Three portraits I did of family a week ago. Did it with Photographic paper as negative, ISO 6.
Took these photos with some very old paper and developed it with some dodgy chems. Graphlex 4x5, f4.5, 1/2s, ISO 6.
I know the imperfections would bother some people but I love it. It creates effects that is unexpected and something you can never recreate with a digital camera.
Graphlex 4x5 Camera, f4.5, 1/2s
Very nice! I like the effect.Originally Posted by Stofjas
A good friend got married on Wednesday and I brought the 8x10 (Eastman View No. 2) and a 15" B&L projection Petzval along. Focusing was tricky as were the 1/4 -1/8 sec. exposure times with the Galli shutter (two 5x7 dark slides). Not one of the shots is tack sharp, but for this kind of portrait I don't think it matters. Sorry to disappoint the "sharp portrait" contingent!
Her bouquet was a bunch of bright yellow daffodils, but given the blue-sensitive nature of the film they went almost black. Whoops.
Shot on Kodak Low Contrast Aerial Duplicating Film (SO-277) exposed at EI 1.5. Processed in HC-110 dil. E for five minutes using Cibachrome drums on a non-reversing motor base.
Jonathan
Those look great, Jonathan.
Thank you, Jay. I was most proud of myself for hauling the big camera out and making it all happen in a relatively short amount of time. I think I learned that a Petzval of such shallow depth of field with no iris or stops is not the ideal choice for portraits of this kind. Next time I'll bring something I can stop down a bit and therefore use faster film, too. My friend was up for the challenge and wanted me to bring the 8x10, so I did. He's a talented photographer himself and also shoots 8x10 so he was an understanding and forgiving subject. His new wife maybe not so much!
Jonathan
EDIT: one more.
photographic paper (outdated) ilford pearl rc vc- rated ISO6 in 8x10 camera. settings were f8 and 2sec. for the "neg" then this print was made contact style from the other under the enlarger- scan of print thinking of calling it "On Display".
Jonathan,
Another beautiful portrait. Timeless, without being nostalgic.
Jessica,
An incredibly impressive result from such a young subject, difficult pose, and long exposure. I would caution you, in the friendliest possible way, to think twice about marring such beautiful work with a title more than simply descriptive, but here I reveal a personal bias -- I also dislike very much your signature on your images. A title like the one you're considering, coupled with your ostentatious signature would make it very difficult for me to take the work seriously, and that's a shame. I think. Tasteful restraint and understatement are far too rare these days.
I stick the sig on as habit after having images stolen offline so it is a regular web posting thing for me. perhaps we are safer in this forum than on others but I had a large company do this to me- they paid for it in the end but it makes me uneasy about posting without some kind of mark - they are not on printed images (just web). what type of title would better suit? I'm not use to giving titles to my images- this is new for me.
Why do you need a title at all? Or if you feel you must, maybe a first name and date? I don't think titles generally add anything, and constrain the way the viewer relates to the image. I would rather keep the experience open-ended, and let the viewer bring all their baggage to the party.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks