light - liquid emulsion on plywood..

stradibarrius
14-Nov-2014, 05:52
This is such a beautiful image! It has an elegant quality.
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/art_nudes/images/peltigera003.jpg

Mamiya 645S, Tmax400, Pyrocat HD

Ian

mathieu Bauwens
14-Nov-2014, 07:40
125039
Yashicamat, RPX400

125040

125041
Minolta XD7, 50mm
RPX400

alanbutler57
14-Nov-2014, 08:22
I'll teach you...

here's another from the same series...

Great image, very evocative of the 1930's and Art Deco

Emil Schildt
14-Nov-2014, 09:26
Great image, very evocative of the 1930's and Art Deco

great - I love that style!!

StoneNYC
14-Nov-2014, 10:14
125039
Yashicamat, RPX400

125040

125041
Minolta XD7, 50mm
RPX400

That first shot is gorgeous, lighting is really nice. The composure and pose is also excellent for the body type (abbs) if those weren't present I think it wouldn't be as strong. Well done.

mathieu Bauwens
14-Nov-2014, 14:20
Thank you Stone

Genfer
20-Nov-2014, 19:08
La volière
Vaud, avril 2014
(Nemesia Noir)
Rolleiflex 6x6

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af131/Genfer/Expo%20Akt%202014%20klein/NemesiaNoirLeparadis-LavoliegravereRolleiflex_0001_2_zps5fde90d9.jpg

StoneNYC
20-Nov-2014, 19:16
La volière
Vaud, avril 2014
(Nemesia Noir)
Rolleiflex 6x6

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af131/Genfer/Expo%20Akt%202014%20klein/NemesiaNoirLeparadis-LavoliegravereRolleiflex_0001_2_zps5fde90d9.jpg

What are you trying to say here? What is the connection between the cage on her head and her having no pants?

Thanks, nice colors.

Genfer
20-Nov-2014, 20:28
She is traveling to another world.
She doesn't needs cloths in the place wehre she wants to go.
On the way she got traped. On that picture, she is somewehre between our world and the another world.
But do not worry, she will very soon escape and she will continue her journey :)

Genfer
21-Nov-2014, 23:58
Die grüne Krone
Zürich, 2014
(Nemesia Noir)
Holga 6x6

125401

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 00:37
Ah what the heck....35mm

Shot for a promotion for Zivity (ask me for a trial if interested, if you sign up I get $10!) lol!

125402

Andrew Plume
22-Nov-2014, 01:44
good work Stone

that's the same model that you've used before, unless my memory isn't spot on.................

regards, andrew

Andrew Plume
22-Nov-2014, 01:46
She is traveling to another world.
She doesn't needs cloths in the place wehre she wants to go.
On the way she got traped. On that picture, she is somewehre between our world and the another world.
But do not worry, she will very soon escape and she will continue her journey :)

yes, I see..................mmm, there we are, I guess

interesting work

regards

andrew

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 02:22
She is traveling to another world.
She doesn't needs cloths in the place wehre she wants to go.
On the way she got traped. On that picture, she is somewehre between our world and the another world.
But do not worry, she will very soon escape and she will continue her journey :)

It's certainly different and different is better than boring, it helps that she has a certain body type, this might work less with another model so I suppose you chose well for this abstract thought. I don't quite "get it" but I would certainly work with the model if I had the chance. Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 02:23
good work Stone

that's the same model that you've used before, unless my memory isn't spot on.................

regards, andrew

Eh, it's ok, I could have done better with my initial exposures, I was being lazy lol.

Yes she is a friend, I shoot her a lot.

Genfer
22-Nov-2014, 09:44
Thanks for your comments.
I meet her last year and from then we use to work 2-3 times a year.
She is full with secrets. I know almost nothing about her real life.
So I try to creat my own story about her. Somthing like: I want to give
her an identity which doesn't exist (it is a long term project).

I don't have enough experience about models, the type of women which
fits for a kind of picture. I do have some projects but it is very difficult to get
models (for my budget). That means that often I do not have a choice to
select someone because there is only one or two.
Anyway, there are not a lot of models in Switzerland (unfortunately).

Le printemps (spring)
Vaud, avril 2014
(Nemesia Noir)
Rolleiflex 6x6

125407125408125409

StoneNYC
22-Nov-2014, 15:19
Thanks for your comments.
I meet her last year and from then we use to work 2-3 times a year.
She is full with secrets. I know almost nothing about her real life.
So I try to creat my own story about her. Somthing like: I want to give
her an identity which doesn't exist (it is a long term project).

I don't have enough experience about models, the type of women which
fits for a kind of picture. I do have some projects but it is very difficult to get
models (for my budget). That means that often I do not have a choice to
select someone because there is only one or two.
Anyway, there are not a lot of models in Switzerland (unfortunately).

Le printemps (spring)
Vaud, avril 2014
(Nemesia Noir)
Rolleiflex 6x6

125407125408125409

Unfortunately I'm not in Switzerland, would love to work with her :)

And yes I understand a small budget

Graham Patterson
22-Nov-2014, 16:50
It must be an interesting challenge factoring in all that ink. It makes a fairly definite statement (and fortunately it looks well done), and there is a risk that it becomes the subject. Probably 3-4% of the women where I work have major tattoos that are visible in normal clothes. It seems to be more and more common.

Genfer
25-Nov-2014, 13:03
I also observe that more and more younger poeple are inked. I don't know a lot of models but I had only two models (from 10) without ink.
Sometimes I wish there are more models without ink :)

Genfer
25-Nov-2014, 13:14
Der Engel (the angel)
(Nemesia Noir), Zürich 2014
Bronica GS-1

This is not an angel!
The wings are a gift from an angel (an angel who doesn't need anymore her wings) so Nemesia
can continue her way. Now, as she has wings, she can get to a place which is very important on her journey...

125524

StoneNYC
25-Nov-2014, 13:59
Der Engel (the angel)
(Nemesia Noir), Zürich 2014
Bronica GS-1

This is not an angel!
The wings are a gift from an angel (an angel who doesn't need anymore her wings) so Nemesia
can continue her way. Now, as she has wings, she can get to a place which is very important on her journey...

125524

I enjoy the tones of the exposure in the image.

The animal heads are all the rage but I don't "get" those, I also don't get collodion "get" mask images either so, I obviously don't know much Lol.

Jerry Bodine
25-Nov-2014, 15:08
The animal heads are all the rage but I don't "get" those, I also don't get collodion "get" mask images either so, I obviously don't know much Lol.

Think about it, Stone. I suppose there are multiple interpretations of this image, but mine may get my post deleted. I see the elephant head (representing Republicans) and the jackass head (representing Democrats) who are competing for angelhood. "of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

StoneNYC
25-Nov-2014, 16:23
Think about it, Stone. I suppose there are multiple interpretations of this image, but mine may get my post deleted. I see the elephant head (representing Republicans) and the jackass head (representing Democrats) who are competing for angelhood. "of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Oh! I don't do politics, I missed that! Good catch.

Richard Johnson
25-Nov-2014, 18:56
Think about it, Stone. I suppose there are multiple interpretations of this image, but mine may get my post deleted. I see the elephant head (representing Republicans) and the jackass head (representing Democrats) who are competing for angelhood. "of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

I wonder if a Swiss would use American symbols?

Old_Dick
25-Nov-2014, 19:13
Think about it, Stone. I suppose there are multiple interpretations of this image, but mine may get my post deleted. I see the elephant head (representing Republicans) and the jackass head (representing Democrats) who are competing for angelhood. "of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

That was the first thing I thought also.

Genfer
27-Nov-2014, 02:46
I wonder if a Swiss would use American symbols?

Yes, that's right Richard, I wouldn't use American symbols or other political things.
May be religious symbols in the future but I'm not sure yet.

Jerry:
If one of the wings would be a representing Republicans and the other a representing Democrats they would never fly and
Nemesia would never be able to continue her journey.
Both wings work in harmony and have the only aime to serve to the persone they belong!

But it is interesting to see the different way of interpretations :)

ndg
27-Nov-2014, 20:26
"Worries"
125647

Randy Moe
27-Nov-2014, 20:46
She is traveling to another world.
She doesn't needs cloths in the place wehre she wants to go.
On the way she got traped. On that picture, she is somewehre between our world and the another world.
But do not worry, she will very soon escape and she will continue her journey :)

Genfer, just dropped in to view nudes. Yours are on plain.

Excellent model.

Super image message.

:)

Genfer
28-Nov-2014, 05:04
"Worries"
125647

I like it, even that it looks a bit sad and cold.

Genfer
28-Nov-2014, 05:05
Genfer, just dropped in to view nudes. Yours are on plain.

Excellent model.

Super image message.

:)

Thank's Randy :)

Genfer
28-Nov-2014, 05:13
No title
(Nemesia Noir) Vaud, avril 2014
Bronica GS-1

125650125651125652

ndg
28-Nov-2014, 05:36
I like it, even that it looks a bit sad and cold.

Thanks Genfer! That was the idea when we shot it!

Genfer
1-Dec-2014, 08:34
La vie et la mort (life and death)
Nemesia Noir, Marzel
Zürich, avril 2014
Bronica GS-1

125916

StoneNYC
1-Dec-2014, 11:31
La vie et la mort (life and death)
Nemesia Noir, Marzel
Zürich, avril 2014
Bronica GS-1

125916

Can you tell me about Ektar100? Did you have to adjust the skin in Photoshop? I've had issues exposing Ektar100 properly with people and wondering if it an issue with scanning, or if people are correcting it afterward.

Thanks.

Also, she's very pregnant!!! The exposure is spot on, and how do you find your models over there?

Genfer
1-Dec-2014, 16:32
Can you tell me about Ektar100? Did you have to adjust the skin in Photoshop? I've had issues exposing Ektar100 properly with people and wondering if it an issue with scanning, or if people are correcting it afterward.

Thanks.

Also, she's very pregnant!!! The exposure is spot on, and how do you find your models over there?

Ektar 100:
The scanner I use for my negativ is not really good, so I have to adjust often the pictures. I use
only iphoto, I don't have other programs because I don't like to play with them.
I don't know how this picture looks in real as I don't have yet a print from it.
I like the intensity from the Ektar, it is my favorite color film (unfortunately I don't know many colorfilms :( ) .
Other prints form pictures I shot with the Ektar are very nice!

Models:
It is very hard to find models for the big shootings ( I like group shootings :)
because most of the models I take, do that only for hobby, so very often they do not replay,
have no time or some don't want to have a shooting with others!

Marzel (the pregnant women) is another story. I often start the organisation 6-9 months before the shooting.
The time I ask her if she would participate she was not pregnant. 4 months before the shooting she told me that
she is pregnant :). I told her that it would be great if she could come if possible, because the date for that shooting
was very close to the date she should give birth!
I'm very happy that she could come that day, even it was only one hour. I think it is very rare to get someone like her
for a nude shooting!

My next big shooting will be in summer 2015 and I started allready to look for models. For the moment I have 4 models
(same I worked before)...

StoneNYC
1-Dec-2014, 17:18
Ektar 100:
The scanner I use for my negativ is not really good, so I have to adjust often the pictures. I use
only iphoto, I don't have other programs because I don't like to play with them.
I don't know how this picture looks in real as I don't have yet a print from it.
I like the intensity from the Ektar, it is my favorite color film (unfortunately I don't know many colorfilms :( ) .
Other prints form pictures I shot with the Ektar are very nice!

Models:
It is very hard to find models for the big shootings ( I like group shootings :)
because most of the models I take, do that only for hobby, so very often they do not replay,
have no time or some don't want to have a shooting with others!

Marzel (the pregnant women) is another story. I often start the organisation 6-9 months before the shooting.
The time I ask her if she would participate she was not pregnant. 4 months before the shooting she told me that
she is pregnant :). I told her that it would be great if she could come if possible, because the date for that shooting
was very close to the date she should give birth!
I'm very happy that she could come that day, even it was only one hour. I think it is very rare to get someone like her
for a nude shooting!

My next big shooting will be in summer 2015 and I started allready to look for models. For the moment I have 4 models
(same I worked before)...

Thank you for the info, I understand it is hard for me too.

Here is one of my pregnant models.

This is Kodak EPT 160 120 without a filter, I wanted that "ethereal" dreamy look.

125937

This was her second pregnancy, I also shot her first pregnancy unfortunately I did that with a digital camera so I can't show it here, but here is the product of the first pregnancy, he really loved popping the strobe and kept pushing the test button! Hah!

Kodak TMZ 35mm

125938

Genfer
2-Dec-2014, 08:25
Thank you for the info, I understand it is hard for me too.

Here is one of my pregnant models.

This is Kodak EPT 160 120 without a filter, I wanted that "ethereal" dreamy look.

125937

This was her second pregnancy, I also shot her first pregnancy unfortunately I did that with a digital camera so I can't show it here, but here is the product of the first pregnancy, he really loved popping the strobe and kept pushing the test button! Hah!

Kodak TMZ 35mm

125938

Yes, I like that picture. It is very soft and dreamy. This is a colorfilm for artificial light, right?
I still have some rolls (expiered around 2003, Kodak GPT gold or something like that) but I don't use them for "real" pictures because
I'm affraid that the quality is bad.

Models:
There are unfortunately also others obstacles. To have a good place to shoot for exemple. It is every time
a hard job to collect and connect everything to realize a shooting...but that is also on a way interesting and a part to enjoy more the
shooting when everything is ready and of course to watch the pictures :)

Genfer
2-Dec-2014, 08:31
Der Engel (the angel)
Marzel, Magdalena and Mondschatten, Zürich 2014
Bronica GS-1

This is an other picture from the serie "the angel".
On that picture are 2 servents from the angel (the two girls which are sitting).
Marzel (the women which is standing) plays the angel. On that scene she gave
her wings allready away because she doesn't need them anymore!

125962

StoneNYC
3-Dec-2014, 12:23
Yes, I like that picture. It is very soft and dreamy. This is a colorfilm for artificial light, right?
I still have some rolls (expiered around 2003, Kodak GPT gold or something like that) but I don't use them for "real" pictures because
I'm affraid that the quality is bad.

Models:
There are unfortunately also others obstacles. To have a good place to shoot for exemple. It is every time
a hard job to collect and connect everything to realize a shooting...but that is also on a way interesting and a part to enjoy more the
shooting when everything is ready and of course to watch the pictures :)

Yes Kodak EPT is an ektachrome film made for Tungsten lighting, but without the color correcting filter so it looks blue if you use it in daylight or daylight balanced lighting, which is what I used, strobe lighting.

Larry Kellogg
4-Dec-2014, 22:19
Speaking of pregnant nudes, we discussed the controversy over Angela Strassheim's photograph of a pregnant nude woman in photography class at ICP tonight. Here is an article about the controversy:

http://hyperallergic.com/165797/city-councilmen-cry-porn-over-pregnant-nude-at-moca-jacksonville/

I think the photograph is tasteful and beautifully executed, with a good mix of hard and soft areas in terms of the lighting. I don't think anybody in New York would every be offended by such a photograph but they're up in arms in Jacksonville, Florida. I'm sure this is good for Angela Strassheim's career.

Genfer
5-Dec-2014, 02:23
Speaking of pregnant nudes, we discussed the controversy over Angela Strassheim's photograph of a pregnant nude woman in photography class at ICP tonight. Here is an article about the controversy:

http://hyperallergic.com/165797/city-councilmen-cry-porn-over-pregnant-nude-at-moca-jacksonville/

I think the photograph is tasteful and beautifully executed, with a good mix of hard and soft areas in terms of the lighting. I don't think anybody in New York would every be offended by such a photograph but they're up in arms in Jacksonville, Florida. I'm sure this is good for Angela Strassheim's career.

Thank's Larry for the link!

..."which he says puts children at risk of seeing an image of a pregnant woman."

I think it is important that children can see a natural pregant women to see how it looks in real, without any
treatment. Children are to often exposed (espacially teenagers) to "fake" people pictures and than they get
a wrong meanig to there body!

It is a very nice picture and I'm sure that her kid will be once proud about his mother (I would be) :)

Genfer
5-Dec-2014, 02:34
Der Engel (the angel)
Zürich 2014
Nemesia,Marzel, Magdalena, Mondschatten, Alina and 2 unknown models.
Bronica GS-1

This is another picture from the serie "Der Engel". Here you can see how Nemesia gets the wings...

126052

jp
5-Dec-2014, 08:22
Think about it, Stone. I suppose there are multiple interpretations of this image, but mine may get my post deleted. I see the elephant head (representing Republicans) and the jackass head (representing Democrats) who are competing for angelhood. "of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

I'd buy into part of that, but would not say the woman is an angel but the goddess Eris and controlling the political figures. I hope those animal heads (and gas masks) are a fad; just my personal opinion. I fail to understand their creativity use.

Genfer
6-Dec-2014, 03:47
I'd buy into part of that, but would not say the woman is an angel but the goddess Eris and controlling the political figures. I hope those animal heads (and gas masks) are a fad; just my personal opinion. I fail to understand their creativity use.

You guys most be really into politics :)
but I still can't figure out wehre you can see a gas mask :confused:
(may be also a very personal inerpretation :rolleyes:).

Nodda Duma
6-Dec-2014, 05:28
I'd buy into part of that, but would not say the woman is an angel but the goddess Eris and controlling the political figures. I hope those animal heads (and gas masks) are a fad; just my personal opinion. I fail to understand their creativity use.

The company who makes the elephant and horse mask also makes a squirrel mask. They are hilariously creepy (kind of like the political parties, no?) I wear the squirrel mask to work for Halloween. No one can win a technical debate when they're arguing with a giant squirrel.

Tim Meisburger
6-Dec-2014, 05:32
I like the animal heads. They depersonalise, and suggest Hindu or Egyptian gods. The gas mask fad I also find disturbing, as it seems more dehumanising. Perhaps that's the point. The difference for me is animalistic dehumanisation vs. mechanistic dehumanisation; a warm, idyllic past vs. a cold, mechanical future.

jp
6-Dec-2014, 07:45
You guys most be really into politics :)
but I still can't figure out wehre you can see a gas mask :confused:
(may be also a very personal inerpretation :rolleyes:).

Well, I'm not into politics like a politician, but every election season, the sides buy up all the advertising and it's all you see and hear for too long, so it's well mis-understood. You turn on the radio and you either hear country music, old music, bad music, or sometimes political talk radio.

Didn't see a gas mask; just tacking it onto my list of potentially fad photo props.

Randy Moe
6-Dec-2014, 09:36
Der Engel (the angel)
Zürich 2014
Nemesia,Marzel, Magdalena, Mondschatten, Alina and 2 unknown models.
Bronica GS-1

This is another picture from the serie "Der Engel". Here you can see how Nemesia gets the wings...

126052

Please keep sharing. Your work is an inspiration to try something different.

Straight photography is boring.

ndg
6-Dec-2014, 09:55
Amazing! Very metaphorical!


Der Engel (the angel)
Zürich 2014
Nemesia,Marzel, Magdalena, Mondschatten, Alina and 2 unknown models.
Bronica GS-1

This is another picture from the serie "Der Engel". Here you can see how Nemesia gets the wings...

126052

ndg
6-Dec-2014, 09:56
"The Strip"
126098

Genfer
6-Dec-2014, 23:29
Well, I'm not into politics like a politician, but every election season, the sides buy up all the advertising and it's all you see and hear for too long, so it's well mis-understood. You turn on the radio and you either hear country music, old music, bad music, or sometimes political talk radio.

Didn't see a gas mask; just tacking it onto my list of potentially fad photo props.

Ok, I see!
It is interesting to see how we are influenced by medias and things that happend around us in daily life.

Gas mask: sometimes I don't understand all the details, my english is often limited :cool:

Genfer
6-Dec-2014, 23:39
Please keep sharing. Your work is an inspiration to try something different.

Straight photography is boring.

Thank's Randy,
Yes of course, I like to show and share my work.
It is the same than how I enjoy to discover all the great works (on this forum) and
On the the other forums or homepages!

Richard Johnson
7-Dec-2014, 00:34
Hailey

126145

Genfer
7-Dec-2014, 00:50
"The Strip"
126098

This is very different from your work I know.
Is that digital?
I'm impressed how much time you invest in that work, excellent!

Genfer
7-Dec-2014, 00:53
Hailey

126145
Very natural, I like it :)

StoneNYC
7-Dec-2014, 00:58
Hailey

126145

Nice light, good "candid" image, Portra160?/400?

Richard Johnson
8-Dec-2014, 13:28
Nice light, good "candid" image, Portra160?/400?

Nikon D300

cowanw
8-Dec-2014, 16:34
Nikon D300

With the portra app?:)

Michael Cienfuegos
8-Dec-2014, 18:44
Thank's Randy,
Yes of course, I like to show and share my work.
It is the same than how I enjoy to discover all the great works (on this forum) and
On the the other forums or homepages!

+1 :)

ndg
8-Dec-2014, 19:45
This is very different from your work I know.
Is that digital?
I'm impressed how much time you invest in that work, excellent!

Genfer, thanks! Yes, they are a series of digital shots that I used to create a collage.

StoneNYC
8-Dec-2014, 20:48
So now digital SLR's are ok on LFPF ????

Randy Moe
8-Dec-2014, 20:50
So now digital SLR's are ok on LFPF ????

Yes, they are smaller format, this is not APUG.

Richard Johnson
8-Dec-2014, 20:54
With the portra app?:)

No I just edit in ACR and PS, I reduce the red saturation on Nikons.

StoneNYC
8-Dec-2014, 20:54
Yes, they are smaller format, this is not APUG.

I feel like this is going too far... I dunno... I know it's not APUG but still....

Peter De Smidt
8-Dec-2014, 21:11
I don't feel that way. Nice photo.

Randy Moe
8-Dec-2014, 21:41
I don't feel that way. Nice photo.

+1.

StoneNYC
8-Dec-2014, 22:54
I don't feel that way. Nice photo.

It's a nice photo I just feel a little deceived is all. I thought the only digital acceptable was digital 4x5 scanning backs.

They only added the non-LF section to allow others to see some of the LFers smaller work but I guess I just assumed that would all be film.

Anyway, it doesn't negate the beauty of the image, but I'm going to remove myself from this thread though as I really can see digital images anywhere and I don't know, it bothers me somehow I guess.

Randy Moe
8-Dec-2014, 23:37
It's a nice photo I just feel a little deceived is all. I thought the only digital acceptable was digital 4x5 scanning backs.

They only added the non-LF section to allow others to see some of the LFers smaller work but I guess I just assumed that would all be film.

Anyway, it doesn't negate the beauty of the image, but I'm going to remove myself from this thread though as I really can see digital images anywhere and I don't know, it bothers me somehow I guess.

Stone, I think you like nudes too much to avoid this thread. There are many digital images posted all over this forum in proper and correct categories. We are all things photographic, in the right place.

Soon I post pinhead prints. :)

C. D. Keth
8-Dec-2014, 23:38
That's so insulting to say you feel deceived. A good picture is a good picture no matter the medium. If you don't think it's a good picture because of some perceived shortcut, just say so.

StoneNYC
9-Dec-2014, 00:04
That's so insulting to say you feel deceived. A good picture is a good picture no matter the medium. If you don't think it's a good picture because of some perceived shortcut, just say so.

I said its a good picture.

My perception of this for him because the rarity of owning a 4 x 5 digital back, almost all images here in the large-format forum are using large format film...

I simply had the perception that film with the medium to be used in all of these categories with the exception of the 4 x 5 digital back. And possibly a smaller LF scanning back, but not a 35mm DSLR.

It's my own assumptions that have deceived me, not the poster.

Genfer
9-Dec-2014, 02:05
It's a nice photo I just feel a little deceived is all. I thought the only digital acceptable was digital 4x5 scanning backs.

They only added the non-LF section to allow others to see some of the LFers smaller work but I guess I just assumed that would all be film.

Anyway, it doesn't negate the beauty of the image, but I'm going to remove myself from this thread though as I really can see digital images anywhere and I don't know, it bothers me somehow I guess.

I think you are disapointed because the poster didn't declare the picture as a digital shot and you was wondering what film he used :confused:
May be digital user should declare that it is digital wright from the begining!

Genfer
9-Dec-2014, 02:14
Die Blumenfee (flower fairy)
Mondschatten
Zürich, 2014
Rolleiflex

This is a flower fairy. She has a very important item to give.
I will soon poste and explain more about her :)

126268

StoneNYC
9-Dec-2014, 09:49
I think you are disapointed because the poster didn't declare the picture as a digital shot and you was wondering what film he used :confused:
May be digital user should declare that it is digital wright from the begining!

Yes that's certainly part of it.

Jim Noel
9-Dec-2014, 09:57
Yes that's certainly part of it.

Yes, if the image was recorded digitally, say so!

Randy Moe
9-Dec-2014, 10:03
Yes, if the image was recorded digitally, say so!

Disagree.

Every image posted here is digitized and Photoshopped.

This is a new discussion and thread. Somebody start a new thread about this if they think it's important.

StoneNYC
9-Dec-2014, 10:14
I'm out, bye guys.

Jim Noel
9-Dec-2014, 11:11
I'm out, bye guys.

Me too!

Richard Johnson
9-Dec-2014, 11:14
Maybe he feels hurt cause my digital looked like Portra to him and that kind of defeats the point of having to mess with small format film, right? I gave up on roll film after many years once I got a better handle on my digital processing. I still shoot plenty of large format film because I like the slower process and the image quality that I get with it. But when shooting loose handheld stuff, the experience of handling a digital SLR or mirrorless versus a 35mm film camera is almost the same - weight, feel, speed. A Nikon F100 is the same footprint as a D100-810. My Fuji X100t shooting feels uncannily like how I used to shoot a Leica M film camera.

Here's another deceitful digital shot, I think she's having a good laugh at the drama of relative newbie making a fuss and proclaiming his glorious, puritanical exit:

126276

Seriously though, if one could afford a really good roll film scanner then there might be a good argument to continue using it. But if you are budget limited to the relatively inexpensive desktop 35mm scanners or the choice of a flatbed... then you're giving up a lot of the quality and virtues of roll film. I can scan large format on my cheap flatbed and get reasonably useful scan but I can not make a good scan from roll film with a cheap scanner. And I'm not willing to pay for or take the time required to scan roll film to the higher standard since I tend to shoot more frames than I would shoot large format. If a decent quality 4x5 scan and rough edit from an Epson takes 10-15 minutes for each negative, then confronting a few rolls of 35mm or 120 is overwhelming several days of work.

That's probably why you see the johnny-come-lately hipsters leave so many imperfections in their film scans.

Peter De Smidt
9-Dec-2014, 11:30
Nice one, Richard.

Randy Moe
9-Dec-2014, 12:06
Maybe he feels hurt cause my digital looked like Portra to him and that kind of defeats the point of having to mess with small format film, right? I gave up on roll film after many years once I got a better handle on my digital processing. I still shoot plenty of large format film because I like the slower process and the image quality that I get with it. But when shooting loose handheld stuff, the experience of handling a digital SLR or mirrorless versus a 35mm film camera is almost the same - weight, feel, speed. A Nikon F100 is the same footprint as a D100-810. My Fuji X100t shooting feels uncannily like how I used to shoot a Leica M film camera.

Here's another deceitful digital shot, I think she's having a good laugh at the drama of relative newbie making a fuss and proclaiming his glorious, puritanical exit:

126276

Seriously though, if one could afford a really good roll film scanner then there might be a good argument to continue using it. But if you are budget limited to the relatively inexpensive desktop 35mm scanners or the choice of a flatbed... then you're giving up a lot of the quality and virtues of roll film. I can scan large format on my cheap flatbed and get reasonably useful scan but I can not make a good scan from roll film with a cheap scanner. And I'm not willing to pay for or take the time required to scan roll film to the higher standard since I tend to shoot more frames than I would shoot large format. If a decent quality 4x5 scan and rough edit from an Epson takes 10-15 minutes for each negative, then confronting a few rolls of 35mm or 120 is overwhelming several days of work.

That's probably why you see the johnny-come-lately hipsters leave so many imperfections in their film scans.

+111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete Watkins
9-Dec-2014, 12:55
This is not a digital camera website. Live with it and go elsewhere. Film and LF are not that expensive, I now use a roll film back for my colour due to financial restraints ( sorry lads but colour has really got a "u" in it) I'm living on a state pension (topped up with a small private pension), I have a disabled wife and I would never consider placing a digi image on this forum. The rules need revising, when I joined about 14 years ago I never imagined that this situation could ever arise, and I owned a "high tech" Sony Marvica and a box of floppy discs.
Pete.

Randy Moe
9-Dec-2014, 13:51
14 years ago digital barely existed.

Times change.

The mods have addressed this. They run the show. Not us.

mono
9-Dec-2014, 14:34
If this forum is going into d.... shit,
I´ll leave it!

Pete Watkins
9-Dec-2014, 14:48
I'll have to live with digi backs on LF cameras but crappy little Nikons and Cannons have their place elsewhere.
Pete.

Richard Johnson
9-Dec-2014, 16:12
126295

Well if you rather not see these that's OK, real Americans don't give a hoot.

Randy Moe
9-Dec-2014, 16:19
Lol

cowanw
9-Dec-2014, 17:07
These are absolutely implicit in the new rules and categories (not to mention predictable).
Its just one (Image sharing; everything else) that can be bypassed and ignored like any other category one might not like.
Actually I think these nudes have a lot in common with the legendary Frank's style.

Peter Lewin
9-Dec-2014, 19:55
OK, now this little debate has me confused. The thread "safe haven for tiny formats" has contained DSLR and similar small digital photos for quite a while, without any problems. Is the question specifically whether "small format nudes" is restricted to film only? From my point of view, unless specifically stated (like the MF threads which specify film), threads in the "everything else" area can be film or digital.

rdenney
9-Dec-2014, 20:58
Digital photographs are allowed everywhere on this forum, and always have been. According to our current guidelines, the digital sensor has to be 4x5 for the Large Format image subforum, but it does not in this subforum.

Anti-digital ranting is as rude as anti-film ranting, and switching it to personal insults is rude.

Rick "you guys know this already" Denney

StoneNYC
9-Dec-2014, 21:47
Maybe he feels hurt cause my digital looked like Portra to him and that kind of defeats the point of having to mess with small format film, right? I gave up on roll film after many years once I got a better handle on my digital processing. I still shoot plenty of large format film because I like the slower process and the image quality that I get with it. But when shooting loose handheld stuff, the experience of handling a digital SLR or mirrorless versus a 35mm film camera is almost the same - weight, feel, speed. A Nikon F100 is the same footprint as a D100-810. My Fuji X100t shooting feels uncannily like how I used to shoot a Leica M film camera.

Here's another deceitful digital shot, I think she's having a good laugh at the drama of relative newbie making a fuss and proclaiming his glorious, puritanical exit:

126276

Seriously though, if one could afford a really good roll film scanner then there might be a good argument to continue using it. But if you are budget limited to the relatively inexpensive desktop 35mm scanners or the choice of a flatbed... then you're giving up a lot of the quality and virtues of roll film. I can scan large format on my cheap flatbed and get reasonably useful scan but I can not make a good scan from roll film with a cheap scanner. And I'm not willing to pay for or take the time required to scan roll film to the higher standard since I tend to shoot more frames than I would shoot large format. If a decent quality 4x5 scan and rough edit from an Epson takes 10-15 minutes for each negative, then confronting a few rolls of 35mm or 120 is overwhelming several days of work.

That's probably why you see the johnny-come-lately hipsters leave so many imperfections in their film scans.

I can't darkroom print my digital negatives...I didn't say a thing about negative scanning. Scanning is what I would consider part of giving up the virtues of what roll film had to offer ... as you put it.

Also, I'm fairly sure you're the newbie here since you only joined a few months ago so please be respectful, you're new here but there really isn't much digital shown here so even if "allowed" it was sort of "out of place" in terms of expected posting behavior.

I think RDenny cleared it up, but in the future please at least list what the medium is especially if it's digital, I come here specifically to learn how to improve my film photography. There are a million digital forums out there, and this is only one of 3 film focussed forums out there so it's frustrating when one of them starts to become inundated by digital images.

I'm not anti-digital, I own a Canon 5D Mk II, and canon 70-200 2.8 Mk II L, 17-40 4 L, 50mm 1.4 lens' etc, I'm not a Luddite, just feel everything belongs in its place and this place is one of the few havens of film photography left in an otherwise digital world, respect the place and the people, you're new so I know you probably don't fully understand this. But try to at least hear it.

Ok in the spirit of "understanding"

Some of my digital work. No photoshop and very little adjustments in lightroom.

126323
126324
126325
126327

Peter De Smidt
9-Dec-2014, 21:58
The pictures were not out-of-place at all, and there's no reason why photos have to be labeled. The posting of the pictures entailed no disrespect, although some of the responses to them did.

Genfer
9-Dec-2014, 23:32
Some of my digital work. No photoshop and very little adjustments in lightroom.

126323
126324
126325
126327

Great work! ...and welcome back ;-)

StoneNYC
9-Dec-2014, 23:42
Great work! ...and welcome back ;-)

Yea, darn "new posts" option and something someone said in the preview caught my eye and I had to respond and of course get auto subscribed, alas...

Lachlan 717
10-Dec-2014, 01:21
... in the future please at least list what the medium is especially if it's digital, I come here specifically to learn how to improve my film photography.

What makes you assume that you have ANY say in how things are presented here? If Richard doesn't want to post details on the medium used, he is not obligated to.

Nodda Duma
10-Dec-2014, 06:09
What makes you assume that you have ANY say in how things are presented here? If Richard doesn't want to post details on the medium used, he is not obligated to.

Looks like he made a polite request. Doesn't hurt to ask, does it?

jumanji
10-Dec-2014, 23:54
hahaha i like this!


126295

Well if you rather not see these that's OK, real Americans don't give a hoot.

emh
11-Dec-2014, 12:08
From an on-again/off-again project. Yashica Dental Eye camera, Liquid Light, Fabriano Artistico paper,oils and pencils.

126398

126399

126400

Genfer
11-Dec-2014, 13:13
From an on-again/off-again project. Yashica Dental Eye camera, Liquid Light, Fabriano Artistico paper,oils and pencils.

126398

126399

126400

This is an unusual but also interesting approach to nude photography!
Mhh...I'm not abel to make any difference to a drawing...very special :)

emh
11-Dec-2014, 14:00
Thanks, Genfer. Here are a few more from the same series:

126401

126402

126403

ndg
11-Dec-2014, 14:04
Very nice!


Thanks, Genfer. Here are a few more from the same series:

126401

126402

126403

resummerfield
11-Dec-2014, 14:30
emh, I like this technique!

emh
11-Dec-2014, 14:32
Thanks.
These are 35mm negatives, which I laminated to 5x7 sheet film after scraping off the emulsion to accommodate the small negatives. Developed on MGIV, and selectively bleached/toned in the image area, using small sponges.

126404

126405

126406

emh
11-Dec-2014, 14:37
And a bromoil:

126407

ndg
11-Dec-2014, 17:15
Ingenious!


Thanks.
These are 35mm negatives, which I laminated to 5x7 sheet film after scraping off the emulsion to accommodate the small negatives. Developed on MGIV, and selectively bleached/toned in the image area, using small sponges.

126404

126405

126406

Genfer
12-Dec-2014, 02:02
Thanks.
These are 35mm negatives, which I laminated to 5x7 sheet film after scraping off the emulsion to accommodate the small negatives. Developed on MGIV, and selectively bleached/toned in the image area, using small sponges.

126404

126405

126406

Wow, this is very beautyful!
Well done emh :)

Genfer
12-Dec-2014, 09:49
Die Blumenfee (flower fairy)
Mondschatten, Nemesia Noir
Zürich, 2014
Rolleiflex

This is again the flower fairy (this time in color :))
This is the story how she give a very important and powerful
item to Nemesia Noir. It is a small pot with a special soil inside.
The journey can continue...


126435126436126438126437

axs810
13-Dec-2014, 14:34
126514

126515

ndg
13-Dec-2014, 20:20
126514

126515

The 2nd one is my fav!

StoneNYC
14-Dec-2014, 01:23
I did it backward, first we shot nudes and then we went on a date... :whistling:

126539

Alan Gales
14-Dec-2014, 01:48
I did it backward, first we shot nudes and then we went on a date... :whistling:

126539

I guess whatever works. ;)

Emil Schildt
14-Dec-2014, 09:45
Nana - liquid Emulsion on paper - hand coloured....

Dan Quan
14-Dec-2014, 12:50
Kodak GT800 shot on a 35mm Exacta with a 50mm lens, all of which has since been sold.

Randy Moe
14-Dec-2014, 13:15
Kodak GT800 shot on a 35mm Exacta with a 50mm lens, all of which has since been sold.

Really like this.

Dan Quan
14-Dec-2014, 13:49
Really like this.

Thanks for saying. :)

Dan Quan
14-Dec-2014, 13:52
I did it backward, first we shot nudes and then we went on a date... :whistling:

126539

Isn't that called "Pre-Qualifying"?

I vaguely remember being young...er.

:cool:

cowanw
15-Dec-2014, 03:41
I did it backward, first we shot nudes and then we went on a date... :whistling:

126539


Isn't that called "Pre-Qualifying"?




I wonder if the young lady would feel commodified with all the wink wink, nudge nudge

StoneNYC
15-Dec-2014, 08:16
I wonder if the young lady would feel commodified with all the wink wink, nudge nudge

I'm the first one to say something if I think that things have gone too far and people are being rude, I don't think anyone has said anything to vulgar or anything, she loves the image and as soon as I took it she took a snapshot of it on her phone and sent it to her mom, so I'm comfortable with posting it, and we both joked about how funny it was that I had seen her naked and then we went on a date, so no I think it's ok.

Dan Quan
15-Dec-2014, 08:58
I wonder if the young lady would feel commodified with all the wink wink, nudge nudge

I learned a new word; commodified: to turn into a commodity; make commercial. 2. to treat as if a commodity.

The fact that I feel guilty tells me I want to make a change. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Genfer
17-Dec-2014, 14:41
La masque
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Lubitel 2

I had a session last week. I took some series with: Lubitel 2, Elioflex 2, Holga and Diana F
The results are very special :)

126789

Genfer
17-Dec-2014, 14:45
La terre
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Elioflex 2

126790

StoneNYC
17-Dec-2014, 17:47
La masque
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Lubitel 2

I had a session last week. I took some series with: Lubitel 2, Elioflex 2, Holga and Diana F
The results are very special :)

126789

This is really interesting and really messes with your eyes, very cool.

Genfer
18-Dec-2014, 15:15
La terre
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Elioflex 2

That's another one from the serie "la terre". I transformed it in BW, looks better than in color :)

126863

mathieu Bauwens
19-Dec-2014, 03:55
under the shower ;

126867 126868 126869
Minolta XD7, 50 f 1,4

Genfer
20-Dec-2014, 12:42
L'espoir
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Holga 6x6


126923126924126925

Randy Moe
20-Dec-2014, 13:27
L'espoir
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Holga 6x6


126923126924126925

Very interesting and we thought you had to wait for Spring.

Indoor Spring is nice also.

:)

Genfer
21-Dec-2014, 00:45
Very interesting and we thought you had to wait for Spring.

Indoor Spring is nice also.

:)

Thank you Randy!
No I couldn't wait :)
But anyway, at her place was so hot (hotter than in summer)...hard to work :rolleyes:

Dan Quan
21-Dec-2014, 14:56
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/Babydoll-Bedroom_zps7c902a39.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/Babydoll-Bedroom_zps7c902a39.jpg.html)

I rushed this diagram and my colors dont look right. I should choose between watching football and doing photoshop.:(

Please feel free to critique any and all of my photos so I can get get better.

Randy Moe
21-Dec-2014, 15:40
What is this fotbol?

Concentrate, your poses and diagrams are better than mere games.

StoneNYC
21-Dec-2014, 16:01
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/Babydoll-Bedroom_zps7c902a39.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/Babydoll-Bedroom_zps7c902a39.jpg.html)

I rushed this diagram and my colors dont look right. I should choose between watching football and doing photoshop.:(

Please feel free to critique any and all of my photos so I can get get better.

Haha, ok so, all respect intended but I have to say that sun picture is too funny, and having the sun and the moon in the same image, priceless ;)

I normally don't make cracks like that, but it was just too obvious to be silent about.

Dan Quan
21-Dec-2014, 19:27
Haha, ok so, all respect intended but I have to say that sun picture is too funny, and having the sun and the moon in the same image, priceless ;)

I normally don't make cracks like that, but it was just too obvious to be silent about.
And it never occurred to me, never even saw it. [emoji4]

z_photo
22-Dec-2014, 07:26
I normally don't make cracks like that...
you slay me

ndg
22-Dec-2014, 08:15
"The Reflection"
127014
Shot a while back with the Hasselblad 501cm, 80 mm lens, Delta 100 film

Michael Cienfuegos
22-Dec-2014, 10:51
Haha, ok so, all respect intended but I have to say that sun picture is too funny, and having the sun and the moon in the same image, priceless ;)

I normally don't make cracks like that, but it was just too obvious to be silent about.

Too Funny! I walked right into that pun, realized it after the fourth time I read it. … DUH!


m

Michael Cienfuegos
22-Dec-2014, 10:53
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/Babydoll-Bedroom_zps7c902a39.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/Babydoll-Bedroom_zps7c902a39.jpg.html)

I rushed this diagram and my colors dont look right. I should choose between watching football and doing photoshop.:(

Please feel free to critique any and all of my photos so I can get get better.

I really appreciate the lighting diagrams, a great help to keep me from trying to reinvent the wheel.

Richard Johnson
23-Dec-2014, 21:17
Again, if you rather I didn't post things it's OK.

127096

Don Dudenbostel
26-Dec-2014, 13:46
I recently started scanning some of my old negs and came up with these from the 60's and early 70's.

At the time I was in college or just out and into using one light. I think every shot was made with a single #2 photoflood in a 12" satin reflector like the old Smith Victor. I loved the accentuation of form and texture with a single light and did a series of studies with several different models.

Don Dudenbostel
26-Dec-2014, 13:47
Here are a couple more shots with a single #2 photoflood.

Don Dudenbostel
26-Dec-2014, 13:48
Here's the last for the moment that was one of those happy accidents.

ndg
26-Dec-2014, 14:13
Don, great images. my favorite is the very first one. I like shooting nudes with one light too and still do. I find the suggestiveness of the images quite pleasing.



I recently started scanning some of my old negs and came up with these from the 60's and early 70's.

At the time I was in college or just out and into using one light. I think every shot was made with a single #2 photoflood in a 12" satin reflector like the old Smith Victor. I loved the accentuation of form and texture with a single light and did a series of studies with several different models.

StoneNYC
26-Dec-2014, 14:26
Here's the last for the moment that was one of those happy accidents.

I like this one best, when women were women!

Is that a Holga?

Peter De Smidt
26-Dec-2014, 14:43
Nice work, Don. I'm a fan of #3.

Don Dudenbostel
26-Dec-2014, 15:21
Thank you!

The color image as I said was a happy accident. It predated a Holga by about 30 years. I guess I must have removed a roll from my camera and then put it back in somewhere during the shoot. I shot one roll of color and several of B&W and this would have been the first frames where the light struck the leader. I couldn't reproduce this effect if I had to.

The others were shot over a year or so back in the late 60's to around 71. It's fun how we as photographers can freeze time. The models I shot were around my age and one a few years older. Thinking about it now, they're between 65 and 72 years old now. I've had a couple of them contact me in the past couple of years and it's interesting to see how they've aged.

Don Dudenbostel
26-Dec-2014, 15:42
Here are 4 more that are a bit different. I've done a lot of documentary in the past 50 years and these are a few from that collection. The young men are streakers from 1973 and the two women are from Mardi Gras about ten years ago.

Excuse the flat scans on the two women. They were just down and dirty scans.

Genfer
26-Dec-2014, 21:51
Excellent work Don!
Wow, I was born around that time.

Dan Quan
28-Dec-2014, 11:17
This is pretty straightforward.

As always, please feel encouraged to offer constructive critique. :)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/DSC_1369_zps17d0e15b.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/DSC_1369_zps17d0e15b.jpg.html)

mathieu Bauwens
29-Dec-2014, 11:44
Daylight, what else ?!

Beautiful.

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 13:56
Tri-X film in a Hasselblad (6cmx6cm)
127350

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 14:02
Instant film negative (the neg from a Fuji FP-3000B peel-apart "Polaroid" in a Polaroid 600SE Mamiya camera)
127351

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 14:04
Tri-X in a Hasselblad (mostly the negative, but with a hole cut out on the head to reveal the positive)
127352

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 14:06
Polaroid taken with SX-70 camera (Impossible B&W film - and one of those 1970s exploding flash bars!)
127353

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 14:10
Fuji FP-3000B instant film (in a Polaroid back on a Fuji GX680 camera ... the model had sheer fabric over her)
127354

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 14:19
Fuji FP-3000B instant film in a Polaroid back
127355

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 14:21
Fuji FP-3000B instant film in a Polaroid back
127356

axs810
30-Dec-2014, 14:40
Awesome stuff GPX! I like the negative photo with the cut out head as a positive..very interesting technique.

Just curious, on the last two fujifilm fp3000b photos you posted did you add a black border? I like the framing

GPX
30-Dec-2014, 15:48
Yes, it's just some extra space around the scan that is black once the neg is reversed.

Actually there is a reason I've left extra space: I'm thinking of printing some 8x10 digital negs from them and making contact print cyanotypes and argyrotypes. One day when I get the time ... you know how it is ...

Dan Quan
30-Dec-2014, 16:12
Tri-X in a Hasselblad (mostly the negative, but with a hole cut out on the head to reveal the positive)
127352


Fuji FP-3000B instant film in a Polaroid back
127356

Lovin em!

Way to go!

Love to see all the technical details (tech deets :confused:).

axs810
30-Dec-2014, 16:13
GPX- On the last two FP3000b photos, what was your light set up like and what light modifiers did you use? I like how soft the shadows are in the second to last photo...really contours her figure and adds a nice quality to the image


Did you use two silver umbrellas for those shots? I'm trying to figure it out by the double shadows :P

StoneNYC
30-Dec-2014, 23:20
Fuji FP-3000B instant film in a Polaroid back
127356

Enjoying these.

GPX
31-Dec-2014, 02:21
Two studio flashes, each with a big softbox. Probably at 45% each side, to the front. So nothing special. Regarding the camera settings, I used a modern Sekonic light meter, the one with the touchscreen, which takes flash readings. (The studio manager commented he hadn't seen a light meter used in years!) Probably was 1/125th second with an aperture of f11 or so. Often I shoot wide open to get shallow depth of field, but I think in this case I went for smaller aperture because I was too lazy to walk over and turn the flash powers down.

If you want to know the truth about model shoots, the most important thing for getting good results is to be chatting with the model and making it lively and fun, the technical settings are only the second most important thing!

Genfer
31-Dec-2014, 02:34
GPX: very nice work !!!

resummerfield
31-Dec-2014, 14:27
Awesome stuff GPX! I like the negative photo with the cut out head as a positive..very interesting technique....

That's what I was thinking! Awesome!

Stoogley
6-Jan-2015, 14:01
Tri-X in a Hasselblad (mostly the negative, but with a hole cut out on the head to reveal the positive)
127352

Curious as to how you got the neg/pos to come out like this.

axs810
6-Jan-2015, 14:18
Perhaps photoshop?

StoneNYC
6-Jan-2015, 21:07
Curious as to how you got the neg/pos to come out like this.

The poster told you exactly how, they just did such a good job you aren't seeing it...

It's mostly the negative... With a hole cut in the models face to expose the positive, so you are seeing a positive printed face, and the rest is the negative...

GPX
7-Jan-2015, 01:53
Yes, I did not physically cut a print, I did it in Photoshop. A neg layer over a pos layer, delete a circle over her head from the top layer to reveal the layer underneath.

To be honest I find Photoshop a bit of a bore! Plus I am wary of the "Fake Photoshop" look that is so common these days. So I only have the basic version of Photoshop, Elements, rather than the full version. And I only use it for the same sort of adjustments I used to do in the darkroom. This pic is one of the rare occasions where I have done something "Photoshoppy" - but I figure it's okay because it is no different from what I could have done by cutting a hole in a physical print.

Randy Moe
7-Jan-2015, 01:57
Yes, I did not physically cut a print, I did it in Photoshop. A neg layer over a pos layer, delete a circle over her head from the top layer to reveal the layer underneath.

To be honest I find Photoshop a bit of a bore! Plus I am wary of the "Fake Photoshop" look that is so common these days. So I only have the basic version of Photoshop, Elements, rather than the full version. And I only use it for the same sort of adjustments I used to do in the darkroom. This pic is one of the rare occasions where I have done something "Photoshoppy" - but I figure it's okay because it is no different from what I could have done by cutting a hole in a physical print.

As far as I can tell there are no rules here in small format.

Really great image!

Genfer
11-Jan-2015, 13:54
Les poupées
Nemesia Noir
Vaud, 2014
Elioflex 2

127910127912127909

Stoogley
13-Jan-2015, 08:23
Ah yes, with you now.
Wasn't thinking photoshop but rather darkroom.
Thanks.

I've spent most of my life in front of a computer; kinda hate that photography has put me right back there.


Yes, I did not physically cut a print, I did it in Photoshop. A neg layer over a pos layer, delete a circle over her head from the top layer to reveal the layer underneath.

To be honest I find Photoshop a bit of a bore! Plus I am wary of the "Fake Photoshop" look that is so common these days. So I only have the basic version of Photoshop, Elements, rather than the full version. And I only use it for the same sort of adjustments I used to do in the darkroom. This pic is one of the rare occasions where I have done something "Photoshoppy" - but I figure it's okay because it is no different from what I could have done by cutting a hole in a physical print.

koh303
13-Jan-2015, 09:13
I like this one best, when women were women!

Is that a Holga?

When are women not women? Perhaps when they are commodified, like in this thread.

Peter De Smidt
13-Jan-2015, 09:44
Commodity, according to Merriam Webster, means:

: something that is bought and sold

: something or someone that is useful or valued

Which meaning did you have in mind?

Randy Moe
13-Jan-2015, 09:45
When are women not women? Perhaps when they are commodified, like in this thread.

Step up with male nudes.

I will add this caveat, when I took live nude model drawing classes, occasionally we had men, but the mostly female class preferred women for drawing and said so many times.

One fellow was a drip, literally...

DrTang
13-Jan-2015, 09:51
I've spent most of my life in front of a computer; kinda hate that photography has put me right back there.

not me.. cold, lonely darkroom.. missing all the good stuff happening in the warm house... standing on the cold cement for hours...splashing chemicals all over my self.. then what looks great under the safelight looks like crap in daylight...
- then the cleanup

oy


sitting at desk in the warm house with the tv on in the next room .. messing with images - a major blessing compared to darkroom stuff

Randy Moe
13-Jan-2015, 09:59
not me.. cold, lonely darkroom.. missing all the good stuff happening in the warm house... standing on the cold cement for hours...splashing chemicals all over my self.. then what looks great under the safelight looks like crap in daylight...
- then the cleanup

oy


sitting at desk in the warm house with the tv on in the next room .. messing with images - a major blessing compared to darkroom stuff

Cold Santa Barbara darkroom? I live in a cold place and my darkroom is toasty, keeps my chems and water all at just above perfect temperature and evaporative cooling makes it all groovy with my classic music.

I just made my computer station stand up, as sitting here is terrible. But the reason I can can post so much is the darkroom, computer and living space are all one, allowing me to move all through it constantly. Gotta keep walking, good for the legs.

Larry Kellogg
13-Jan-2015, 10:02
Funny to hear two diametrically opposed views of darkroom work. I find darkroom work to be calming and pleasant, and three dimensional, LOL. Like the first poster, I have spent far too many hours looking at things on a flat two dimensional computer screen.

Cleanup takes me fifteen minutes, really not much trouble, and I can be up and printing in fifteen minutes, I've timed myself.

Try those anti-fatigue mats for the floor and get a stool. That's what I have.

Eugene Smith used to put a red filter over his TV to watch it in the darkroom. I suppose that was when there was something worthwhile to watch on there, unlikely these days.

Dan Quan
13-Jan-2015, 10:10
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/Jason-Diagram_zps8cddc6e3.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/Jason-Diagram_zps8cddc6e3.jpg.html)

Randy Moe
13-Jan-2015, 10:11
Excellent!

Stoogley
13-Jan-2015, 10:22
Very nice!

Peter De Smidt
13-Jan-2015, 10:36
Well done, Dan!

koraks
13-Jan-2015, 12:32
That would make a splendid carbon print!

DrTang
13-Jan-2015, 13:20
Cold Santa Barbara darkroom? I live in a cold place and my darkroom is toasty, keeps my chems and water all at just above perfect temperature and evaporative cooling makes it all groovy with my classic music.

I just made my computer station stand up, as sitting here is terrible. But the reason I can can post so much is the darkroom, computer and living space are all one, allowing me to move all through it constantly. Gotta keep walking, good for the legs.



well..back when I had a darkroom..it is out in a separate 3 car garage..so to heat that would have been crazy

and my knees are so bad..any standing is painfull..they weren't bad back then though.. and I did have a mat,,it helped a bit..still

oh.. and no water out there..so cleanup was hosing it down outside and then dragging it all inside to wash

pain in the butt

Randy Moe
13-Jan-2015, 13:28
well..back when I had a darkroom..it is out in a separate 3 car garage..so to heat that would have been crazy

and my knees are so bad..any standing is painfull..they weren't bad back then though.. and I did have a mat,,it helped a bit..still

oh.. and no water out there..so cleanup was hosing it down outside and then dragging it all inside to wash

pain in the butt

How's the weather?

Iluvmyviewcam
13-Jan-2015, 18:22
An early one from when I was 19...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Barbara_LeMay_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/1024px-Barbara_LeMay_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

Dan Quan
13-Jan-2015, 18:38
Excellent!


Very nice!


Well done, Dan!


That would make a splendid carbon print!

Thank you for saying! :)

This is my first male nude and I was almost as uncomfortable as when I shot my first female nude! Actually, I was trying to act relaxed but on the inside I was way more uncomfortable than the model. It's pretty funny now that I look back on it.

edit:
His front foot is up on a half apple box to hide his penis behind his front leg. When I gave him the apple box I just slid it across the floor so I would't have to walk over to him. Such a wuss...
:o

StoneNYC
13-Jan-2015, 19:02
An early one from when I was 19...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Barbara_LeMay_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/1024px-Barbara_LeMay_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

Oh wow, how did you get that texture to it? And the subject matter is great as well, love the mind play here.

Emil Schildt
14-Jan-2015, 04:42
Two blind people...

Painted with light - negative ruined using chemicals...

Randy Moe
14-Jan-2015, 08:14
Two blind people...

Painted with light - negative ruined using chemicals...

Really good title, perfect for your ruined objects.

Dan Quan
14-Jan-2015, 09:04
Two blind people...

Painted with light - negative ruined using chemicals...

What do you mean "ruined with chemicals"? Do you mind telling what chemicals and technique?

Emil Schildt
14-Jan-2015, 11:25
What do you mean "ruined with chemicals"? Do you mind telling what chemicals and technique?

don' tmind at all.
This is a cropped pol 665 negative - after development I applyed some bleach; some developer, and some fix on the negative... I let them "fight" - in some areas the negative will be totally bleached away (the blacks) - in other areas, the developer re develops the bleached areas... I leave the chemicals on - and after some time the whole negative is totally gone... or more or less... so I have to be in a slight hurry to print what I want..

Dan Quan
14-Jan-2015, 11:48
Cool, thanks.

Iluvmyviewcam
14-Jan-2015, 14:28
Here are some from my latest artists' book.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_no.111_copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr.jpg/499px-Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_no.111_copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Paddler_Copyright_2013_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/955px-Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Paddler_Copyright_2013_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg


Lots more here.

http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/


One from 1974...SWC

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Stripper_on_Rooftop_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/795px-Stripper_on_Rooftop_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

djdister
14-Jan-2015, 14:52
Two blind people...

Painted with light - negative ruined using chemicals...

A really interesting shot, but how about putting the guy in a clerical collar? Or maybe that's too twisted...

StoneNYC
14-Jan-2015, 15:38
Two blind people...

Painted with light - negative ruined using chemicals...

I friggin love this!!!!!!

StoneNYC
14-Jan-2015, 15:42
Here are some from my latest artists' book.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_no.111_copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr.jpg/499px-Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_no.111_copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Paddler_Copyright_2013_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/955px-Bikers%27_Mardi_Gras_Paddler_Copyright_2013_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg


Lots more here.

http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/


One from 1974...SWC

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Stripper_on_Rooftop_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg/795px-Stripper_on_Rooftop_Copyright_1974_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

Haha! Watch out for the artist police!

Emil Schildt
14-Jan-2015, 16:50
A really interesting shot, but how about putting the guy in a clerical collar? Or maybe that's too twisted...

he actually is...

Randy Moe
14-Jan-2015, 17:15
Your comment was something like, it's funny we are dating after seeing her naked, and doing things backwards...implying nakedness and sex follow dating?

Not an exact quote, but paraphrased from, memory.

I agree with Omar, that we all need to clean it up.

FrankS
14-Jan-2015, 17:19
Stone, I think it was you who said that you photographed a nude model and then dated her.

Dan Quan
14-Jan-2015, 17:41
The last post discussing the photographers uneasiness with a male nude goes even further to make this point, it is not about the photograph, but it is about the naked person and sexual tension.

First of all, please do not drag me into your self-righteous diatribe.

Secondly, if you need clarity regarding one of my posts then please ask.

Thirdly, you really should start a new thread under your own topic before you start looking like a troll.

Peter De Smidt
14-Jan-2015, 17:59
In post #134 in this thread, Stone said:

"I did it backward, first we shot nudes and then we went on a date... :whistling:"

koh303
14-Jan-2015, 18:20
For those with short memory or lack of "back" browser buttons...


I did it backward, first we shot nudes and then we went on a date... :whistling:

126539

This discussion followed shortly:


I guess whatever works. ;)


Isn't that called "Pre-Qualifying"?

I vaguely remember being young...er.

:cool:

And then stone replied:


I'm the first one to say something if I think that things have gone too far and people are being rude, I don't think anyone has said anything to vulgar or anything, she loves the image and as soon as I took it she took a snapshot of it on her phone and sent it to her mom, so I'm comfortable with posting it, and we both joked about how funny it was that I had seen her naked and then we went on a date, so no I think it's ok.

It went too far, but you were not the first one to say something, DQ indeed was:

I learned a new word; commodified: to turn into a commodity; make commercial. 2. to treat as if a commodity.

The fact that I feel guilty tells me I want to make a change. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Peter De Smidt
14-Jan-2015, 20:42
Women have been treated poorly for a very long time. Having some sensitivity about that shows decency and maturity. A number of us value being able to photograph nudes and discuss them in an adult and civil manner. What positive purpose does crude language and juvenile comments serve here? Humor? Hardly. Why not keep these comments to yourselves out of respect for the community, and for people in general? The appropriate question is not "Do I have a right to say this?" but "Should I say this?" Changing from crudity to something else, what benefit do forum members gain from being told that the photographer is dating the model? I've heard from a number of models that 'photographers' treat places like Model Mayhem as dating sites. That type of thing adds a seediness to the subject that would be best avoided.

Peter De Smidt
14-Jan-2015, 21:07
But Peter, just to clarify, we did not date, we went on a date, to which SHE asked ME out on.



That's irrelevant. The question is not what type of dating behavior is ok, but what type of comment might detract from the site. As long as you're both consenting adults, I don't care what you do together, but I don't need to hear about it here. You said on a recent thread something along the lines of "I didn't come here to look at digitally produced pictures....." Well, I didn't come here to find out about who you go on dates with. Mentioning that the model is the photographer's wife doesn't carry the same questionable baggage that going on a date with a model does.

Dan Quan
14-Jan-2015, 22:14
If we are back on topic; this is basically a B&W image with the color added in photoshop. It was shot in color but she is wearing nontoxic black watercolor paint and I used plain daylight balanced SB's. The model is smoking a cigar and her voice was very horse afterward, what a trooper.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/_DTQ6043_zps86386924.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/_DTQ6043_zps86386924.jpg.html)

StoneNYC
14-Jan-2015, 22:55
If we are back on topic; this is basically a B&W image with the color added in photoshop. It was shot in color but she is wearing nontoxic black watercolor paint and I used plain daylight balanced SB's. The model is smoking a cigar and her voice was very horse afterward, what a trooper.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/DTQ/Forum%20Sharing/_DTQ6043_zps86386924.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/DTQ/media/Forum%20Sharing/_DTQ6043_zps86386924.jpg.html)

Interesting image, if she's nude I don't see it, but it is neat, is the image digital? I ask specifically because of the "grain and crud" that is in the image, it works for the image, just wondering if you created that or it happened on its own as part of the development and print process?

Dan Quan
14-Jan-2015, 23:04
Yep, she is nude. This was during my more abstract phase. Her breast is in the lower right-ish corner of the image with a highlight on her nipple. I think few people like this series images because it is so difficult to discern what is happening, but I enjoy abstract stuff so I shoot for me. From my point of view the series was not entirely successful but I'm still glad I shot it.
Yes it was shot digitally, we actually shot a lot of images on this day. I think the grunge and grime you might be seeing is water in the air, and dry paint on her skin. I was triggering the shutter with an electronic cable release while I was kneeling down in front of the camera spraying water in the air with a spray bottle.

StoneNYC
14-Jan-2015, 23:07
First time I've ever tried selective color, I find it gimmicky but I had a lot of trouble getting good shots with this model (I blame my own inability to find the right style for her, and not her inability to model) so I wanted to try something new. I still find it gimmicky but it's interesting anyway. This is digital. I chose this image to share as I found it poignant.

128117

StoneNYC
14-Jan-2015, 23:12
Yep, she is nude. This was during my more abstract phase. Her breast is in the lower right-ish corner of the image with a highlight on her nipple. I think few people like this series images because it is so difficult to discern what is happening, but I enjoy abstract stuff so I shoot for me. From my point of view the series was not entirely successful but I'm still glad I shot it.
Yes it was shot digitally, we actually shot a lot of images on this day. I think the grunge and grime you might be seeing is water in the air, and dry paint on her skin. I was triggering the shutter with an electronic cable release while I was kneeling down in front of the camera spraying water in the air with a spray bottle.

Cool, I think it's an excellent image honestly. I don't know the rest of the series but I really like it.

rdenney
15-Jan-2015, 04:06
Some of the posts I removed were well enough stated, but quoted posts that were not. I don't have time to edit, and its against our policy anyway. I'm sure I could have removed more, but going back and sifting through them is also more than I have time for.

If you want to have a non-political discussion about how photographers treat nudes, please start it as its own thread, preferably in the Lounge, or in On Photography if it doesn't specify small formats.

But it has been done before.

There is a continuum between the innocently artistic and the plainly lewd, and everyone will draw a different boundary between the two. So far, the images speak for themselves. Photographers should allow the images to do so. We can agree that we will be respectful towards models photographed for this thread, which means we will discuss the photography, and not the model's attributes, characteristics, and activities outside the photograph. We've ventured over that line in the past, and we've removed posts in the past.

The posts I left made my further points, but I may remove some of those later, too. Peter's point is particularly relevant: It's not what you do, it's how you say it on this forum that is the issue here.

Now, back to photographs.

Rick "Yes, this is a moderated forum" Denney

Randy Moe
15-Jan-2015, 13:47
Some of the posts I removed were well enough stated, but quoted posts that were not. I don't have time to edit, and its against our policy anyway. I'm sure I could have removed more, but going back and sifting through them is also more than I have time for.

If you want to have a non-political discussion about how photographers treat nudes, please start it as its own thread, preferably in the Lounge, or in On Photography if it doesn't specify small formats.

But it has been done before.

There is a continuum between the innocently artistic and the plainly lewd, and everyone will draw a different boundary between the two. So far, the images speak for themselves. Photographers should allow the images to do so. We can agree that we will be respectful towards models photographed for this thread, which means we will discuss the photography, and not the model's attributes, characteristics, and activities outside the photograph. We've ventured over that line in the past, and we've removed posts in the past.

The posts I left made my further points, but I may remove some of those later, too. Peter's point is particularly relevant: It's not what you do, it's how you say it on this forum that is the issue here.

Now, back to photographs.

Rick "Yes, this is a moderated forum" Denney

+1.

Dan Quan
15-Jan-2015, 13:56
First time I've ever tried selective color, I find it gimmicky but I had a lot of trouble getting good shots with this model (I blame my own inability to find the right style for her, and not her inability to model) so I wanted to try something new. I still find it gimmicky but it's interesting anyway. This is digital. I chose this image to share as I found it poignant.

128117
I don't find it gimmicky. I remember when I first became aware of it in the nineties it seemed like it was a pretty cool way to drive the point home. Steven Spielberg used it in Schindler's List very effectively and M night Shyamalan used it effectively in the sixth sense. I think its just like any other tool it depends on how it's used. I do like that you included the plant in the color portion, I think that is needed to balance the pink panties. And honestly I would encourage you to explore a few more images with it because if it makes us uncomfortable to use then using it to proficiency is like mastering the beast. :-)

Dang! That's almost deep!

Dan Quan
15-Jan-2015, 14:34
This message has been deleted by rdenney.
Reason
Rude and responses thereto.

I may have found a new signature...

I guess not...

ndg
17-Jan-2015, 13:34
"Gagged"
128220

alanbutler57
17-Jan-2015, 16:32
Two digital captures from the only "nude" photo "meet up" I've attended. Lots and lots of photoshop.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2897/14233303887_2586f518e9_c.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3892/14408469492_dbee0b99cc_c.jpg

One of the un-edited images:
128231

Bill L.
31-Jan-2015, 15:33
Reclaimed Fuji FP-100c negative (3x4, so I think it goes here instead of the LF nudes), converted to B&W and toned:

https://36.media.tumblr.com/1ab80a3fa56c79ffcac59013da48a64f/tumblr_ngnjrchBV71u297zqo1_1280.jpg

Mary Celeste (http://celestialcreature.tumblr.com/)

Taken on a Graflex RB Super D, shown by Mary below:
https://36.media.tumblr.com/d50c36725acfc01ca960b9311b32d4af/tumblr_nh54zn6RGj1u297zqo1_1280.jpg

Since I started a thread on reclaiming Polaroid 809 negatives, I figured I'd post one of the Fuji FP-100c negatives I've reclaimed. I've seen videos where people seem to be able to create lovely color positives from Fuji instant negatives, but I've not been able to get the color that consistent (still can do a pretty decent monochrome though). I'm not sure if the color issue is that I'm not reclaiming the negatives immediately? Not that I'm going to stop a studio session to do it, though. . .

Cheers!
Bill

StoneNYC
31-Jan-2015, 17:02
Reclaimed Fuji FP-100c negative (3x4, so I think it goes here instead of the LF nudes), converted to B&W and toned:

https://36.media.tumblr.com/1ab80a3fa56c79ffcac59013da48a64f/tumblr_ngnjrchBV71u297zqo1_1280.jpg

Mary Celeste (http://celestialcreature.tumblr.com/)

Taken on a Graflex RB Super D, shown by Mary below:
https://36.media.tumblr.com/d50c36725acfc01ca960b9311b32d4af/tumblr_nh54zn6RGj1u297zqo1_1280.jpg

Since I started a thread on reclaiming Polaroid 809 negatives, I figured I'd post one of the Fuji FP-100c negatives I've reclaimed. I've seen videos where people seem to be able to create lovely color positives from Fuji instant negatives, but I've not been able to get the color that consistent (still can do a pretty decent monochrome though). I'm not sure if the color issue is that I'm not reclaiming the negatives immediately? Not that I'm going to stop a studio session to do it, though. . .

Cheers!
Bill

Wash more gently when removing the chemistry and remove the chemistry before crystallization happens. That always helps me.

Andrew O'Neill
31-Jan-2015, 17:48
Very nice, Bill. I think the scratches enhance.

Bill L.
1-Feb-2015, 08:20
Wash more gently when removing the chemistry and remove the chemistry before crystallization happens. That always helps me.

Thanks! I throw the negatives into a small container of water as I'm shooting so that I can clean them later in the day, and I have a feeling I'm removing some of the color dyes in addition to the chemistry. I may have to live with it when I'm in studio as cleaning the negatives is a secondary issue at that point. I've been doing some playing at home, and will keep experimenting.

Bill L.
1-Feb-2015, 08:21
Very nice, Bill. I think the scratches enhance.
Thanks, Andrew! I like the look, though still trying to get the option of pulling a color scan if possible. . .

Emil Schildt
1-Feb-2015, 08:40
Thanks! I throw the negatives into a small container of water as I'm shooting so that I can clean them later in the day, and I have a feeling I'm removing some of the color dyes in addition to the chemistry. I may have to live with it when I'm in studio as cleaning the negatives is a secondary issue at that point. I've been doing some playing at home, and will keep experimenting.

that's what I do too - leave them in water for a couple of hours - then gently rinse them under running water, and using my fingers to remove any residue on the emulsion part of the negative - fix - rinse and dry. Never any problems that way...

Bill L.
1-Feb-2015, 09:01
that's what I do too - leave them in water for a couple of hours - then gently rinse them under running water, and using my fingers to remove any residue on the emulsion part of the negative - fix - rinse and dry. Never any problems that way...
Do you fix before or after bleaching? I've been bleaching the negative and drying without fixing, and I was coming to the conclusion that I needed to fix them.

Thanks!

StoneNYC
1-Feb-2015, 11:10
Wait why do you fix them? Isn't there fix in the development process as part of making the final print?

I assume you mean household bleach to remove the black backing?

Bill L.
1-Feb-2015, 11:33
The negatives seem to fade after a few days (not completely, but significantly). For the bleaching - yes - I'm using the thickened Clorox bleach on the black backing.

StoneNYC
1-Feb-2015, 13:05
The negatives seem to fade after a few days (not completely, but significantly). For the bleaching - yes - I'm using the thickened Clorox bleach on the black backing.

I just use regular bleach, works just fine.

Weird, my negatives have never faded from my FP100C but I can't say that for actual Polaroid or TIP film, that could be different.

Thanks for the info.

GPX
2-Feb-2015, 06:27
Here's another Fujifilm FP-3000B negative shot. I used a 4x5 camera (Gandolfi Precision) with a Polaroid 3.25x4.25 back. I used a bit of tilt-shift to make the model's face the sharpest part of the pic.

(I also have a 4x5 Polaroid back for the same camera, and some old 4x5 Polaroid film - it is strange to think that if I use that, it will count as large format - whereas using the 3.25x4.25 quarter plate size film in the same camera results in it not counting as large format!)

128864

StoneNYC
2-Feb-2015, 07:52
Here's another Fujifilm FP-3000B negative shot. I used a 4x5 camera (Gandolfi Precision) with a Polaroid 3.25x4.25 back. I used a bit of tilt-shift to make the model's face the sharpest part of the pic.

(I also have a 4x5 Polaroid back for the same camera, and some old 4x5 Polaroid film - it is strange to think that if I use that, it will count as large format - whereas using the 3.25x4.25 quarter plate size film in the same camera results in it not counting as large format!)

128864

Absolutely gorgeous!!!

They had to set the line somewhere. It's like you can't post an 8x10 image in an ULF thread because 11x14 is considered ULF but 8x10 is still big but is commonly not considered ULF, just Large Format. If you think about it like that, it helps.

Randy Moe
2-Feb-2015, 08:28
Here's another Fujifilm FP-3000B negative shot. I used a 4x5 camera (Gandolfi Precision) with a Polaroid 3.25x4.25 back. I used a bit of tilt-shift to make the model's face the sharpest part of the pic.

(I also have a 4x5 Polaroid back for the same camera, and some old 4x5 Polaroid film - it is strange to think that if I use that, it will count as large format - whereas using the 3.25x4.25 quarter plate size film in the same camera results in it not counting as large format!)

128864

Check it out . I think a 4X5 camera is always LF no matter which back is used!