MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

[Tin Can]

As usual we went to all the same places. Highgate looks ancient and in is bad shape compared to the older Chicago Graceland cemetery.

Highgate is built on a hill, a very bad idea.

Only pic I took was of the Karl Marx monument.

Which also gets the most visitors!

I think Graceland is my most missed Chicago location. I often ate a picnic lunch there on the way to work. Nobody ever disturbed my meal. Strange but true.

Highgate is more interesting as it slides downhill.

Memorial, Highgate Cemetery, London, 2003

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Randy

Yes, Highgate is in a very bad shape..............often frustrating to photograph.............one part of the Cemetery is off limits to joe public and the other part only via short tours............of the seven magnificent London cemeteries, Highgate is the only one where there are restrictions (I believe.....

regards

andrew

[Peter De Smidt]

That's funny, Randy. Yes, I took a photo of Marx's tomb, but I didn't do a very good job. I seem to remember them being very strict about where we could go.


Along the Thames, 2003


Lauren and Her Dad, Kew Gardens, 2003


The Great Pagoda, Kew Royal Botanical Gardens, 2003

[tuco]

Those street performers really have a lot of patients. I don't think I could do it.

Seattle, WA
400TMY


Century Link Field by tuco, on Flickr

[tuco]

Glendive, MT
400TMY



The New iDoor by tuco, on Flickr



The Lulhaven by tuco, on Flickr

[consummate_fritterer]

Peter De Smidt, what film and developer are you using? Do your analog prints look like your posted scans?

[Peter De Smidt]

Ilford XP-2 Super. They were all developed by a pro lab in London in regular C41 chemicals. I've printed a couple of the images, London Eye, Hampton Courts, and a couple others, optically on 11x14" paper back in about 2004. The two named shots look pretty close to the digital files. Yes, I had to use lens tilt and easel tilt to make the verticals parallel on the Hampton Court shot. That said, I'm not a "straight" printer, whether in analogue or digital. In the darkroom, I'd dodge, burn, bleach, mask, tone......basically whatever I could to get the image I want. I do the same with digital. I see no reason to limit my digital files to mimicries of optical prints.

[consummate_fritterer]

Ilford XP-2 Super. They were all developed by a pro lab in London in regular C41 chemicals. I've printed a couple of the images, London Eye, Hampton Courts, and a couple others, optically on 11x14" paper back in about 2004. The two named shots look pretty close to the digital files. Yes, I had to use lens tilt and easel tilt to make the verticals parallel on the Hampton Court shot. That said, I'm not a "straight" printer, whether in analogue or digital. In the darkroom, I'd dodge, burn, bleach, mask, tone......basically whatever I could to get the image I want. I do the same with digital. I see no reason to limit my digital files to mimicries of optical prints.

Thank you. I understand. I'm interested in the overall tonality. I'm really liking much of what I see with XP2. It's too bad they don't make it in 4x5.

[Peter De Smidt]

Swan, Leeds Castle, 2003

[jon.oman]

Very nice Peter!