A Hasselblad, more than 40 years after first looking.

Retro-Grouch said:
I saw this image the same way, initially. The bridge reads as a wall behind the foreground rapids, rather than over them, and the water reads as something solid like dirt. A bit of an illusion, and very enjoyable; I like being reminded that the camera doesn't always tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Really interesting you guys say that. I just showed it to my wife and asked her what she was looking at. It took her a minute to figure it out as well. Likely because I was there I can’t see how you all see a wall and dirt - guess I must be smoking the wrong stuff :)
 
Vince Lupo said:
Really interesting you guys say that. I just showed it to my wife and asked her what she was looking at. It took her a minute to figure it out as well. Likely because I was there I can’t see how you all see a wall and dirt - guess I must be smoking the wrong stuff :)
Click to expand...
What's interesting, too, is that now, having studied the image several times, I find it almost impossible to see it as anything other than water flowing under a bridge. Of course, viewers coming to the image without any prior information will read the visual cues in the way they are most accustomed to do, which is very dependent on the conventional representational strategies of the medium. Perhaps unintentionally, you subverted those strategies.
But generally, when I see your images, I wish I could get my hands on whatever it is you're smoking. My photography would see a vast improvement! ;)
 
Retro-Grouch said:
What's interesting, too, is that now, having studied the image several times, I find it almost impossible to see it as anything other than water flowing under a bridge. Of course, viewers coming to the image without any prior information will read the visual cues in the way they are most accustomed to do, which is very dependent on the conventional representational strategies of the medium. Perhaps unintentionally, you subverted those strategies.
But generally, when I see your images, I wish I could get my hands on whatever it is you're smoking. My photography would see a vast improvement! ;)
Click to expand...
Instantly I see it as water now, and like RG, I cannot now see it otherwise. But it took another 8 seconds even after being told it was a bridge to see what it is that you both were seeing. To me it’s the pitched roof that throws me off. And the high contrast. Up where you are I wouldn’t have figured on a building being so close to a bridge over rapids. Here’s an image for Stephen Shore revised edition of The Nature of Photographs.
 
Could have sworn this last one was frost on terminal aroborizations of a tree branch against a forest background. You have magic cameras.
 
More wandering around Gananoque - Gateway to the Thousand Islands! 500C, 80/2.8 six-element Planar, Ilford Delta 100.

I actually had a few more shots that I thought were good, but on closer inspection they weren’t sharp (looked like camera shake). I think I need to bump up to shooting with 400 speed film in the Hasselblads - guess I’m not as steady as I thought!


Gananoque5 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
It is amazing how much difference even a monopod makes when using 1/125s or 1/60s. Ernst Wildi extolled their benefit. The opening shot of this thread was taken no faster than these speeds with a monopod and the distant buildings look crisp except for the hazy atmosphere at the bend in the river. The other thing is missing focus with a waist level finder and the acute matte D screen. But the frost tree looks like you’d have needed a prism finder.
 
Richard G said:
It is amazing how much difference even a monopod makes when using 1/125s or 1/60s. Ernst Wildi extolled their benefit. The opening shot of this thread was taken no faster than these speeds with a monopod and the distant buildings look crisp except for the hazy atmosphere at the bend in the river. The other thing is missing focus with a waist level finder and the acute matte D screen. But the frost tree looks like you’d have needed a prism finder.
Click to expand...
You’re right I did use an NC-2 finder which is a big help. I find that one works best with eyeglasses as long you remove the outer eyecup.
 
Boxlite 40 Test Floating Glass POL E 3.5 30 Macro 100mm C Planar by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here I am "floating" my most used Hasselblad 100mm F3.5 T* Zeiss Planar. Glass Sweep Table White Seamless Paper Background. A Broncolor Balloon low 45 left, illuminates the background softly and pretty even. Broncolor Boxlite 40 8 inches 45 left, on the glass. A small Silver Mirror on a Gooseneck, provides fill camera right. Nex C3 30mm Macro Lens.
 
Hasselblad ELM 135 C Zeiss Planar S 1to1 Macro Auto Bellows Stovepipe by Nokton48, on Flickr

Reconfigured the Hasselblad Automatic Bellows to fit the 500 EL/M model, and the 500 C/M as well. With the 135mm C Zeiss S-Planar, and Bellows Hood. Stovepipe Finder and A24 Back loaded with Shanghai 220. Broncolor Boxlite 40 8 inches away 45 camera right. Mirror on gooseneck 45 left for fill. Balloon light underneath glass table to softly light background. Rubber Eyecup on Stovepipe came from a Kiev60 Meter Prism LOL.

Great everyday rig for 6x6 film and now Hasselblad CFV16 Fat Pixel Digital Files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom