https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...520ea558_b.jpgKorona Climax Peppers by rrunnertexas, on Flickr
Gundlach Korona 4 x 5, brass Climax lens.
Printable View
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...520ea558_b.jpgKorona Climax Peppers by rrunnertexas, on Flickr
Gundlach Korona 4 x 5, brass Climax lens.
https://i.imgur.com/stn6fcM.jpg
Xenar 240 @ f8
13x18 Fomapan 200 Rodinal 1+50
Best,
Igor.
I'm not really a still life kinda guy but I was bored tonight so started playing around with my 8x10. Got it to max extension, about 800mm. Tried using a pinhole but ended up not being enough light even after a 30 minute exposure. So I settled with my Nikkor-M 300mm f/9, set to f/128. Calculated exposure was 8 minutes, but did 24 minutes instead and overdeveloped the negative to get the highlights way up, though still dodged them out a bit. This was on x-ray film, green sensitive.
Apple Snail Shell
http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/pho...C_5070exss.jpg
Fits nicely into a 5x7 frame once a bit of dead space is cut so I might try contact printing this and matting it to that size, to see how this looks on paper. Or maybe the 8x10 with ample negative space will prove more interesting.
I would have posted these images in the Quarantine thread, since I aspire primarily to be a better portraitist, but since I am seeking critique, it seems better to post here. These are from a series of composition studies, done by window light, all scans from finished prints, which may not show the lowest value separation o f the oiginal to best advantage. I have my own ideas of various shortcomings, so please feel free to point to weaknesses of any kind, offer suggestions for improvement in seeing or printing. In other words, let 'er rip! Thank you!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c8b6ed07_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...53731778_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cd8041f3_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...2949caf0_b.jpg
All photos 4x5 HP5, 210mm Komura
[QUOTE=Ulophot;1545936]I would have posted these images in the Quarantine thread, since I aspire primarily to be a better portraitist, but since I am seeking critique, it seems better to post here. These are from a series of composition studies, done by window light, all scans from finished prints, which may not show the lowest value separation o f the oiginal to best advantage. I have my own ideas of various shortcomings, so please feel free to point to weaknesses of any kind, offer suggestions for improvement in seeing or printing. In other words, let 'er rip! Thank you!
My 2 cents. With the exception of the second one, the lighting is pretty flat. Use drapes, reflectors, flags to get a bit more drama. And there are way too many and too similar elements crammed into the frame. Simplify, diversify. Give the viewer something to focus on, something to catch their eye. You can still have additional elements, but something should be the focus (not necessary literal, but that is one way to achieve it) of the image.
I like the first one. No drama. Everything just in place.
Best,
Igor.
Thank you both. I value your comments.
My 2 cents:
Every image can be regarded as a still life.
Some are obviously contrived - but they succeed in spite of it we might say, because of the sheer character of the objects and their splendid rendering by the artist: lighting, texture, form etc. Here's an example from photographer Paulette Tavormina:
http://www.kennethleegallery.com/ima.../Tavormina.jpg
Others are discovered but they succeed because they are so pleasing that they might have been arranged, or the arrangement is better than any mortal could contrive. Here's an example from Brett Weston:
http://www.kennethleegallery.com/ima.../BrettDune.jpg
Some artists can blend the 2 approaches. Here's an example from Paul Strand, a portrait of the artist Georges Braque:
http://www.kennethleegallery.com/ima...randBraque.jpg
Expired(1971) glass plate, 13x18:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8b67aede_c.jpg0145 by Вячеслав Филатов, on Flickr
I miss Christopher Broadbent in these still-life threads.