martin s
Well-known
Hey you guys,
I just shot and developed the roll a few days back. JohnTF already helped me a lot, but since I don't want to bother him every day I felt that it might be the time to post them here.
The technical information first: I used a Nokton 35mm f1.4, Neopan 400, Diafin developer / fixer and water as stop-bath. I scanned the negatives with the Epson v500 and 'edited' them in Lightroom.
Please, if you took the time to open this thread, leave me a short comment. Especially if you don't like it, you don't have to wrap it nicely either.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
Like I said, I appreciate any critizism. If your general impression is that they suck, just tell me.
martin
I just shot and developed the roll a few days back. JohnTF already helped me a lot, but since I don't want to bother him every day I felt that it might be the time to post them here.
The technical information first: I used a Nokton 35mm f1.4, Neopan 400, Diafin developer / fixer and water as stop-bath. I scanned the negatives with the Epson v500 and 'edited' them in Lightroom.
Please, if you took the time to open this thread, leave me a short comment. Especially if you don't like it, you don't have to wrap it nicely either.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
Like I said, I appreciate any critizism. If your general impression is that they suck, just tell me.
martin
shenkerian
Established
Hi Martin, did you expose at 400? The first two shots look overexposed - the speckles in the girl's face look more like scanner noise than film grain. How do the negatives look?
I like #4.
I like #4.
Shac
Well-known
Martin - first the usual question with a post like this - do you like/are you satisfied with them? Are they what you expected? That is of course the most important issue here. The "liking" comes form the technical aspects and from the subject aspects - not really directly related.
To me these seem technically fine given the image sizes and the web limitations.
I prefer to go out and shoot, evaluate the results, learning what worked/what didn't then shoot again - obvious stuff I know.
Anyway keep shooting - seems to me you are on the right path.
To me these seem technically fine given the image sizes and the web limitations.
I prefer to go out and shoot, evaluate the results, learning what worked/what didn't then shoot again - obvious stuff I know.
Anyway keep shooting - seems to me you are on the right path.
photo4ls
Well-known
Martin,
I like 1,3,6 & 7 and I also like your film choice.
Nelson
I like 1,3,6 & 7 and I also like your film choice.
Nelson
zgeeRF
Established
Hi Martin, I like the first three. I recently started shooting Neopan 400, but haven't tried Diafine with it. did you expose it at 400? 800?
Like the others said, shoot more! it seems you got the developing etc working fine.
Like the others said, shoot more! it seems you got the developing etc working fine.
martin s
Well-known
Hey, that was fast! The negatives actually look really bad, the meter and I don't seem like each other. I don't have that much experience with manual / film cameras yet. I will pay more attention to exposure and see what happens.
Thanks! My film choice isn't really based on sympathy or experience, Neopan is all I can get for relatively little money (I still love it!). I just got a few hundred feet of HP4 and expired Tri-X though, so I'll go through that before buying anything else.
Hey! I actually loved every single frame I got from that camera which didn't turn out all dark / white. I didn't even expect usable images yet, the Leica dealer explained me "this isn't the camera for you" (I'm kind of youngish). Except for the meter though, I don't think it's hard to use at all.
That's one big issue I have, I can't tell the difference between a 'good‘ / ‘bad‘ image.
Thanks!
Since there doesn't seem to be a Neopan ASA 800 I assume you refer to push-processing? I actually haven't tried that yet, I want to though once I read a little more about the subject. Developing the negatives works pretty well by now but my wet prints look hideous.
martin
Ruvy
Established
Martin, I am at the same starting point with M6 as you are and think your 1st roll is better than my third... I have an older Epson and it may be a part of it. I like your compositions very much. Your subjects are interesting and you your choice of subject with interesting light spots and areas is good too and so are contrasts. There is however plenty of noise which at this size should have been minimal. Do you do single or multiple scans? did images had to be processed extensively or were they properly exposed out of the scanner? Extending dynamic range often adds a lot of noise in scanners as well in digital camera. I have decided to shoot now a black and white film to be c41 developed and ask the lab to scan the film hi-res in their high end NOrisu scanner - it can eliminate doubts if a problem is film/exposure/development/scanner related.
martin s
Well-known
Hey Ruvy, thanks first of all. The noise is because the roll turned out way underexposed (besides those of my friend, which were overexposed). I had to correct the exposure in Lightroom, which created the noise. When I wet print the images though, they don't seem to be noisy at all.
Here's a wet print I did the other night with a friend. You can click it to see a higher resolution version. I'm actually really impressed how it turned out, it was with a Leitz v35, 4 Seconds at f2.8. 60 Seconds in Diafin developer (1:9), 15 seconds stop bath, 30 seconds Tetanal fixer. Should I change any of those numbers?
Have a nice Sunday everyone,
martin
Here's a wet print I did the other night with a friend. You can click it to see a higher resolution version. I'm actually really impressed how it turned out, it was with a Leitz v35, 4 Seconds at f2.8. 60 Seconds in Diafin developer (1:9), 15 seconds stop bath, 30 seconds Tetanal fixer. Should I change any of those numbers?
Have a nice Sunday everyone,
martin
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
martin, is that lens a SC or MC version?
Papercut
Well-known
martin, assuming the meter and camera are functioning properly (which if you're getting frames that are all light or all dark perhaps isn't a good assumption -- maybe check it against a meter or camera that you know is right and if the readings check out and you're still getting all light / dark frames, then it is possible that the camera's shutter speeds are off...is it a new camera or used?), then it's just a matter of experience: knowing when you can trust the meter and when you can't.
As an obvious example here, the bird on the girder shot looks like the bright sky fooled the meter and so it was way under-exposed for the bird and metal.
Don't let the Leica dealer throw you off. Manual cameras are not voodoo magic! The main thing is to shoot lots and like Shac said, evaluate the results and then shoot some more. I would say to keep the number of variables down shoot the same film and developer for a while, get to know them both and your equipment very well and then start experimenting.
Oh, and keep posting and asking questions here -- lots of knowledgeable folks here on RFF.
As an obvious example here, the bird on the girder shot looks like the bright sky fooled the meter and so it was way under-exposed for the bird and metal.
Don't let the Leica dealer throw you off. Manual cameras are not voodoo magic! The main thing is to shoot lots and like Shac said, evaluate the results and then shoot some more. I would say to keep the number of variables down shoot the same film and developer for a while, get to know them both and your equipment very well and then start experimenting.
Oh, and keep posting and asking questions here -- lots of knowledgeable folks here on RFF.
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
Martin,
Per your request, I am offer a humble response. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hope you never lose that. You mentioned that you liked every single frame, and that is very exciting. You also mentioned that you feel or think you do not know a good frame from a bad? However, I like to think of it in more terms of successful image compared to less successful or not successful images.
Most of the subjects that I photograph turn out less than what I expected for various reasons. Sometimes it is because of timing--meaning the action before I was able to release the shutter, I missed. Sometimes it is because of lighting, or lack of it, and not properly exposing the subject. Sometimes it is because the color film (when I use color) is outdated, but I experiment with it anyway, or the image is out of focus and it is one of those images that shouldn't be. However, I am learning to edit, and through editing I can make myself to appear to be better photographer than i might ever let on. I have rolls of film where every image lacks interest, and sometimes I am fortunate to have a roll of film where ten frames are amazing. I think the key is to learn to be discerning photographer, and educate yourself about what is successful image compared to what is not a successful image. And there is no one answer.
I would highly recommend, if you are interested, to rent or buy these DVD's called Contacts #1, #2, and #3. They are absolutely amazing, and you sort of can get a feel how other photographers edit there work. What you will learn is amazing. You will see some of the most famous images on this series, however, you will also the other images that were very close, but that one image just didn't make it, sometimes because of slightest of gestures, or the feeling or emotion of the image.
I would also recommend that you buy a book by Stephen Shore called, The Nature of Photography. It will provide you a concrete foundation and language for photography. My last recommendation is spend a lot of time a book stores, libraries, and online, looking at work.
In reference to you images I think enthusiastic by your enthusiasm. I will not say that any of your photos "suck," or are "bad." I think some are successful than others for various reasons.
I quick response:
#1 and #2 are not very successful for me--first, I have a biased of not liking photographs of people eating. Besides from this bias, I don't feel any emotion from that of the viewer. She knows you are taking her picture and she seems like she doesn't know what to do, or waiting for it to be over.
#3 holds no interest for me, due to a lack of action. There just looking and all we see are their backs, and there unawareness of being photographed. If they were kissing or dancing, or if their was something subtle happening in the frame it might be more amusing.
#4 Is moving more in a direction of interest, but I wondering what is this image about? Is it about the pigeons, if so I would have waited for them to do posed in such a way where it makes the frame more interesting, like waiting for them to fly in between the polls. Or is the image more about the formal elements, of the lines and shapes of the posts--if so I would have photographed them in several angles to see how visual I could make this image.
#5 works for me. I like the juxtaposition of the tower to that of the sky, and the fact that it appears to be leaning, which creates a sense of mystery. Is the building leaning, or is it the photographer?
#6 is does not peak my interest, however, number 7 does. I like how this cat seems to frozen in time, forever stuck behind this glass window, with a bunch of flowers, waiting for his owner to arrive.
Keep in mind, if you ask the question, what do you think? You will get a lot of responses, some comments may or may not be helpful, and it depends on so many different factors, for one, I never ask my mom what she thinks of my work because everything is / was great, and that was not very helpful. I even purposely showed her a photograph that truly sucked in every since of the word, and she still loved it. So, I guess learn to ask people that you trust, and spend a lot of time looking at work, and find a photographer or photographers whose work you admire. For me, like a lot of other people, I admire Josef Koudelka's work for strangeness and depth, Alex Webb's work for how he layers his images, and Eugene Richard's work because of the range of emotion he seems to capture. There are others too of course.
Good luck . . . and go use another roll of film and post some more images.
:s:
Per your request, I am offer a humble response. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hope you never lose that. You mentioned that you liked every single frame, and that is very exciting. You also mentioned that you feel or think you do not know a good frame from a bad? However, I like to think of it in more terms of successful image compared to less successful or not successful images.
Most of the subjects that I photograph turn out less than what I expected for various reasons. Sometimes it is because of timing--meaning the action before I was able to release the shutter, I missed. Sometimes it is because of lighting, or lack of it, and not properly exposing the subject. Sometimes it is because the color film (when I use color) is outdated, but I experiment with it anyway, or the image is out of focus and it is one of those images that shouldn't be. However, I am learning to edit, and through editing I can make myself to appear to be better photographer than i might ever let on. I have rolls of film where every image lacks interest, and sometimes I am fortunate to have a roll of film where ten frames are amazing. I think the key is to learn to be discerning photographer, and educate yourself about what is successful image compared to what is not a successful image. And there is no one answer.
I would highly recommend, if you are interested, to rent or buy these DVD's called Contacts #1, #2, and #3. They are absolutely amazing, and you sort of can get a feel how other photographers edit there work. What you will learn is amazing. You will see some of the most famous images on this series, however, you will also the other images that were very close, but that one image just didn't make it, sometimes because of slightest of gestures, or the feeling or emotion of the image.
I would also recommend that you buy a book by Stephen Shore called, The Nature of Photography. It will provide you a concrete foundation and language for photography. My last recommendation is spend a lot of time a book stores, libraries, and online, looking at work.
In reference to you images I think enthusiastic by your enthusiasm. I will not say that any of your photos "suck," or are "bad." I think some are successful than others for various reasons.
I quick response:
#1 and #2 are not very successful for me--first, I have a biased of not liking photographs of people eating. Besides from this bias, I don't feel any emotion from that of the viewer. She knows you are taking her picture and she seems like she doesn't know what to do, or waiting for it to be over.
#3 holds no interest for me, due to a lack of action. There just looking and all we see are their backs, and there unawareness of being photographed. If they were kissing or dancing, or if their was something subtle happening in the frame it might be more amusing.
#4 Is moving more in a direction of interest, but I wondering what is this image about? Is it about the pigeons, if so I would have waited for them to do posed in such a way where it makes the frame more interesting, like waiting for them to fly in between the polls. Or is the image more about the formal elements, of the lines and shapes of the posts--if so I would have photographed them in several angles to see how visual I could make this image.
#5 works for me. I like the juxtaposition of the tower to that of the sky, and the fact that it appears to be leaning, which creates a sense of mystery. Is the building leaning, or is it the photographer?
#6 is does not peak my interest, however, number 7 does. I like how this cat seems to frozen in time, forever stuck behind this glass window, with a bunch of flowers, waiting for his owner to arrive.
Keep in mind, if you ask the question, what do you think? You will get a lot of responses, some comments may or may not be helpful, and it depends on so many different factors, for one, I never ask my mom what she thinks of my work because everything is / was great, and that was not very helpful. I even purposely showed her a photograph that truly sucked in every since of the word, and she still loved it. So, I guess learn to ask people that you trust, and spend a lot of time looking at work, and find a photographer or photographers whose work you admire. For me, like a lot of other people, I admire Josef Koudelka's work for strangeness and depth, Alex Webb's work for how he layers his images, and Eugene Richard's work because of the range of emotion he seems to capture. There are others too of course.
Good luck . . . and go use another roll of film and post some more images.
:s:
martin s
Well-known
Florian, I have no clue to be honest. How can you tell?
I'm pretty sure it's me. The camera is "used" as in really old, I don't think anybody _used it though. It's a 1984 Serial Number, and I don't know anything about when it had its last CLA.
I actually checked the exposure of the concrete / my hand and used that, I figured the sky would confuse the meter.
less voodoo magic than those dSLRs
thanks!@Sisyphus
First of all, I can't even tell you how thankful I am for the time you took to critique my images.
First I looked for those DVD's, I don't think I'll be able to borrow them since I live in Germany. I'll try to get them on eBay or Amazon, they do sound really interesting, as does the book by Steven Shore which should be easy to get.
That's a really nice half-full way of looking at things, I really like that.
#1 & #2 - I agree, she was uncomfortable. People usually are uncomfortable when I shoot them, which is an issue I'll have to work on.
#3 I can see how it's boring, it was somewhat more interesting for me since there was the cat behind that window. They stood there forever and I couldn't figure out a better way to photograph them.
#4 it was supposed to be all about symmetry, than I saw the pigeons. I'll try again this week, I usually go by those poles twice a day. Something to look forward to
Showing images to people is another issue, I don't really know anybody around here who's willing / able to give a honest critique. The last person I asked was a friend, she explained "Doesn't do anything for me, but black and white isn't my thing anyways". So I probably won't ask her again.
Thanks again! I will try to shoot about one roll a day and post the ones I like in 1-2 weeks.
martin
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
If it is a SC or MC lens should stand on the front ring around the front glas, I think. Near the script Voigtländer.
sweathog
Well-known
Age has nothing to do with it.
what experience did you have with cameras prior to buying your M6?
I like your photographs, I think you've got an eye for it, so just shoot away.
Tom
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
Martin,
Your welcome. Just keep photographing. In reference to the DVD's and The book: The DVD's you should be able to purchase from Amazon as well. If cost or if they are too difficult to come by, try to get Contacts 1; I have all three, and i like two, and I have yet to watch #3 after 2 or 3 years since I have had them.
I think I misspelled Steven (Stephen with a "ph"), excellent book, and I think it is more contemporary than the Ansel Adams series of three books that he wrote; The Camera, The Negative; and The Print, which are also good. The Stephen Shore book reads quicker, with profound, yet brief explanations. It is a quick read, packed with a lot of useful information.
When you post again, feel free to PM me to let me know . . . one more thought, photographing the same thing over a long period of time can be a valuable learning experience. I photographed this one place for two years, kept going back, I finally realized the best time to photograph this particular place was as the nice was rising. So , one morning I woke up at 3:30, drove an hour, set everything up, and waited for the sun to rise. When it did, I was ready to photograph, and I created a beautiful portfolio.
Good luck . . .
:s:
Your welcome. Just keep photographing. In reference to the DVD's and The book: The DVD's you should be able to purchase from Amazon as well. If cost or if they are too difficult to come by, try to get Contacts 1; I have all three, and i like two, and I have yet to watch #3 after 2 or 3 years since I have had them.
I think I misspelled Steven (Stephen with a "ph"), excellent book, and I think it is more contemporary than the Ansel Adams series of three books that he wrote; The Camera, The Negative; and The Print, which are also good. The Stephen Shore book reads quicker, with profound, yet brief explanations. It is a quick read, packed with a lot of useful information.
When you post again, feel free to PM me to let me know . . . one more thought, photographing the same thing over a long period of time can be a valuable learning experience. I photographed this one place for two years, kept going back, I finally realized the best time to photograph this particular place was as the nice was rising. So , one morning I woke up at 3:30, drove an hour, set everything up, and waited for the sun to rise. When it did, I was ready to photograph, and I created a beautiful portfolio.
Good luck . . .
:s:
cjm
Well-known
Your exposure seems okay. The subjects in 1-3, 5, 6 don't really interest me. Most of the subjects are framed in the center of the picture as opposed to following the rule of thirds. I like the geometry in #4. #7 really stands out to me. At first, it just looks like a simple picture of a cat. However, upon closer inspection I realized the cat is behind the glass. It almost looks like a piece of merchandise for sale. Good first roll.
martin s
Well-known
@Florian
I uploaded a high resolution isight image here, it doesn't say anything on there though. I just read you're living in Bremen? I might move there next year to go to university, assuming they'll one day return my admission letter.
@sweathog
Thanks! I used a EOS Film Camera for a few months back when I was 14 (photography class). A few years later I used a Pentax k10d, didn't really like it though. About a year back I used a Canon A-1 for some time, later my friend gave me a Mamiya DX 1000, which turned out to be a unusable camera. I haven't had that many cameras, but I've been looking at photography for quite some time. I started looking at Bresson's stuff maybe 5 years back?
@Sisyphus
I will sure send you a pm! Regarding the time of the day, is there a significant difference with black and white film, especially in the sky?
@cjm
I really appreciate that, thank you. The cat is actually locked behind that glass every night, it's a flower shop, too, so that's a little ironic I think.
//EDIT @Florian it says M.C. on the little box it came in
martin
I uploaded a high resolution isight image here, it doesn't say anything on there though. I just read you're living in Bremen? I might move there next year to go to university, assuming they'll one day return my admission letter.
@sweathog
Thanks! I used a EOS Film Camera for a few months back when I was 14 (photography class). A few years later I used a Pentax k10d, didn't really like it though. About a year back I used a Canon A-1 for some time, later my friend gave me a Mamiya DX 1000, which turned out to be a unusable camera. I haven't had that many cameras, but I've been looking at photography for quite some time. I started looking at Bresson's stuff maybe 5 years back?
@Sisyphus
I will sure send you a pm! Regarding the time of the day, is there a significant difference with black and white film, especially in the sky?
@cjm
I really appreciate that, thank you. The cat is actually locked behind that glass every night, it's a flower shop, too, so that's a little ironic I think.
//EDIT @Florian it says M.C. on the little box it came in
martin
Last edited:
Papercut
Well-known
martin,
that certainly sounds like plenty of photographic experience to be able / ready to move to a manual camera. as far as knowing what a "good" / "bad" photo is, there are (at least) two dimensions to that: technical and artistic. Which is troubling you? (or both?)
The technical side isn't that hard, really. I think most reasonably intelligent people can get the basics of (manual) photography in a week or two at most -- either by taking a class or reading some good instructional books. After that it is just practice and more practice and experimentation and more practice.
The artistic is perhaps harder, but you can educate yourself in large part by thoughtful looking at lots of images by "the best" photographers. Bookstores and libraries are your friends! This type of self-education is more than just flipping idly through books of photos though; it does take some sustained thinking about the images you are seeing to really gain from it. Asking yourself (and forcing yourself to come up with answers!!) questions like: "Why does this image work?"; "What elements or composition are essential to this and which are not?"; "What was the photographer trying to say or accomplish with this image?"; "Does s/he succeed?"; "Do I like it? If so, why? If not, why not?", etc., etc. And after going through this process repeatedly, you will find the types of photographs that YOU like and which you don't, and even more valuable, you'll know why you like and dislike them -- and then, you'll realize that you know what a "good photograph" is (for you)!
Oh, and don't be afraid to imitate the photographers / styles you like! Billy Jay and David Hurn's book, "On Being a Photographer", deals intelligently with this very point: conscious, deliberate imitation is a very, very valuable step in the learning process and there is nothing wrong with it at all. So, once you find photographers that really speak to you, do not shy away from trying to imitate their style -- it will teach you a lot.
that certainly sounds like plenty of photographic experience to be able / ready to move to a manual camera. as far as knowing what a "good" / "bad" photo is, there are (at least) two dimensions to that: technical and artistic. Which is troubling you? (or both?)
The technical side isn't that hard, really. I think most reasonably intelligent people can get the basics of (manual) photography in a week or two at most -- either by taking a class or reading some good instructional books. After that it is just practice and more practice and experimentation and more practice.
The artistic is perhaps harder, but you can educate yourself in large part by thoughtful looking at lots of images by "the best" photographers. Bookstores and libraries are your friends! This type of self-education is more than just flipping idly through books of photos though; it does take some sustained thinking about the images you are seeing to really gain from it. Asking yourself (and forcing yourself to come up with answers!!) questions like: "Why does this image work?"; "What elements or composition are essential to this and which are not?"; "What was the photographer trying to say or accomplish with this image?"; "Does s/he succeed?"; "Do I like it? If so, why? If not, why not?", etc., etc. And after going through this process repeatedly, you will find the types of photographs that YOU like and which you don't, and even more valuable, you'll know why you like and dislike them -- and then, you'll realize that you know what a "good photograph" is (for you)!
Oh, and don't be afraid to imitate the photographers / styles you like! Billy Jay and David Hurn's book, "On Being a Photographer", deals intelligently with this very point: conscious, deliberate imitation is a very, very valuable step in the learning process and there is nothing wrong with it at all. So, once you find photographers that really speak to you, do not shy away from trying to imitate their style -- it will teach you a lot.
Last edited:
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
martin, thanks for the info, also for showing that pic of the lens. I think I'll buy one soon, too, also as MC version.
No clue about our university's policy about returning admission letters. I'm near the end of my study (also University Bremen, studying history, German literature&language (Germanistik) and cultural anthropology (Kulturwissenschaft) ).
No clue about our university's policy about returning admission letters. I'm near the end of my study (also University Bremen, studying history, German literature&language (Germanistik) and cultural anthropology (Kulturwissenschaft) ).