September 2012 portraits

[Scott --]

Why what?? I was stopping these folks on the way to wherever they were going to snap a quick portrait. It's not like I could setup an 8x10 and accouterments and take 20 minutes to take one photo.

I will say the scans are terribly soft. Some of the ones that are clearly in focus in my hand are soft after scanning. I don't know what other folks are using for scanning but I tried a V700 for these and it still sucked.

I think Sergei was asking, if I may, why you weren't taking more care in focusing or framing. Not to prolong the issue, but isn't framing and (selectively) focusing a part of shooting? You don't need to sideline folks for 20 minutes to snap a picture.

Anyway, I think that's what he was getting at.

[Corran]

I was shooting via rangefinder focusing/framing with a converted Polaroid 900, handheld. It's not the easiest to focus, especially indoors / dim light (the b&w photos were at 1/25 even wide-open and 3200 ISO film!). Framing is still a challenge for me with that camera, despite parallax-corrected viewfinder. It only moves one corner of the window, which I did not realize till just yesterday actually when I was fooling with it. Anyway, I would hope the photos speak for themselves and the slight softness (more due to scanning imo) and maybe not perfect framing is not what anyone focuses on!! But I know some folks are more interested in technical perfection rather than what the photo is about (that's not aimed at anyone in particular, just an observation).

[SergeiR]

I was shooting via rangefinder focusing/framing with a converted Polaroid 900, handheld. It's not the easiest to focus, especially indoors / dim light (the b&w photos were at 1/25 even wide-open and 3200 ISO film!). Framing is still a challenge for me with that camera, despite parallax-corrected viewfinder. It only moves one corner of the window, which I did not realize till just yesterday actually when I was fooling with it. Anyway, I would hope the photos speak for themselves and the slight softness (more due to scanning imo) and maybe not perfect framing is not what anyone focuses on!! But I know some folks are more interested in technical perfection rather than what the photo is about (that's not aimed at anyone in particular, just an observation).

Scott is right. I was asking why not thinking while shooting, instead of just wasting film and effort. May be its just me, or may be its just leftovers of my education, but i never truly got while people think that photojournalistic shooting includes careless framing, weird tilts and so on. As one of my mentors still says - it takes bullet 4 seconds to completely kill someone. How long it takes you to compose,focus and press shutter?

Its not argument for some quality stuff or anything, nor i am here to critique what you have done. But i just don't get it, i guess, thats why i felt like asking "why?".

[SergeiR]

Yes I've seen many scans here from Fujiroids that look great. Mine don't. I don't know why. Either way I only scan for simple online sharing, the original prints are the real reason to shoot Fujiroids!!

Its odd indeed, considering that it should be optimized for reflective scanning to start from. Have you tried to adjust height? May be something shifted during shipping? Looks seriously off focus to me, and they are pretty much 1:1 scans (size wise - on screen)

[Corran]

I was thinking while shooting. My framing wasn't dead-on because I was not composing on a ground-glass, on a tripod. Focus issues were of course not intentional, and I was shooting at f/3.5 on most of these.

I don't think these are a waste of film or effort, and I find it quite an affront that you would simply assume that. I would love to have seen how you would have approached this kind of shooting, with the same materials. Would you have put the camera on a tripod, focused on the GG, and shot at f/11??

Looking at them again, the most egregious thing I would say was the first should have been a landscape orientation. I like the second one best, the third is mis-focused (or actually motion blur I think) and I cut off her elbow slightly, and the last is just about perfect except I clipped a little off the far right person's head. What's the big deal really?

*I guess maybe you mean just in general? Not those shots particularly?

[Corran]

Anyway, I guess I'm coming off a little defensive. I didn't mean that.

With all of these shots (about 15 came out well), I was of course trying to get the best focus/framing/comp while working within the limitations of what I was using. There's a few things I'd have done differently with a more lengthy image-making process, with tripod and all that (which would've been totally impossible in this case). Either way, I love the way these came out overall, despite their flaws here and there. Since the color Fujiroids take about 1:30 to develop I only got one chance to do them; I took about 15 seconds to focus and frame these up through the viewfinder. The subjects were long-gone before I pulled the print. The b&w ones take less time but still too long for rushing people. I did get to do two a couple of times, and I gave away the first one to the subject.

Thanks for the commentary.

[Randy]

Linda and Katie, our pug, that is suffering from cancer. Don't know how many more pics we will get.

8X10 X-ray film exposed through a new-to-me Bausch & Lomb 11X14 1C - f/8 1/4 sec, HC-110 1:63 68f for 8 min.

[Scott --]

Linda and Katie, our pug, that is suffering from cancer. Don't know how many more pics we will get.

8X10 X-ray film exposed through a new-to-me Bausch & Lomb 11X14 1C - f/8 1/4 sec, HC-110 1:63 68f for 8 min.

Randy, sorry to hear about your pug. We lost one of our Bostons this week; I can only wish you the best. And advise you to burn as much film as possible.

BTW, this is lovely.

Scott

[Robert Budding]

. . . As one of my mentors still says - it takes bullet 4 seconds to completely kill someone. How long it takes you to compose,focus and press shutter? . . .

A bullet only has to be close. Framing and focus, on the other hand . . . .

[Zaitz]

2 for 2 today! Backed up a tad compared to last time which I think makes the Aero Ektar a bit less effective in this scenario. Need to take it out into the field with the dogs.



Speed Graphic
4x5 Arista EDU Ultra 400
178mm Aero Ektar @f/2.5
~1/240

Developed in Pyrocat HD @71° 1:1:100 in HP Combiplan tank for 10 minutes with normal agitation. Negative looks better than stand development. The over exposure and reduced development time easily kept the highlights with good shadow detail in her face.