PDA

View Full Version : Feb. Portraits



eddie
1-Feb-2009, 07:09
it seems that i shoot many of portraits at the beginning of the month......


the 1stone is an 8x10 petzval on 8x10 aluminum. f11 for 4 sec. he asked for some artifacts...i tried to make a weird boarder but all in ended up with was the vignetting. i think the vignetting woks. i did have some trouble with my holder. seems to have been bleeding chemicals off the dark slide. i changed DS and fixed my problems.

the middle two are 5x7 using the above petzval. for about 1-2 sec.

the last is an 8x10 self pot. i used a 15 inch cooke and a packard shutter. seems based on my facial expression it takes some serious concentration to operate a bulb and count to 4! f8


eddie

jb7
1-Feb-2009, 07:28
Great stuff Eddie, coming along nicely-
the vignette does work very well in the first-

j

Dan Schmidt
1-Feb-2009, 07:56
Iain, yoga instructor from the Yukon.
5x7 Pd print

cjbroadbent
1-Feb-2009, 09:02
There is plenty of room on 8x10 to fit some attitude into the portrait. This is a polaroid from a Gandolfi 8x10 with a 240mm. and just one umbrella.

Dave Wooten
1-Feb-2009, 09:12
Chris, Great portrait!

vinny
1-Feb-2009, 09:20
I took the 4x5 to work. It was a shoot for Tonka. I photographed some crew members in the down time. Chamonix 4x5, 210 fujinon, fuji instant film.

Jeremy Moore
1-Feb-2009, 10:39
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3244053663_f6a1bebe70.jpg

Shot a quick 4x5 while teaching a friend the LF ropes.

matthew blais
1-Feb-2009, 11:23
I took the 4x5 to work. It was a shoot for Tonka. I photographed some crew members in the down time. Chamonix 4x5, 210 fujinon, fuji instant film.

Nice one Vinny

Gary Samson
1-Feb-2009, 12:26
An available light portrait made with the 12x20 of artist James Aponovich.

jb7
1-Feb-2009, 13:22
now there's a neg (and print) I'd love to see...

eddie
1-Feb-2009, 16:01
some unsuspecting house guests.

8x10 aluminum. cooke 15 inch f8 2 sec

jb7
1-Feb-2009, 16:39
Gary, what length lens did you use for that one?
(if you don't mind me asking?)

Eddie, you're unstoppable-
I like that middle one-
is the last solarized, or something?

Gary Samson
1-Feb-2009, 17:02
Hi Joseph,
The portrait was made with a 355 G Claron lens on a Wisner 12x20 camera. The film was Efke PL100 developed in Pyrocat MC and the exposure was 5 seconds compensating for reciprocity. I think the f stop was 22.5. The final print was made on Agfa MC Classic. I hope this helps.

jb7
1-Feb-2009, 17:13
Thank you Gary, yes it helps a lot-
your artist friend has managed to look quite relaxed in his pose,
and I wouldn't have guessed 5 seconds-
Great to get such cooperation, but I suppose the extra presence of your camera helps-

I've done 6 seconds up close on 4x5, but the model was leaning against something-
don't think I could have done without a prop-

I love that format, I think I might have to investigate it more-
How many darkslides do you take with you usually?

I could probably get a camera easier than the darkslides...

Thanks for the reply-

j

Gary Samson
1-Feb-2009, 17:43
Thank you Gary, yes it helps a lot-
your artist friend has managed to look quite relaxed in his pose,
and I wouldn't have guessed 5 seconds-
Great to get such cooperation, but I suppose the extra presence of your camera helps-

I've done 6 seconds up close on 4x5, but the model was leaning against something-
don't think I could have done without a prop-

I love that format, I think I might have to investigate it more-
How many darkslides do you take with you usually?

I could probably get a camera easier than the darkslides...

Thanks for the reply-

j

Joseph,
I usually take three film holders (darkslides) with me for a session although I only shot two holders for this portrait. I too was amazed that the artist could hold still that long while standing. He did brace himself against the table to help.

jb7
1-Feb-2009, 18:14
Thanks Gary-

eddie
1-Feb-2009, 19:07
Eddie, you're unstoppable-
I like that middle one-
is the last solarized, or something?

yeah, i am loving this process. i wish i did not have to go to work.

it is a bit overexposed. i should have shot it a 1/2-1 second less. the plate looks cool but the scan did not show it so well.

more to come....

eddie

seven
2-Feb-2009, 17:31
eddie you go to work AND shoot all these ? respect, man !

seven
2-Feb-2009, 17:34
first portrait for this month -

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/3248129893_9841bb38f3_o.jpg

Dallmeyer-Bergheim No.2, 8x10 Berger 200, pyrocat

eddie
3-Feb-2009, 06:18
eddie you go to work AND shoot all these ? respect, man !

thanks seven,

i wish i could play photography all day.

i see you are playing with that new lens....keep em coming. looks like a sweet one!

eddie

cjbroadbent
3-Feb-2009, 09:24
Seven, Logging in just to say how good that Dallmeyer-Bergheim portrait is.

vinny
3-Feb-2009, 10:10
Captured and drugged critter, 120mm nikkor macro, 800mm extension, 4x5 efke 25 in pmk.

eddie
3-Feb-2009, 11:11
Captured and drugged critter, 120mm nikkor macro, 800mm extension, 4x5 efke 25 in pmk.

wow! 800mm?!?! great stuff. good drugs i see....

Brian Sims
3-Feb-2009, 15:43
"Captured and drugged critter"

A friend froze some cockroaches so that he could photograph them posed in various toy trucks. A couple of days later he took them out of the freezer and within minutes, under the heat of the lights, they started to scamper away.

vinny
3-Feb-2009, 18:30
That's exactly what this guy did. I caught him, put him in a jar with a cotton ball soaked in nail polish remover (acetone). The next morning I did one shot before he started to wiggle his antennae. I didn't notice it until I got the E-6 slide back.

unrealalex
4-Feb-2009, 04:50
My turn :)

http://ambrotype.ru/wet-plate-collodion/projects/hats/images/Amused.jpg (http://www.ambrotype.ru/wet-plate-collodion/projects/hats/index.html)

Lucky Bargee, BGA, Ambrotype, 18x24 cm

I used Hugo Meyer Portrait Trioplan 12"/3.5 Full opened

luis a de santos
4-Feb-2009, 07:01
Gary ,a beautiful portrait.
Could you expand a little on you did you light the artist. I note a large window on back so you must have used some front light. Strobes?

Thanks Luis

jb7
4-Feb-2009, 08:09
That's a lovely Ambrotype too-
Was that flash lit?
Looks like a short exposure...

j

unrealalex
4-Feb-2009, 14:00
Joseph, thank you
I use two fluorescent lights sources to make my ambros. Each light source has seven big energy saving lamps (input power: 105Wt, temperature: 6500K)
Exposure was about 5 seconds at F/3.5 but I underexpose a little bit - so right exposure should be ~7 seconds.
BTW, I do not use any head brace to "lock" the sitter head :)

jb7
4-Feb-2009, 14:02
What a hero then-
it looks instantaneous-

Jim Galli
4-Feb-2009, 15:08
Wow! Great stuff this month already! I'm falling behind.

Seven, that Bergheim is going to be gorgeous eh?

Alex, the Ambrotype is beautiful. Gary, the 12X20 is a knock out punch. Eddie, great stuff as always. Very inspiring.

seven
4-Feb-2009, 15:47
eddie - yeah, me too.

Christopher - thank you very much !

Jim - yes it is gorgeous. very subtle and creamy soft focus effect, i would say even unique. much easier to focus than the pinkhams btw, or may be i was just lucky this time ;) we'll see....
cheers !

Vlad Soare
4-Feb-2009, 23:12
Alexey, that's a lovely one!
I can't believe he was able to hold that wide smile perfectly still for five seconds. :eek:
I give up shooting portraits when the exposure gets longer than half a second... Shame on me... :o

unrealalex
5-Feb-2009, 00:12
Vlad, I imagine too - such portraits I got for a first time - usually sitters can not smile like this :)
I try to make shorter exposure by adding more light.

PaulRicciardi
6-Feb-2009, 08:01
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2842215408_f15bf33282.jpg

Took this a long time ago but totally and completely forgot the negative even existed until I was going through one of my archival binders. For whatever reason I decided I didn't like the negative during the photoshoot so it got tossed into the "forget me" binder.

So, as far as I am concerned, it might as well be new haha

4x5, 203mm Ektar, HP5

Jim Cole
6-Feb-2009, 13:36
I have become facinated by the really fine portrait work I've seen on this forum, especially since I started shooting B&W film last April. The excellent work here has inspired me to make my very first attempt at a portrait. Being a nature and landscape guy, this is really a stretch for me.

Regardless, I'm fairly pleased with my first try. I know this is a very static shot and I have a long way to go, and I was hoping to get some critical comments here. This was a fairly hurried session since my wife had a conference call to make.

Image was made with a 4x5 Crown Graphic with a 135mm Rodenstock Optar. Acros film souped in Rodinal (normal development), scanned on a 4990, toned and slightly sharpened in photoshop.

Set up was north afternoon light coming in through a window directly opposite the model (my very patient wife) and one hot light with a shoot through umbrella bounced off the ceiling from the model's front right to softly highlight the hair.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3444/3260641114_bdff7a7b29_o.jpg


Let me know what you think and thanks in advance,

Jim Cole
Flagstaff, Arizona
www.jimcolephoto.com

Miguel Coquis
7-Feb-2009, 05:43
Behind door
4x5
minus 2 1/2 dev

http://macoquis.caraldi.com/scaled/Expo%20Mars%2009/behind-the-door.jpg

russyoung
7-Feb-2009, 07:50
Seven=

Masterful use of the Bergheim, a hard lens to use by anyone's standard (except for Fred Day). When my cross country move has finally wound down and my lenses unpacked, I'd like to talk to you about focus - I had the very devil of a time with mine.

Post more, please.

Russ Young

Ken Lee
7-Feb-2009, 08:08
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/p34.jpg
250mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar Barrel Lens
Sinar P, 4x5, TMY Pyrocat HD

Nana Sousa Dias
7-Feb-2009, 12:06
There is plenty of room on 8x10 to fit some attitude into the portrait. This is a polaroid from a Gandolfi 8x10 with a 240mm. and just one umbrella.


Great portrait, Christopher!

Michael Roberts
7-Feb-2009, 17:00
Jim,
Lighting and exposure look fine to me. I would just like to see a much tighter framing. How far away were you? If you don't have one, you might try to find a 203 Optar to use for portraits (or a 203 Ektar of course).
Keep at it,
Michael

Jim Cole
7-Feb-2009, 18:01
Jim,
Lighting and exposure look fine to me. I would just like to see a much tighter framing. How far away were you? If you don't have one, you might try to find a 203 Optar to use for portraits (or a 203 Ektar of course).
Keep at it,
Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the comments. I only have a 135 for the Crown Graphic. I am looking at a 210 (or now a 203) for it. I could have used my Ebony camera with a 210 Schneider, but I was curious how things would turn out with the 135. I was as close as I could get with a bit of additional bellows extension on the Crown and still focus on the eye closest to the camera. I agree that a tighter shot would have looked much better and certainly less formal.

Thanks again for the comments, I appreciate it.

Jim

Jeremy Moore
7-Feb-2009, 23:23
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/3262608386_a55b7eed66_o.jpg

4x5.

Jan Pedersen
7-Feb-2009, 23:30
Jeremy, Love it.


jan

Jeremy Moore
7-Feb-2009, 23:35
Jeremy, Love it.


jan

Jan, taken with the 360mm f/6.3 Fujinon.

Jan Pedersen
7-Feb-2009, 23:42
Hope it works out well for you. ;)

jan

Jeremy Moore
7-Feb-2009, 23:48
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3492/3261834971_435864a46d_o.jpg

4x5

Jeremy Moore
7-Feb-2009, 23:49
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3404/3261842033_c0634f0940_o.jpg

4x5

Mark Sawyer
8-Feb-2009, 00:29
That's a lovely image, Ken! I'm really fond of those old Tessars, and it looks like you're getting the best out of it!

And a great series, Jeremy!

Ken Lee
8-Feb-2009, 07:23
Thanks Mark !

There really is something... wholesome, about the Tessar look. I have other lenses, but in spite of myself, I just keep reaching for the Tessars.

I really like Jeremy's photo of the dog, complete with... wagging tail ;)

Allen in Montreal
8-Feb-2009, 07:53
Nice!
The dog's eyes seem to be saying....."and why am I fenced in, while you run free?" :)





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3404/3261842033_c0634f0940_o.jpg

4x5

Frank Petronio
8-Feb-2009, 08:48
Shannon

cobalt
8-Feb-2009, 10:34
Behind door
4x5
minus 2 1/2 dev

http://macoquis.caraldi.com/scaled/Expo%20Mars%2009/behind-the-door.jpg

Superb.

Jim Galli
8-Feb-2009, 10:47
Superb.

Yes, yes.

eddie
8-Feb-2009, 14:35
we had a bit of a collodion gathering this satday.

Robert and i flowed our 1st plates together waaaayy back in nov.;) . he wanted to give it a go again so i became the model. (all photos posted with permissions of the shutter operators).

pete flowed and shot the 1st plate. a 5x7 aluminum plate. 5- 6 seconds at f8. a whole plate RR.

the next plate was prepared and shot by robert. 8 sec. 8x10 aluminum. WP petzval lens wide open.

last was of pete with the above lens about 2 sec in direct sun. (damn bellows got in the way....see my chin strap post in the FS section for more laughs)

it was a group effort. we had a great time.

SadChi
9-Feb-2009, 14:11
Here some of my recent works.
The first one is 4x5 Heliar 210/4.5 @f8
The second is 210 Sironar-S/5.6 @f8

Nana Sousa Dias
9-Feb-2009, 15:24
Wista 45 DX, Nikon W210/5.6, Tmax 100
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2564/blackbirday5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Wista 45 DX, Nikon W210/5.6, Tmax 100
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3144/amadou4nw0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Linhof Technika III, Schneider Xenar 127/4.7, Kodak Plus-x
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4641/nuancex2vw7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

fuegocito
9-Feb-2009, 15:27
we had a bit of a collodion gathering this satday.

Robert and i flowed our 1st plates together waaaayy back in nov.;) . he wanted to give it a go again so i became the model. (all photos posted with permissions of the shutter operators).



De shutter, is that also pat pending??????

tanks for a great weekend! I can't wait to do it again:-)

R

Allen in Montreal
9-Feb-2009, 15:32
That is beautiful sir!!!



Wista 45 DX, Nikon W210/5.6, Tmax 100
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2564/blackbirday5.jpg (http://imageshack.us).............

Nana Sousa Dias
9-Feb-2009, 15:39
That is beautiful sir!!!

Thank You, Allen.

stehei
9-Feb-2009, 16:07
really like the heliar shot, sadchi!

vinny
9-Feb-2009, 16:53
First one: wehman 8x10,450mm nikkor, classic pan 400 in pmk, kentmere vc
Second: chamonix 4x5, 210mm fujinon, fp4 in pmk, kentmere vc
Third: chamonix 4x5, 135mm nikkor, fp4 in pmk, kentmere vc

Jim Fitzgerald
9-Feb-2009, 20:50
First one: wehman 8x10,450mm nikkor, classic pan 400 in pmk, kentmere vc
Second: chamonix 4x5, 210mm fujinon, fp4 in pmk, kentmere vc
Third: chamonix 4x5, 135mm nikkor, fp4 in pmk, kentmere vc

Vinny, it was nice to see all of these prints first hand. They are all very well done. Thanks.


Jim

SadChi
9-Feb-2009, 23:33
Many thanks.


really like the heliar shot, sadchi!

Frank Petronio
9-Feb-2009, 23:59
Hold Still!

monkeymon
10-Feb-2009, 04:32
That model didn't know what she signed in for

Noeyedear
10-Feb-2009, 11:19
I'm not sure it's a portrait neither is it a landscape or it could be both. Linhof 612 135mmm lens.

Kevin

Jim Galli
10-Feb-2009, 11:53
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Blackburn/16Smiff_2-150s.jpg
teralyn

smiff lens f5, 8X10

Mark Sawyer
10-Feb-2009, 12:09
smiff lens f5, 8X10

That smiffy is spiffy!

cjbroadbent
12-Feb-2009, 04:29
Scanned Ektachrome give you more leeway with tones. Beyond having someone else to develop three boxes of film.

Miguel Coquis
12-Feb-2009, 09:06
Scanned Ektachrome give you more leeway with tones. Beyond having someone else to develop three boxes of film.

Mama mia !

cjbroadbent
12-Feb-2009, 11:41
Mama mia ! As in maternal? Anyway, B&W tones can be delicately shifted from a chrome. Hard to do with filters for B&W negatives. I know it's cheating.

Miguel Coquis
12-Feb-2009, 11:59
[QUOTE=Christopher Broadbent;439475]As in maternal?
Do not know if something not maternal can exist...
I love games in B&W;-)

dazedgonebye
12-Feb-2009, 13:03
Scanned Ektachrome give you more leeway with tones. Beyond having someone else to develop three boxes of film.

Well, you certainly nailed the subject selection part of the problem.

eddie
14-Feb-2009, 16:07
it is sat. you know whatthat means? wet plate day in rosendale!

here are a few of my practice attempts for the up coming wedding season. i would like to shoot wet plate formals.

1st two are a petzval 8x10 lens at f11 for 3 sec.

the second two are my voigtlander 7b wide open for about 2/3 of a second.

i was trying to be artsy with my pours on the last two. i would like to keep the collodion in the middle of the plate and have none pour off.....it was easy to do when i was starting out but now i can not do it like that again....go figure.

comments welcome.

eddie

Steve M Hostetter
14-Feb-2009, 16:29
it is sat. you know whatthat means? wet plate day in rosendale!

here are a few of my practice attempts for the up coming wedding season. i would like to shoot wet plate formals.

1st two are a petzval 8x10 lens at f11 for 3 sec.

the second two are my voigtlander 7b wide open for about 2/3 of a second.

i was trying to be artsy with my pours on the last two. i would like to keep the collodion in the middle of the plate and have none pour off.....it was easy to do when i was starting out but now i can not do it like that again....go figure.

comments welcome.
eddie

the first shot outstanding

VictoriaPerelet
17-Feb-2009, 22:39
Never posted pics here, if images do not show up - sorry
TMAX-400
http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/Curare/big/Scan-24f_small.jpg
E6
http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/download/tmp/color-3.jpg
http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/download/tmp/color-1.jpg

matthew blais
18-Feb-2009, 12:53
Some new ones I'm working on..
(L to R) 8x10 Palladium; 8x10 on some Luminous Charcoal paper; 16x20 lith on Varycon

matthew blais
18-Feb-2009, 13:35
One more..from last June actually, but just printing now..
weak negative I'm still working on...lith print

Jim Fitzgerald
19-Feb-2009, 22:18
Matt, I like them all. Can't wait to see the finished prints.

Jim

Allen in Montreal
20-Feb-2009, 04:50
Never posted pics here, if images do not show up - sorry
TMAX-400.............

Having always been biased towards black and white, I like like the first frame best, interesting composition on the edge, well done.

seven
22-Feb-2009, 13:19
this month doesn't want to end somehow...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3628/3300481547_76c6224878_o.jpg

'Marinus', Dallmeyer-Bergheim @F8, 8x10 Ilford Delta 100, pyrocat

A.J. Dickson
22-Feb-2009, 22:12
First try with Dallmeyer 1b on Graflex Super d, using a buddy at work. Arista Edu 200 Shot wide open , about f3.5, dev'd in Hc110(another first) for 7.5 min

Jim Galli
22-Feb-2009, 22:27
this month doesn't want to end somehow...

'Marinus', Dallmeyer-Bergheim @F8, 8x10 Ilford Delta 100, pyrocat

That Bergheim has a wonderful look to it. Any focus surprises? Is what you see close to what you get?

Here are a couple from the 42cm Perscheid...


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Blackburn/Perscheid150_2ss.jpg
teralyn

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Blackburn/ClairPerscheid_2s.jpg
clair

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 22:42
That Bergheim has a wonderful look to it. Is what you see close to what you get? Here are a couple from the 42cm Perscheid..."

Those statements capture a good deal of what is wrong with most of the photographs posted on this site that are alleged to be portraits.

Frank Petronio
22-Feb-2009, 22:46
Kind of blank, ye olde Crown Graphic w 135

Jim Galli
22-Feb-2009, 22:57
Those statements capture everything that is wrong with the threads on this site about portraits.

Explain...? Are they no good unless they look like the trillion other portraits done in the last 30 years by a hasselblad?

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:04
Explain...? Are they no good unless they look like the trillion other portraits done in the last 30 years by a hasselblad?

Your obsession with gear, whether the type of camera or the type of lens, is of course the problem. Neither has anything to do with whether a portrait is good or bad, but yes, I think that an obsession with gear tends toward bad.

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:08
Galli, has it ever occurred to you that you have never posted anything that isn't about a lens? Have you noticed that there is never, ever any discussion about your stuff as portraiture, as distinct from "there's a trick that I can do"? Seriously, and it isn't just you.

Shen45
22-Feb-2009, 23:12
Obsession with gear??

Jim is probably one of the most productive photographers posting on this list and he also contributes a wealth of information that cannot be obtained easily from general sources.

If you don't like the images try the decent approach and keep quiet. Many others appreciate the images and also appreciate the pool of in excess of 100 years of lens technology.

Maybe your post because it is text has been misunderstood, I hope so.

Steve

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:14
Steve,

Fine. I'll follow Pellegrin and Avedon and Strand and Newman, you follow the gear and info on lens technology.

Jim Galli
22-Feb-2009, 23:19
Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood were both fired on the same day from the Showboat set in 1959. Reynolds because he couldn't act, and Eastwood because his adams apple was too big. The story goes that as they were walking out of the studio, Reynolds turned to Eastwood and said, "well, I can learn to act, but what the hell are you going to do about your adams apple?"

I've still got time to learn to do good portraits. I haven't even scratched the surface. Sorry if my being a bit of a gear head and enjoying the history of long forgotten lenses has put you off. Next time I'll do them in 'full plate'.

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:32
The problem isn't the long forgotten lenses. The problem is that they are an excuse for work that isn't going anywhere. Like almost everything that gets posted in these portrait threads.

It's hard to believe that people don't see the difference in quality between serious portraiture and what is posted in these threads. Maybe it's me, maybe there is some artistic quality to what people post month after month that I am missing. Honestly, to me almost all of it comes off as really bad work that should be recognised by the people who make it as bad work, and that isn't made better by the fact that it was done with a large format camera and/or a 100 year old lens instead of a cell phone.

Shen45
22-Feb-2009, 23:39
r.e. there is a very valid statement --

"put up or shut up" :)

Let us see some of your work in this thread. I for one would be interested as I enjoy all facets of photography

Steve

Jim Galli
22-Feb-2009, 23:42
Did Avedon post on this forum?? Did I miss something?

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:44
Steve,

Your last post is the refuge on this site over and over. It is pathetic. It is actually worse than the message in your last post, that essentially said that the only thing that is important is technological gobbledegook.

Mystery Jig
22-Feb-2009, 23:47
Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:49
Did Avedon post on this forum?? Did I miss something?

No he didn't, but there was a post yesterday about the fact that all of his work is now available on-line. And you know what, maybe people on this site who are posting portraits that they think are good enough for public consumption should study it - not copy it, but study it.

Of course, if one doesn't know when one's own work is junk, and is encouraged to post it because one participates in a forum where the almost uniform response to anything that gets posted is that it is great, there isn't a great deal of incentive for self-evaluation, is there?

r.e.
22-Feb-2009, 23:57
Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

No, just saying some things, as someone who has followed this forum for about six years, that really need to be said. I know that it won't be popular. I also know that a lot of serious photographers who used to participate here have taken a walk. There are a few left, but the forum is increasingly a hangout for amateurs who are mostly interested in running a mutual admiration society.

Jim Galli
23-Feb-2009, 00:00
No he didn't, but there was a post yesterday about the fact that all of his work is now available on-line. And you know what, maybe people on this site who are posting portraits that they think are good enough for public consumption should study it - not copy it, but study it.

Of course, if one doesn't know when one's own work is junk, and is encouraged to post it because one participates in a forum where the almost uniform response to anything that gets posted is that it is great, there isn't a great deal of incentive for self-evaluation, is there?

I think that's my cue to leave the room........

r.e.
23-Feb-2009, 00:13
I think that's my cue to leave the room........

Whatever, it's not like an obsession with old lenses, dated Broadway plays and Burt Reynolds are the future of photography.

The February 23 issue of the New Yorker has a really interesting piece about the meaning of post-modernism under the guise of a review of a biography of Donald Barthelme. There was a time when that might get discussed on this site, and there were photographers involved in the forum who were dealing with those kinds of issues. These days, if they follow the site at all (and I know that a few of them do from time to time), they are silent.

People who participate in this site who are in age or heart under 80 might be interested in this as a portrait, the whole thing, including the video, shot with a Nikon D90 still camera: http://www.vimeo.com/2370925 The pastiche on Breathless ain't bad either.

Allen in Montreal
23-Feb-2009, 01:41
..........

People who participate in this site who are in age or heart under 80 might be interested in this as a portrait, the whole thing, including the video, shot with a Nikon D90 still camera: http://www.vimeo.com/2370925 The pastiche on Breathless ain't bad either.

Hummm....there is not one portrait on that clip.
There is some interesting documentary work of Train L and it's passengers,
but by the very nature of the beast, not a single portrait.

Ash
23-Feb-2009, 01:43
Did I just click onto p net?

seven
23-Feb-2009, 01:53
That Bergheim has a wonderful look to it. Any focus surprises? Is what you see close to what you get?

Here are a couple from the 42cm Perscheid...




Jim, no focus surprises so far, i'm very pleased with this lens.
wonderful Persheid pictures, especially the second one. i'm still missing this lens...

br,
rado

seven
23-Feb-2009, 01:59
Those statements capture a good deal of what is wrong with most of the photographs posted on this site that are alleged to be portraits.

r.e. - let's presume you're some native talented genius of portrait photography. why don't you enlighten us what's wrong with the portraits on this thread ? some constructive critique would be much more appreciated than your bad attitude and attempt to start a flame war...

br,
rado

cjbroadbent
23-Feb-2009, 02:08
Come back Jim. This thread is about encouraging people to experiment with LF portraits and you are a big encouragement.

jb7
23-Feb-2009, 03:59
Of course, if one doesn't know when one's own work is junk, and is encouraged to post it because one participates in a forum where the almost uniform response to anything that gets posted is that it is great, there isn't a great deal of incentive for self-evaluation, is there?


Encouragement is valuable, as much as critique.
Critique, or more often, just negative commentary, can often become no more than a mirror to our own prejudices.

I think this site is such a valuable resource, and Jim's pictures, although always annotated, are usually about more than the glass, although he is a one man vade mecum-

Pictures posted on the internet, especially images from large format cameras, reduced, can never be more than illustrations of an idea- I don't think that the famous portraitists you mentioned would have much of a chance today if they were limited to posting jpegs on the internet, 640px to a side.

The democracy of an open forum allows anything to happen, and for everyone who likes to share their passion, there will be somebody who will share their vitriol.

It's a forum, it's the nature of the thing.

Jim, don't leave the room...


j

Frank Petronio
23-Feb-2009, 05:34
I don't think there are many good to great photographers who produce their work in a vacuum. Posting sometimes mediocre work in a "safe" forum such as this one is a good way to learn. I think Galli's work is consistently good and while the lens data might be interesting if I wanted to duplicate his style, I usually ignore that and just enjoy his cast of crusty characters.

While I don't think he was very, umm, diplomatic about it, perhaps R.E. was complaining about the copycat, herd instinct that some people exhibit here when they think that by buying an old brass lens "like Galli" they can match his success.

Steve M Hostetter
23-Feb-2009, 07:53
Frank,, if you wanna know the truth I've seen your style of work in many different publications :D honestly though, can anyone these days be even remotely original..?

Frank Petronio
23-Feb-2009, 08:23
Well sure, those bastards copied me!

What's that quote? "Good artists struggle, great artists steal..." You start with some inspiration and shoot enough that it develops into your own. But choosing the right work to inspire you is important or otherwise you'd be starting with crap.

dazedgonebye
23-Feb-2009, 08:57
No, just saying some things, as someone who has followed this forum for about six years, that really need to be said. I know that it won't be popular. I also know that a lot of serious photographers who used to participate here have taken a walk. There are a few left, but the forum is increasingly a hangout for amateurs who are mostly interested in running a mutual admiration society.

I have almost zero portrait experience. If ever I post something here, I hope it will draw constructive criticism.
In the mean time, can you suggest a source for more serious portraiture...so I can tell the difference?

frank hoerauf
23-Feb-2009, 09:05
Being a New Yorker I cant just sit by without adding my 2 cents. First I would like to say I enjoy all Gallis posts, I find his work interesting and helpful. To Mr R.E , I also find the work of Richard Avedon to be amazing, he really stood out in a industry of people trying to stand out. I had the pleasure of seeing his work at MOMA years back and ity was really impressive. However , how can you compare people to him and his work, he was on the top of the heap looking down thats for sure. For his Western portrait series , he shot over 17,000 sheets of film. Assuming that was all 8x10 , thats alot of bread. Consider out of those 17,000 images created over a six year period only 123 were chosen to be in the exhibit. Add to that he had several assistants helping out and setting up, developing, printing. Who here on this site has access to those kind of resources........?? I sure dont . I love photography, everyone here loves photography , that is the common thread here!! I have a portrait of my son on APUG, it may not be the best but it is one of my favorites. I would enjoy seeing portraits by R.E , positive critisism is always welcomed here, negative critisism is not productive and just creates a bad atmosphere that most of us dont appreciate.

Oren Grad
23-Feb-2009, 09:07
The problem isn't the long forgotten lenses. The problem is that they are an excuse for work that isn't going anywhere. Like almost everything that gets posted in these portrait threads.

It's hard to believe that people don't see the difference in quality between serious portraiture and what is posted in these threads. Maybe it's me, maybe there is some artistic quality to what people post month after month that I am missing. Honestly, to me almost all of it comes off as really bad work that should be recognised by the people who make it as bad work, and that isn't made better by the fact that it was done with a large format camera and/or a 100 year old lens instead of a cell phone.

Mencken comes to mind:

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

Paul Metcalf
23-Feb-2009, 09:18
Steve,

Fine. I'll follow Pellegrin and Avedon and Strand and Newman, you follow the gear and info on lens technology.
Now don't we ALL "follow gear and info on lens technology" every now and then ??? http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26119

jb7
23-Feb-2009, 09:48
Anyone have any idea what the hypocritical distance of a 10" Wollensak Veritar is?

Steve M Hostetter
23-Feb-2009, 09:56
lol

Mick Noordewier
23-Feb-2009, 10:05
Cheefully and unwittingly contributing my self-evaluated gear-obsessed amateur junk.

GVII/150mm Sironar-N/HP5+/HC110

EdWorkman
23-Feb-2009, 11:31
Trolls abound
Yes I too lament that fact this isn't a site for stultifying ramblecrap, but a place where folks actually enjoy taking pictures, sharing enthusiasm. Gosh there just MUST be a place where one can go to suck on sugar cubes and talk without moving their lower jaw and make up longwinded , er, ramblecrap, about the REAAALLLLY meaning of a photo that if one can't "see' the hidden madeup meaning then one is unworthy of , well, life as a cool person- wait now I remember something about a suit . Yes, r.e.- what is it about not using a real name- knows where to go and what to do upon arrival for what he she it is looking for and it's obviously not here, so why whine about it here?
Stay cheerful.

Mark Sawyer
23-Feb-2009, 11:49
Galli, has it ever occurred to you that you have never posted anything that isn't about a lens? Have you noticed that there is never, ever any discussion about your stuff as portraiture, as distinct from "there's a trick that I can do"? Seriously, and it isn't just you.

Well, Jim, if it's any consolation, we were looking at some of your portraits in my class a while back, and these made a few kids cry. I remember a pretty poignant thread about it somewhere here on the forum...

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Downings/Some%20uncommon%20portaiture.html

"Never posted anything that isn't about a lens" my arse...

Pete Watkins
23-Feb-2009, 11:57
Mick,
You've just made r.e. look a total pratt (this is a quaint old English phrase often used to describe contemptable nerds who express opinions beneath comptempt). We allknow what it means over here.
Jim it's time for a few more postings.
Pete.

Nana Sousa Dias
23-Feb-2009, 12:11
I think large format isn't the ideal format of camera to shoot portrait, I think medium format has enough quality for that and we can confirm focus during the shooting, wich is very important to me. With MF cameras, we can achieve more DOF, too.
This isn't a portrait forum, it's a large format forum, perhaps, this is one of the major problems, here. I tried to post some of my portraits and I found most of them were made with medium format cameras. I have a lot of out of focus portraits, especially shot with 8x10 camera...those, I didn't posted...

I think it was John Sexton who said: "The most important piece of gear in my studio/lab is the trash can". One must select wisely what he is gonna show to others, I think...

Allen in Montreal
23-Feb-2009, 13:29
Mark,

I had not seen that page on Jim's site before, thank you for the link.

Jim,

Nice work, I am sure they, and their families will cherish those pictures for a very long time to come!

Your picture, Jesus at 100, got me off my rear and shooting my own mother as she begins to deteriorate from illness and age.
Thank you for shaking me up a little.




Well, Jim, if it's any consolation, we were looking at some of your portraits in my class a while back, and these made a few kids cry. I remember a pretty poignant thread about it somewhere here on the forum...

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Downings/Some%20uncommon%20portaiture.html

"Never posted anything that isn't about a lens" my arse...

Joe Forks
23-Feb-2009, 14:00
Hey my wife calls this the "Grumpy Old Men Forum" hahaha I have to remind her that I read it to.

One of my teachers reminds me that everyone is an art critic, and the only opinion that really matters is that of the person writing the check.

If someone dismisses my work as junk, they might actually be right, but in the grand scheme of things these opinions matter very little.

This is a wonderful venue for those who want to learn something. If you already know it all, why waste your time here?

Best
Joe

Mystery Jig
23-Feb-2009, 14:46
23197

This is a portrait of me. I made it (my wife operated the lens cap) using a whole plate Star Camera Company mahogany camera on a Davis and Sanford tripod and a Kodak Aero Ektar lens at f4 with a 5 second exposure. It's a half-plate sized wet plate collodion image on trophy aluminum using Coffer's Old Reliable formula and an iron sulphate developer. It was fixed in cyanide, washed in tap water and varnished with sandarac.

Is that too much information to take it seriously? I hope it's post modern enough to post on an internet forum.

eddie
23-Feb-2009, 16:36
23197

This is a portrait of me. I made it (my wife operated the lens cap) using a whole plate Star Camera Company mahogany camera on a Davis and Sanford tripod and a Kodak Aero Ektar lens at f4 with a 5 second exposure. It's a half-plate sized wet plate collodion image on trophy aluminum using Coffer's Old Reliable formula and an iron sulphate developer. It was fixed in cyanide, washed in tap water and varnished with sandarac.

Is that too much information to take it seriously? I hope it's post modern enough to post on an internet forum.

nice one....and thanks for the info....i like having the info.....

eddie
23-Feb-2009, 16:45
well, i can see RE is out to win friends this weekend......lets see how it goes.

"gear heads" huh? i think all photographers are gear head sor they would all just own a pentax k1000.

i am not on forums to do anything other than have fun! period! i appreciate constructive criticism. my photos may not be great. i do not get my feelings hurt if some one does not my work. remember, it is all just fun for me.

what i find interesting is that in my photography i find the process to be the best part....i love all that goes into the photo up to taking the print out of the fix. i have been joking for many years now (fueled by the film companies perceived exit from the market) that i should do everything involved in making a photo but never put any film in the holder! in my eye the photo is perfect...that perfection is sometimes ruined by the actual photo! i could very easily go through all the motions "shoot" the shot pack up and go home with never exposing any film.......i enjoy the process so much.

so RE, if you feel you need to bah on some photos pull up my galleries and make some comments...go ahead! see if you can enlighten me. oh! and where can i see a photo or two of yours?

edde

Allen in Montreal
23-Feb-2009, 16:48
nice one....and thanks for the info....i like having the info.....

Cool, IE, or is that RE:
You mean techno info that relates to your personal interests (in this case wet plate collodion) may actually help you learn and experiment and for those of us who do not do collodion can just not read it an move on to things that pertain more to our interests?

Novel concept. :) :)

brian d
23-Feb-2009, 18:42
nice one....and thanks for the info....i like having the info.....

Ditto...I thought that was the whole point for forums like this!

Steve M Hostetter
23-Feb-2009, 19:26
Hey, can anyone know what Avadon's primary portrait lens was..? :D

Shen45
23-Feb-2009, 21:02
Hey, can anyone know what Avadon's primary portrait lens was..? :D

R.E may know !! :)

Vlad Soare
24-Feb-2009, 02:48
With the risk of upsetting everyone, I must say I understand what R.E. is trying to say.
I've been continuously watching these monthly portrait threads because I'm relatively new to large format and find portraits to be extremely difficult to shoot in large format. I've been watching them in the hope of learning some tips and tricks (which I did, and I thank you all for that).
In my opinion, many of these portraits (though certainly not all of them) have nothing to recommend them apart from having been shot on large format and/or with very old gear. While it's indeed impressive to see what can be done with very old cameras, lenses, and processes, the fact is that the images themselves are often nothing to write home about. Try to disregard the technical data. Try to imagine they were shot with a Canon EOS. Would you still like them? Most of the times, probably not.

Now, I understand that large format cameras and/or old alternative processes do not lend themselves to the same kind of photography as 35mm or digital gear, so maybe the assessment standards and criteria should be different. I do like many of the portraits shown here. However, I realize that I like them not because of the images themselves, but because I know what they were made with, and how they were made. This is not necessarily a bad thing - after all this is a large format forum, not a general photography critique forum.

I have only posted one portrait, a couple of months ago. I was very proud of it, being my first large format portrait. I thought it was good. But then I thought: "would I shoot such a portrait with a 35mm camera? Would I like it if I did?" And the answer was no to both questions. I realized it was a poor picture, but I liked it just because I had made it with a large format camera.
I think this is what R.E. was trying to say. That many of these pictures only appeal to us because of the gear involved. At least that's what I understood, and I can't say I disagree. On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad thing.

jb7
24-Feb-2009, 03:44
Vlad, I don't think you run the risk of upsetting anyone.
While I understand perfectly what you're saying, some other posts were less than elegant.

I watch these threads too, and seldom have anything to contribute.
Perhaps I am self-moderating already.
Will I go blind?

There are images here that I don't get to see in any other one place-
particularly wet plate images, and images made with stupidly large cameras, and hand held 4x5's that look like they were shot with a motor drive-
I don't consider it too much of a trial to click on an average image to get to them.
As Eddie says, the process is as important as the product,
and it might take a bit of imagination to see past the backlit image here.

Whether or not the big camera is the correct tool for a portrait is defined by more than the glowing pixels on your screen,
and for some of the portraits I've seen on these pages, I think it most definitely is, and would love to see the images to prove it.

Even the pictures that could have been made with a EOS and yellowed in photoshop- why?
I find the process of making of large images fascinating, more fascinating than pushing pixels around the screen.
For others, a plugin will do the job.
It takes all types.

Perhaps if you were to make your point again Vlad, in its own thread,
you would get some interesting arguments, and, I'm sure, quite a bit of agreement.
There is a place for everything, and I'm quite happy going through the monthly portrait thread in search of a good one-

Perhaps a conversation about what makes a good portrait shouldn't be restricted to late February 2009.



joseph

Jimi
24-Feb-2009, 04:40
Okay, I am going to get the feather and tar treatment for this:

That some of the portraits are not up to ones own subjective standard, is not an excuse to hit everyone with a baseball bat and claim them as gearheads, I think. I feel that many of these portrait in this thread would be great, regardless of the format.

And of course there will be (mutual) admiration amongst people who frequent the same forum. Also regardless of format. Think backslapping digital fanboys with a Nikon D90 or whatever. :)

The assesment of the merits of LF portraiture should be done within the limits of that medium. I don't see the point in comparing LF with 35mm in the technical aspect, for example. Different approaches but both can give you great results. The divide between digital and analog is slowly growing wider as fewer and fewer people actually understand the whole chain of what goes into making a print from a LF negative. And thus, as you can do a perfect portrait in 30 seconds with little ease with digital, LF is compared to that level of perfectness.

ljsegil
24-Feb-2009, 04:54
Just imagine these forums without any contributions from J.G. at all. Then imagine the same forums without anything from r.e.
"Res ipsa loquitur."
Larry

Joe Forks
24-Feb-2009, 06:42
Is someone going to tell me I can't post because my portraits stink? hahaha good luck with that!

My advice is either offer constructive criticism or move on without saying a word.

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 06:51
Okay, I am going to get the feather and tar treatment for this:

That some of the portraits are not up to ones own subjective standard, is not an excuse to hit everyone with a baseball bat and claim them as gearheads, I think. I feel that many of these portrait in this thread would be great, regardless of the format.

And of course there will be (mutual) admiration amongst people who frequent the same forum. Also regardless of format. Think backslapping digital fanboys with a Nikon D90 or whatever. :)

The assesment of the merits of LF portraiture should be done within the limits of that medium. I don't see the point in comparing LF with 35mm in the technical aspect, for example. Different approaches but both can give you great results. The divide between digital and analog is slowly growing wider as fewer and fewer people actually understand the whole chain of what goes into making a print from a LF negative. And thus, as you can do a perfect portrait in 30 seconds with little ease with digital, LF is compared to that level of perfectness.

Don't forget that there is something between large format and 35mm/digital, it's in the middle, it's medium and it's also a format and, in my opinion, it's the best format for portrait.

dazedgonebye
24-Feb-2009, 06:55
I think Vlad made an excellent point and a thread on topic would be worthwhile.
As to the negative comments here, I think there are five obvious (to me) options when you feel the quality of a place is not up to your standards or is going down hill.

1) Remain silent
2) Leave
3) Provide and encourage constructive criticism
4) Provide your best work as an example and invite criticism
5) Fling Poo

Personally, I stay away from the monkey cages at the zoo.

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 08:35
Cambo Legend 810, Schneider Symmar S 360/6.8, Kodak Tri-X developed in D76.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6664/8104.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Steve M Hostetter
24-Feb-2009, 08:57
Nana,, I may not be qualified to say but "to me" this is a nice portrait... everything fits perfectly

Steve M Hostetter
24-Feb-2009, 09:09
R.E. It took a lot of balls to speak up the way you did and although I may not agree with you totally as far as Jim is concerned you do have a point...
I haven't posted any portraits yet and quite frankly I am kind of scared to but this is a good thing I think.. It makes me think harder as to what I am considering and in doing so tends to push me to think differently and take more time with my subjects..
Thank you for that:)

Ash
24-Feb-2009, 09:10
Nana it's a shame the toe of the shoe is cropped, but otherwise I like this

Allen in Montreal
24-Feb-2009, 09:29
Don't forget that there is something between large format and 35mm/digital, it's in the middle, it's medium and it's also a format and, in my opinion, it's the best format for portrait.

I agree Nana, the other I shot an assignment on 4x5, a clown that does therapy with very ill children in hospitals, after a dozen sheets I gave up and grab a medium format camera, there was not one solid frame on 4x5.


That said,
I love your 8x10 image of the guitar player posted below in the thread. It must make a wonderful large print!

Ray Bidegain
24-Feb-2009, 09:35
I think the interesting part of making portraits with a large format camera has more to do with the type and quality of interaction that is required between the sitter and the photographer. Although I do like the quality of the platinum contact prints I make, for me it is the slower, more engaged pace of the session that makes me want to use the view camera. Both the model and the photographer are very aware of what is taking place. It is not the photographer trying to catch the sitter laughing or smiling in some “ candid” way, and it is not the photographer saying, “ just pretend I am not here.” Working with a view camera also forces the photographer to stand on some slightly shaky ground, you have to resist the constant desire to check the focus and framing and you can not see through the camera you look over the camera directly at your sitter. I feel like these things put the model and photographer on a more even emotional ground, both have a few things to worry and think about.

While I do not agree with some of the tone of the comments that has come along this thread I do agree that any photographer who is posting work here would be helped by a more honest critique. While scary to hear it forces growth, and constant pats on the back feels nice but is a bit hard to believe.

Ray Bidegain

Dave Aharonian
24-Feb-2009, 09:56
I was going to use my nice new Canon 5D II for this shot, but then I realized that in order to turn it into a true work of art I had better haul out the Darlot Petzval and the Canham 5x7.
:D

Jim Galli
24-Feb-2009, 09:59
I was going to use my nice new Canon 5D II for this shot, but then I realized that in order to turn it into a true work of art I had better haul out the Darlot Petzval and the Canham 5x7.
:D

I am unapologetic in stating that I think this is simply gorgeous.

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 10:23
Nana,, I may not be qualified to say but "to me" this is a nice portrait... everything fits perfectly

Thank you, Steve and yes, of course you are qualified, why wouldn't you be qualified? Everyone is qualified!:)

Jiri Vasina
24-Feb-2009, 10:25
Nana, that guitar player is really wonderful...

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 10:25
I was going to use my nice new Canon 5D II for this shot, but then I realized that in order to turn it into a true work of art I had better haul out the Darlot Petzval and the Canham 5x7.
:D

I like it a lot, Dave!

Frank Petronio
24-Feb-2009, 10:26
David's 5x7 photo and Ray's profile of Catriona are really fine examples of why large format portraits work so well.

Ray Bidegain
24-Feb-2009, 10:31
I am unapologetic in stating that I think this is simply gorgeous.

So Jim, in the name of exploring what this thread has been speaking about, can you say what it is about this 5x7 image that you like, what is it about the photograph that moves you.

I am not trying to stir up the pot, just explore a little deeper, and I will understand if you do not want to go into this.

Ray Bidegain

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 10:33
Nana, that guitar player is really wonderful...

Thank you, Jiri, this is Rui Veloso, the most famous singer/guitar player in Portugal. I played in his band for seven years and recorded a few albums with him, thias was 26 years ago. At that time I was not a photographer. He invited me to do a studio session with him, for the new promotion photographs for this year. I shot mostly digital and medium format but, I shot a few 8x10 and 4x5, too.
This was a nice session, he enjoyed the photos and invited me to play in his blues band again, at the end of 2009, when we will start a new tournée.

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 10:36
Nana it's a shame the toe of the shoe is cropped, but otherwise I like this

I agree with you, Ash! This hapened because I couldn't see the whole image on the GG! I don't have a fresnel for my 8x10 cameras! I hate shoot in studio with them!!!!:mad:

Must buy 2 fresnel lens for them but they are expensive!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Ray Bidegain
24-Feb-2009, 10:38
David's 5x7 photo and Ray's profile of Catriona are really fine examples of why large format portraits work so well.

Thanks Frank, the model looks like Catriona but is a different woman.

Ray

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 10:39
I agree Nana, the other I shot an assignment on 4x5, a clown that does therapy with very ill children in hospitals, after a dozen sheets I gave up and grab a medium format camera, there was not one solid frame on 4x5.


That said,
I love your 8x10 image of the guitar player posted below in the thread. It must make a wonderful large print!


Thank you, Allen, unfortunatelly, my enlarger (Durst 139G with 301 CLS colorhead) doesn't go beyond 5x7!
I use to do just contact prints with my 8x10 negatives.

Jiri Vasina
24-Feb-2009, 11:42
Thank you, Jiri, this is Rui Veloso, the most famous singer/guitar player in Portugal. I played in his band for seven years and recorded a few albums with him, thias was 26 years ago. At that time I was not a photographer. He invited me to do a studio session with him, for the new promotion photographs for this year. I shot mostly digital and medium format but, I shot a few 8x10 and 4x5, too.
This was a nice session, he enjoyed the photos and invited me to play in his blues band again, at the end of 2009, when we will start a new tournée.

Nana, i wish you musically similar (or greater) success as you achieved photographically :)

I have very nice memories of Portugal's music - the evenings in the streets of Coimbra listening to Fado.... (not mentioning the other good memories of my month long stay in Portugal during my studies) I'd return for that specific atmosphere any day...

Jim Galli
24-Feb-2009, 12:22
So Jim, in the name of exploring what this thread has been speaking about, can you say what it is about this 5x7 image that you like, what is it about the photograph that moves you.

I am not trying to stir up the pot, just explore a little deeper, and I will understand if you do not want to go into this.

Ray Bidegain

Simply put, it is pretty music to my ears.

Not enough, OK, I like that the swirls send me back to the subject which is elegantly stated. We need not go into phallic symbols etc. but I'm sure they are present. The ladies gaze engages me. She is a siren. I resist.

Nana Sousa Dias
24-Feb-2009, 12:29
Nana, i wish you musically similar (or greater) success as you achieved photographically :)

I have very nice memories of Portugal's music - the evenings in the streets of Coimbra listening to Fado.... (not mentioning the other good memories of my month long stay in Portugal during my studies) I'd return for that specific atmosphere any day...

Well, I'm a professional musician composer and record producer for 27 years, now. For now I just play my instruments (tenor, alto, soprano saxophones and flute) I gave up producing, I just want to play and compose. I just started photographing seriously 8 years ago, so I have a long way in photography...at least, I hope so!

When you return to Portugal, you tell me, we can drink some beers and, who knows, we can go for a shooting. I leave near Lisbon (50km) and 3km from the sea.

Dave Aharonian
24-Feb-2009, 13:36
Thanks so much Jim and Nana! I find for certain subjects and composition, a Petzval can work very well. At other times its a bit overdone. At the end of the day, I don't give a rat's ass how a photo is made. If it is beautifully done and evokes a positive response for the viewer that's all that matters to me.

r.e.
24-Feb-2009, 18:43
I am kind of taken aback that my comments have resulted in a discussion, now a new thread started by Mr. Galli, about whether it is possible to make great portraits using sheet film.

I didn't mean to raise that question, to which it seems to me the obvious answer - indeed patently obvious answer - is "yes".

Precisely because there are so many great examples of portraits made with sheet film, and because I assume that people on this site are aware of, and have studied, those examples, I raised some interrelated questions about the quality, on a pretty basic level, of most of the portraits that tend to be posted here, the focus on lenses (as distinct from the more important issues of technique and merit) and the lack of criticism of any kind.

I gather that my link to the work of someone who is using a digital camera to produce a combined still/video work may have had something to do with the discussion about portraiture and sheet film. The fact is, I made the reference as a kind of jolt between the rather large gulf between much of what is going on here and what is actually happening in photography.

I also offered the link because the technology, as well as this particular photographer's use of it, is pretty interesting, not to mention fun, a value that seems to me to be lacking in almost all of the portrait work that I see here.

I was struck by Allen of Montreal's suggestion that this still/video production was irrelevant because it isn't a portrait. I learned from that that he and I, and perhaps others who participate here and I, are not on the same wavelength about what portraiture is. You know, if you look at Avedon's self-portrait - which you can see on the Avedon Foundation site - it is a string of three images in the form of a filmstrip. If Allen's point is that one can't have a portrait of the New York subway system - or for that matter of the Metro in his Montreal - I don't know what to say, except that the word portrait seems to pretty clearly work, regardless of whether one consults the Oxford, as I do, or Webster's, as our American friends do, or the Robert, as Francophones in Montreal do.

I will say that I'm disappointed that nobody, other than Allen, had anything to say, good, bad or indifferent, about a concrete, pretty sophisticated example of the merger of still and video in a still camera. Sorry, but for me, it was a revelation in a way that yet another photograph that could have been taken by a rather average photographer in 1910, is not.

And yes, there was a time on this site when that piece in the New Yorker about postmodernism would have been discussed, but apparently not now, not even when someone points it out. That said, it's worth reading, and there's a pretty good chance (although I haven't checked) that it's on-line. It's the current book review, about a biography of a guy named Donald Barthelme.

Cheers

Steve M Hostetter
24-Feb-2009, 21:33
R.E. I seen the Avadon link ,, is that last photo of his father umm is he dead?

r.e.
24-Feb-2009, 22:51
R.E. I seen the Avadon link ,, is that last photo of his father umm is he dead?

Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif.

If you don't happen to speak French, take a moment to do a search on that sentence by plugging it into Google.

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:16
. It has not anything in this world that have a moment desicif. can you explain what that means? after all you put up the link I'm just trying to understand your argument

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:17
. It has not anything in this world that have a moment desicif. can you explain what that means?

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:17
.,,,,,,

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:17
. ,,,,,

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:17
. ,,,,

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:19
,,,,,,,,,,,,

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:19
,,,,,,

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:19
,,,,,

Steve M Hostetter
25-Feb-2009, 01:28
sorry for the multi posts ,,screen freeze and I tried to correct but ..

Frank Petronio
25-Feb-2009, 06:28
Back to, umm, pictures?!

Joe Forks
25-Feb-2009, 06:52
Well R. E. I have a much better idea where you are coming from now, but if the lack of critique really bothers you in regard to merit and technique, please offer constructive criticism.

There are all manner of folks in here, and I venture to guess there are still an awful lot of serious photographers hanging out in here sharing information and only a few threads in one or two sub forums where we post photos and run our mutual admiration society. The premise of the entire site, large format . INFO is alive and well.

I've always been a "everything sharp" kind of photographer. It's only since I've hung out here that I have come to appreciate other styles including those directly attributed to a lens' signature.

I am certainly naive when it comes to the finer points of portraits, especially merit and technique, so your discussion in your last post is both enlightening and appreciated - and probably warranted the beginning of a new thread to discuss those finer points.

Still, we are all different - thank goodness, and it's refreshing to see someone doing their own thing in the face of criticism. Opinions can't be right or wrong, and that is both the problem and the beauty of an opinion.

Art is pretty simple for me. I know instantly if I like it or not. You know what they say, there is no accounting for taste, and I think think that is never more true than it is today in a world with 6.5 billion people. It is difficult to be original in this world. For my taste I like Galli style rather than Avedon copy cats. Remember this is an internet forum, and posting an image here is not akin to adding the image to your portfolio. So please, critique and pointers are always welcome when the the words are chosen carefully and tastefully.

Thanks for expanding on what you were thinkking, but I really think it was much to do about nothing.

Best
Joe

Joe Forks
25-Feb-2009, 06:56
Back to, umm, pictures?!

I like it and I knew it right away. I l'm a big fan of the "Petronio style" too.


Best
Joe

Joe Forks
25-Feb-2009, 08:01
I was going to use my nice new Canon 5D II for this shot, but then I realized that in order to turn it into a true work of art I had better haul out the Darlot Petzval and the Canham 5x7.
:D

Dave, I think you absolutely DID create a true work of art. I think it's great.

Best
Joe

Mark Sawyer
25-Feb-2009, 08:15
"Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif."

"Nothing in the world has a decisive moment", could be a refutation of Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment" philosophy.

"Nothing in the world has a decisive time" could, in the context of the current discussion, opine that the particular aethetic look or technology of one period is equally valid in any period. It's all in the translation, which could go either way...

I think the main issue might be whether we can live up to R.E.'s expectations as a place for intellectually stimulating critiques in a post-modern neo-conceptualist style, when really, what we all share in common, (well, most of us, anyways), is a love of photography, large format and otherwise, for what it is, and a willingness to share whatever we have to offer...

(Personally, I'd love to sit down and argue with R.E. for hours; he has some very good and thoughtful points I disagree with, and made some statements, like the quote above, that are provocative, but that I don't quite follow.)

Mystery Jig
25-Feb-2009, 09:26
Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif.

If you don't happen to speak French, take a moment to do a search on that sentence by plugging it into Google.

Hi,

Get over yourself you arrogant bastard.

(plug that into Google of you don't understand)

Mark Sawyer
25-Feb-2009, 09:53
Hi,

Get over yourself you arrogant bastard.

(plug that into Google of you don't understand)

But, but, but... that's one of my favorite beers...

:( :( :( :(

http://www.arrogantbastard.com/

eddie
25-Feb-2009, 10:10
Hi,

Get over yourself you arrogant bastard.

(plug that into Google of you don't understand)

ROFLMAO!

Nana Sousa Dias
25-Feb-2009, 10:32
"Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif."

could be a refutation of Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment" philosophy.

"Nothing in the world has a decisive time" could, in the context of the current discussion, opine that the particular aethetic look or technology of one period is equally valid in any period. It's all in the translation, which could go either way...

I think the main issue might be whether we can live up to R.E.'s expectations as a place for intellectually stimulating critiques in a post-modern neo-conceptualist style, when really, what we all share in common, (well, most of us, anyways), is a love of photography, large format and otherwise, for what it is, and a willingness to share whatever we have to offer...

(Personally, I'd love to sit down and argue with R.E. for hours; he has some very good and thoughtful points I disagree with, and made some statements, like the quote above, that are provocative, but that I don't quite follow.)

"Nothing in the world has a decisive time"
That's not waht the french sentence means, Mark.

The french sentence: "Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif." means:

"There is nothing in this world that doesn't have is decisive moment!"

I don't know if this is relevant, but the meaning isn't the same!;)

Mystery Jig
25-Feb-2009, 10:59
Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif.

If you don't happen to speak French, take a moment to do a search on that sentence by plugging it into Google.


But, but, but... that's one of my favorite beers...

:( :( :( :(

http://www.arrogantbastard.com/

You're right, it IS a tasty beer. Mmmmm.

jb7
25-Feb-2009, 12:17
I will say that I'm disappointed that nobody, other than Allen, had anything to say, good, bad or indifferent, about a concrete, pretty sophisticated example of the merger of still and video in a still camera.

I think that part of the problem with your reference, within the context of a large format portraiture thread, is that I don't know how to make a video on my Arca.
If I want a conversation about DSLR environmental portraiture, I can use my local forum, where all pictures are posted in threads which invite critique- or comments, usually.

They're not so good at talking about large format photography though,
which is one of the reasons why I visit this place.

Underneath it all, you do have a point, but it had to be interpreted by other members,
who bothered to get beneath the attitude.

As with all collections of photographs, there are some good pictures within that video-
and some average ones- and the same with the Pellegrin pictures you referenced.
I thought there were 4 or 5 good portraits- really good ones- but I didn't find them universally awe inspiring-
They seemed to fulfil the brief- high end celebrity glossies for the colour supplement.

I also found myself wondering about the relevance of photographing Brad Pitt on a stalled chopper-
I don't use my monorail hand held, and I don't run around after film stars.

I do use a DSLR, and off camera hand held flash- when I need to. It's actually not such a new thing at all.
I suppose the difference is that I'm not accredited to the A list, and the pictures I take in that manner might have a limited circulation.
I doubt whether anyone would be interested in seeing them here.

Another difference might be that making a big picture is a deliberate act, and the subject is usually complicit.
I suppose the subjects in the Pellegrin pictures were complicit too, but in a different way;
when the photographer is filling up 16 gig CF cards one after the other, it's easy for the the subject to forget they're there-
after all, they're only expected to be themselves, right?
And I don't know, but perhaps the pictures are passed by a representative of the star or starlet before they can be published?
Maybe it's a totally different kind of complicity- but again, not so very new really-

I've always found the themed picture threads on this forum fascinating-
there is a variety of work, and the occasional pat on the back keeps things ticking along nicely,
but for the most part, it helps to keep ego to a minimum.

It's about the stream of pictures, and the good ones will stand out-
I'll even give someone a pat on the back myself if I see one-
and click away if I find myself disappointed by the latest offering.

Perhaps there is room for a critique thread-
I suppose all it would take would be an invitation from whoever posts the picture-
but good critique is not that easy to find,
and pretty soon you might be posting a complaint about the quality of the comments.

This might be the photography of the past, and maybe you've given up trying to figure out how to use your Veritar-
but isn't the world big enough to accommodate big cameras as well?
Along with their lumbering limitations, and inability to produce video?

Is it really that much of a thoughtcrime to you?


joseph

Daniel_Buck
25-Feb-2009, 12:52
kind of a portrait, hah! speedgraphic and stroboflash, Adox Ortho 25 in Rodinal

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/speed_strobo_03.jpg

Frank Petronio
25-Feb-2009, 13:27
love it

Allen in Montreal
25-Feb-2009, 14:27
RE,


(I am writing quickly from the front seat of my car on a laptop using a blackberry modem to send this and it must be done by 4:25pm or it won't happen today, so pls forgive if it is not poetic magic that I spin in my haste, I hope you get the idea)

Please do not twist my words, I never said the L Train project was not relevant. It is very relevant to todays media stream, but not really in sync with a monthly "portraits" thread on a large format forum.

I said it was interesting documentary work and not portraiture. And it is not portraiture in the true form. You said it has an interesting edge that is lacking in the pictures you see on the forum, you are comparing hang gliders and Jumbo Jets and the comparison does nothing to address the bigger question you have attempted to put forth, albeit in taking a swipe at Jim, (who happens to be very passionate about his work, about large format, and helping others) to define what is portraiture.

Let us be brutally honest about the door you have opened and the manner in which you chose to open it.

There are several thousand members on LF and each one brings something different to the table. The diversity of that talent pool is its greatest asset. There are some very informed people, some very kind and giving people ready to help others at every step, hammering people for not being like minded and producing work one deems as divine just drives those people into the corners and nothing is gained for the group in the long term.

I see certain names and I jump directly to their post to see what they have to say or show on any given topic, I see other names and continue to browse and spare everyone my commentary on that which does not really interest me personally, that behavior is what keeps these forums a great resource (and the ban of all political discussions which builds silent walls behind the scenes).

There are many websites and forums that discuss the L Train type of project, I like to read about the RED Vcam and watch as reports come in and follow it, but I do that else where. People come here for LF and relief from the DitCam world. I shoot every day but I am am LF amateur and enthusiast and appreciate this venue and the willingness of others to help. It would be a tragedy to jeopardize that.

I came up the photojournalism ladder under some of the greatest Canadian shooters, there was a "Brat Pack" if you will, that ruled the day, great shooters, great editors and I learned from every encounter with them. They were brutal editors who did not believe in sparing someone's feelings, they believed only in the pictures. I recall being sent to shoot a business portrait and returning to the Montreal office of the Canadian Press with my work, only to have the editor tell me it was just a &^%$ piece of %$#@ Head and Shoulders shot that any chimpanzee that could push a button could have taken!

I was sent back to shoot it again, and given a list of 10 images to take, 10 final prints (and really nice prints or else!!) had to be on the editor's desk before I would shoot another assignment for The CP. The 10 images, I realized later, were an exercise to make me see beyond the standard formula of "this photo request equals this picture" and shooting for that predetermined image, it was the same assignment in 10 different forms.

They would often take your final print and pull out a pair of scissors to re-crop by cutting out the relevant portion of your finished print. they would wait until you had a great print to cut it up. But they would also look at the picture and tell you what lens you used, what you were thinking by taking that lens, and what you should have been thinking when taking out the right lens! And they were always right.

They would take one lens and one camera and double staff a job and out shoot me with my bag full of gear, move their picture on the wire, throw my film out, AND then explain why they slaughtered me on the assignment.

You get the idea.

If you are going to cut someone's work up, you better be able to :

Out shoot them.
Out edit them.
Teach them what they truly do not know and truly need to know.
Better yet, all of the above!

So to be brutally honest, some pictures are just head and shoulder shots, some are really great images but not portraits, some are really great portraits, and some are complete horse shit pictures! Some of my own included in that last grouping.

So instead of thrashing Jim's work and calling him a gear head, take the high road, lead the group, redefine portraiture. Post some killer work and get people's creative juices fired up. I for one, really do not want to see the work of 1000 Avedon wanna be's.

Set the tone RE, help define large format portraiture by example.
I eagerly look forward to your contribution to the March Portrait Thread.

it is 4:24, not time to proof read, I really have to go!

best regards,


Allen












...............



I also offered the link because the technology, as well as this particular photographer's use of it, is pretty interesting, not to mention fun, a value that seems to me to be lacking in almost all of the portrait work that I see here.

I was struck by Allen of Montreal's suggestion that this still/video production was irrelevant because it isn't a portrait. I learned from that that he and I, and perhaps others who participate here and I, are not on the same wavelength about what portraiture is. You know, if you look at Avedon's self-portrait - which you can see on the Avedon Foundation site - it is a string of three images in the form of a filmstrip. If Allen's point is that one can't have a portrait of the New York subway system - or for that matter of the Metro in his Montreal - I don't know what to say, except that the word portrait seems to pretty clearly work, regardless of whether one consults the Oxford, as I do, or Webster's, as our American friends do, or the Robert, as Francophones in Montreal do.

I will say that I'm disappointed that nobody, other than Allen, had anything to say, good, bad or indifferent, about a concrete, pretty sophisticated example of the merger of still and video in a still camera. Sorry, but for me, it was a revelation in a way that yet another photograph that could have been taken by a rather average photographer in 1910, is not.

And yes, there was a time on this site when that piece in the New Yorker about postmodernism would have been discussed, but apparently not now, not even when someone points it out. That said, it's worth reading, and there's a pretty good chance (although I haven't checked) that it's on-line. It's the current book review, about a biography of a guy named Donald Barthelme.

Cheers

eddie
25-Feb-2009, 17:35
well said allen!

*cheering in the background*

Mark Sawyer
25-Feb-2009, 18:40
"Nothing in the world has a decisive time"
That's not waht the french sentence means, Mark.

The french sentence: "Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif." means:

"There is nothing in this world that doesn't have is decisive moment!"

I don't know if this is relevant, but the meaning isn't the same!;)

Alas, my childhood French failed me in catching the double negative... fortunately, my posts are generally taken as not unmeaningless! :o

Nana Sousa Dias
25-Feb-2009, 18:55
Alas, my childhood French failed me in catching the double negative... fortunately, my posts are generally taken as not unmeaningless! :o


:D

xmishx
26-Feb-2009, 02:39
http://www.artistsimageresource.net/blog/2009/2009-02-24cain.jpg

Long time coming... I finally got the Chamonix out to shoot my first portrait with no digital camera in site. The mentality of the shoot is totally changed when there is no immediate feedback. It wasn't an easy task for me to let go of, but I glad I did it. Coming back to the simplicity of one camera, one lens and a meter was totally refreshing...

More about this shoot on my blog (http://eriomishima.blogspot.com/2009/02/beginning.html)...

VictoriaPerelet
26-Feb-2009, 07:57
xmishx, clicked at your blog:



Earlier today, I had my very first shoot where I left my digital camera behind. It was a premeditated decision as I know that if I am ever to be a great 4x5 film portrait photographer, I had to let the reins go, jump off to the deep end, run with scissors in my hands... Minutes before leaving I thought to just bring the 5D and a 50mm lens, but in the end, I jumped without a parachute.


That's very nice pic and I presume you experienced great excitement to " jump without a parachute"!

In no way film/LF can compete with digital in every day production/commercial work, but in editorial/art niches it will stand out. Our "portraiture" (if one can call it portraiture":)) work is strictly editorial - and what we see is that even pristine glossy publications tend to pick LF more for editorial over the years.

PS. Lot's of p$%^ . net odors in this thread. How about plain LF pics posted?

Anyway, here's couple of pics from last week:

Type 55:
http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/Xena/big/Xenas_friend_t55_1.jpg
Another Type 55:
http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/Xena/big/Xena_t55_1.jpg

Sinar P2, Nikkor 150mm SW

chris_4622
26-Feb-2009, 10:51
Victoria,

I looked at your site, very nice work.

Hugo Zhang
28-Feb-2009, 20:14
Well, this one was taken in Jan.

Tri Tran
28-Feb-2009, 20:31
Well, this one was taken in Jan.

Very nice Hugo, thanks for posting it. Is the lens for sale? ;)

r.e.
1-Mar-2009, 21:46
"Nothing in the world has a decisive time"
That's not waht the french sentence means, Mark.

The french sentence: "Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif." means:

"There is nothing in this world that doesn't have is decisive moment!"

I don't know if this is relevant, but the meaning isn't the same!;)

Yes. The sentence was referred to by someone else and I quoted what Cartier-Bresson wrote in the original French.

To Mystery Jig, who attacked me for my use of the original (instead of an English translation) as "an arrogant bastard", and to eddie who found Mystery Jig's comment terribly funny, I am a former resident of France and currently a resident of a country in which French has equal status with English. This may not be true where you live, but where I live, speaking French, and using original French instead of an English translation, is not cause to call someone "an arrogant bastard". That is to. understate matters

Allen from Montreal,

I'd love to meet sometime, perhaps on my way back to the Rock, via Montreal and the Gaspe, in a couple of months. I'm working on a project about rural Newfoundland that so far I'm feeling reasonably good about, and on which I'm getting good feedback. So far, I'm using a Leica and Mamiya 7 II, but I'm thinking about working 4x5 into it. This takes a bit of planning, and the establishment of a good deal of credibility, in what is a very small community.

From a 4x5 point of view, the work that I see here leads me nowhere, indeed tells me to forget it. On the other hand, every time that I see a Paul Strand or Talbot or Newman or Jeff Wall photo, I feel challenged and start to see the possibilities. As you may know, the National Gallery is currently showing Hine's work. Never having seen one of his prints outside of a book, I'm going to see it tomorrow. It isn't where I want to go - in fact, it would be way too easy to be overly influenced by it - but I think that I may learn something from his work.

By next week, I'll have a few photographs up on a website, and I'd be interested in your views. I'm also working with an important Newfoundland photographer, now in his 80s, to preserve some of his work, especially as it relates to the community that is the subject of my project. Apart from being good, his photographs are historically important, and the photographs of this particular community have never been seen before.

After a fair bit of research, I think that there may be no more than about 20 original negatives, taken by professional photographers, in existence for this community, and I think that he did eight of them. As for amateur photographers, negatives don't exist. There are small prints, that's it. There are people from this community who, like many Newfoundlanders, and the Miohawks, were heavily involved in building the great New York skyscrapers. I know what local photographs exist about this part of history because I have gone through the local photo albums. The problem is that the biggest print that I have seen is about 2"x3", and there are no negatives.

To the guy who said that you can't do video with 4x5:
There is an important French film, sort of futuristic, from the early 1960s, that consists entirely of still photographs. I can't recall the name right now, but no doubt someone will pipe up with it. When I see some of the current work that combines stills and video, both generated from a still camera, I am very much reminded of it and very much aware of the fact that what is being done now has some old roots. To me, that is important/interesting. I am also very struck by the technology, and what it means if one wants to communicate to a wider audience.

Sorry to those who found what I had to say annoying. I know that I was being provocative. Perhaps it was for selfish reasons, wanting to know how people would respond as input to my own direction. At the same time, I just have this feeling, a lot of the time, that what goes on in this forum is stuck in a time warp.

Cheers

Colin Graham
2-Mar-2009, 00:06
La jetée.

ljsegil
2-Mar-2009, 04:48
"Say wha'?"
But polite discourse is welcome any time, critical or otherwise, as long as respect is shown towards others; we're all only trying our best and hoping to learn from those making positive contributions in the forums (not of necessity only positive remarks at all times) to our growth in an arena most of us feel for passionately. For the most part, we're only in it for the image, and the ideal can vary widely from one member to the next without negating the work of another.
And some of us are pathological and unashamedly gear heads, and this we can enjoy too; there is room for all types of (polite, constructive) loons here.
Welcome,
Larry

Mick Fagan
2-Mar-2009, 05:55
Allen from Montreal, you are writing in an American based international English-speaking forum, people from around the world participate and English as a language, is very often a second or third language.

Generally speaking, when one is writing in a language and quotes a foreign language in a set of text, you give a translation directly after. Perhaps not a direct translation, but a correct translation to ensure that the gist of what you are attempting to get across, gets across.

That is more or less politeness to the great unwashed who struggle with another language, as I’m sure you must struggle sometimes between the languages you comprehensively understand.

Mick.

Jim Galli
2-Mar-2009, 08:28
I don't think being a student of equipment and making art are mutually exclusive. I get a little tired of that saw. :(

Umm, Hugo, even though it's not politically correct, what lens did you use on the lovely lady?

Donald Miller
2-Mar-2009, 08:51
I was going to use my nice new Canon 5D II for this shot, but then I realized that in order to turn it into a true work of art I had better haul out the Darlot Petzval and the Canham 5x7.
:D

O.K...but the same effect could be had with your nice new 5DII...depending on the size of enlargement of course. Masking and radial blur works wonders for this effect.

Nice image btw.

Donald Miller
2-Mar-2009, 09:00
Quote RE...

To the guy who said that you can't do video with 4x5:
There is an important French film, sort of futuristic, from the early 1960s, that consists entirely of still photographs. I can't recall the name right now, but no doubt someone will pipe up with it. When I see some of the current work that combines stills and video, both generated from a still camera, I am very much reminded of it and very much aware of the fact that what is being done now has some old roots. To me, that is important/interesting. I am also very struck by the technology, and what it means if one wants to communicate to a wider audience.

You might be interested that my current project (independent film production) is a merging of still images and HD video...however my HD is shot with a video camera.

Its amazing what can be done once a person steps outside the box of ones constricted thinking.

Hugo Zhang
2-Mar-2009, 09:44
Tri and Jim,

That shot of my mom was actually quite underexposed. The lens is an Apo-Lanthar 30cm lens with Chamonix WP camera.

Thank your guys.
Hugo

jb7
2-Mar-2009, 09:47
Quote RE...

To the guy who said that you can't do video with 4x5:
There is an important French film, sort of futuristic, from the early 1960s, that consists entirely of still photographs. I can't recall the name right now, but no doubt someone will pipe up with it. When I see some of the current work that combines stills and video, both generated from a still camera, I am very much reminded of it and very much aware of the fact that what is being done now has some old roots. To me, that is important/interesting. I am also very struck by the technology, and what it means if one wants to communicate to a wider audience.

You might be interested that my current project (independent film production) is a merging of still images and HD video...however my HD is shot with a video camera.

Its amazing what can be done once a person steps outside the box of ones constricted thinking.



Moving pictures. Whatever will they think of next.

Allen in Montreal
2-Mar-2009, 09:48
Mick,

I think you are mixing up posters,
the French quotes in this thread were posted by RE if I recall correctly.
perhaps you can edit your post. Thank you.

best regards,
Allen



Yes. The sentence was referred to by someone else and I quoted what Cartier-Bresson wrote in the original French...................







Allen from Montreal, you are writing in an American based international English-speaking forum, people from around the world participate and English as a language, is very often a second or third language.

Generally speaking, when one is writing in a language and quotes a foreign language in a set of text, you give a translation directly after. Perhaps not a direct translation, but a correct translation to ensure that the gist of what you are attempting to get across, gets across.

That is more or less politeness to the great unwashed who struggle with another language, as I’m sure you must struggle sometimes between the languages you comprehensively understand.

Mick.

Allen in Montreal
2-Mar-2009, 09:52
.....double post

Allen in Montreal
2-Mar-2009, 10:02
RE,

I am always up for a chance to see nice pictures, so let me know when you are passing through Montreal.

Every photographer needs a kick in pants from time to time,
but how best to get people's juices flowing?



.........


Allen from Montreal,

I'd love to meet sometime, perhaps on my way back to the Rock, via Montreal and the Gaspe, in a couple of months. I'm working on a project about rural Newfoundland that so far I'm feeling reasonably good about, and on which I'm getting good feedback. So far, I'm using a Leica and Mamiya 7 II, but I'm thinking about working 4x5 into it. This takes a bit of planning, and the establishment of a good deal of credibility, in what is a very small community...........


Cheers

Greg Miller
2-Mar-2009, 10:03
By next week, I'll have a few photographs up on a website, and I'd be interested in your views.

I find it interesting that you have criticized the feedback on this site as being sugar coated, and you are now soliciting feedback for your own photos. Yet as far as I can tell (although admittedly I have not tried very hard), I don't see any constructive feedback that you have offered others.

Perhaps if you would like to see, and receive, meaningful feedback, offering your own for others' photos might be a good start.

eddie
2-Mar-2009, 10:14
To Mystery Jig, who attacked me for my use of the original (instead of an English translation) as "an arrogant bastard", and to eddie who found Mystery Jig's comment terribly funny, I am a former resident of France and currently a resident of a country in which French has equal status with English. This may not be true where you live, but where I live, speaking French, and using original French instead of an English translation, is not cause to call someone "an arrogant bastard". That is to. understate matters


please.....you are being a bit coy.

can we say continuing to troll?

you made that statement to solicit a response....and you got one. you knew that your quote would need to be translated.....i believe you were employing a stereotype about the french and the french canadians.....


RE, you are writing in an American based international English-speaking forum, people from around the world participate and English as a language, is very often a second or third language.

Generally speaking, when one is writing in a language and quotes a foreign language in a set of text, you give a translation directly after. Perhaps not a direct translation, but a correct translation to ensure that the gist of what you are attempting to get across, gets across.

That is more or less politeness to the great unwashed who struggle with another language, as I’m sure you must struggle sometimes between the languages you comprehensively understand.

Mick.

well said.

Mystery Jig
2-Mar-2009, 12:15
I'm with Eddie. High five!

Mick Fagan
5-Mar-2009, 04:25
Allen in Montreal, I apologise profusely, I did get the posters mixed up.

I tried to get back into my post to edit, but unfortunately it is too late. I haven't been onto the site since I posted that posting.

Yes, it should have been directed to R.E. instead.

After some mental gymnastics in assuring I had gotten across what I wished to say as accurately as possible, I inadvertantly wiped out the first line, so I scrolled down and saw your name, somehow I associated you with R.E. as I was obviously thinking she/he resides in Canada.

I have no other explanation, except if I remember correctly, it was in the early hours of the morning and I went to bed directly after submitting my comment.

Eddie, many thanks for correcting my mistake, I'm not that computer savvy. One day I'll have a go at how to quote a submission, from another person.

Mick.

Allen in Montreal
5-Mar-2009, 11:19
No worries Mick,

I tried to edit mine too and could not, a system bug that drives me nuts here, it seems we have a small window to edit a post and then it is etched in stone.


have a good day,


Allen





Allen in Montreal, I apologise profusely, I did get the posters mixed up.

I tried to get back into my post to edit, but unfortunately it is too late. I haven't been onto the site since I posted that posting.

Yes, it should have been directed to R.E. instead.
.

bsimison
5-Mar-2009, 17:58
Here's one from yesterday, a blacksmith in Bristol, Vermont.

Tachihara 4x5, Schneider 150mm ƒ/5.6 Symmar-S, Kodak TMax 400 (TMY-2), XTol 1:1.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/3330585653_82d5327246_o.jpg

r.e.
6-Mar-2009, 20:15
La jetée.

Yes! Thank-you, an important film, studied by just about every film student at one time, that I think pre-figured recent developments.

Donald Miller, I'd love to see it. Do you have any of it up on Vimeo or YouTube or elsewhere?

Allen from Montreal,

If you're up for it, I'll get in touch with you on my way to the Rock.

Re comments about language and this being an "American site":

M. Cartier-Bresson's statement has been the subect of a good deal of interpretation, arising from the fact that it is fairly ambiguous. That being the case, there is something to be said for going back to the original statement in the original language, rather than repeating the usual gloss in translation, especially recognizing that this sentence has been translated into many languages, English being only one of them.

Here is what I said, which somehow has caused consternation:

" Il n'y a rien dans ce monde qui n'ait un moment desicif.

"If you don't happen to speak French, take a moment to do a search on that sentence by plugging it into Google."

The effect of that is to provide the original French and to provide a way to get an immediate translation in English, and maybe more than one, and for that matter other languages, including languages spoken by participants in this site whose first language is neither French nor English. How do I know that? Because I confirmed it before I wrote the post. It is, after all, a pretty famous sentence.

Beyond that, I would like to say that I don't accept the idea that this is an "American site" where it is some kind of crime to quote Cartier-Bresson in the original. And while I may be in a minority in the general views that I have expressed in this thread, I would like to think that there is a reasonable amount of support, in the US as well as elsewhere, for what I am saying about this particular issue. Indeed, I'm pretty surprised that it became an issue. If I am wrong in my assumption that everyone here knows how to copy a sentence and plug it into Google for a search, please let me know. If I am right in my assumption, I am stunned that I am being attacked, indeed have been labelled "an arrogant bastard", for posting the above two sentences.

Re the criticism that I have not offered up my work on my current project for evaluation on this site, well, I think that my point was that I am working in 35mm and 6x7, and that the issue for me, on this project, is whether I am going to expand to 4x5. As I understand it, I am not supposed to post 35mm and 6x7 photographs on this site, which is why I haven't done it.

Cheers