Toby
On the alert
colinh said:Thanks everyone for the praise for the second shot. I posted it to my Close Up Candid Street Photography gallery 4 days ago and it got (yes, he's off again...) *sniff* zero comments up till now.
The left 1/3 and top 1/3 have been cropped (which leaves less than half the original negative area
It was shot on Neopan 400, developed in Rodinal 1+50 for a nominal 11 min (20 deg C). The negative is a bit odd. 25% of the pixels are below 15/255 and 21% are over 195/255. I.e only 54% of the pixels are in the central 72 % of the grey scale.
Does this just indicate too much subject contrast, or (also) incorrect development?
colin
Just sounds like neopan 400 to me which can get extremely contrasty very quickly. For street work where you have little opportunity for contrast control HP5 or Tri x are a better bet because they are so much more forgiving. I'd go with ID 11 or D76 as well if you are scanning as rodinal is quite a grainy developer and scanning tends to emphasise grain so you can get a bit of a double whammy. Film with more latitude will help you work faster on the street as you be fussing over exposure come crunch time. Personally on a day with even light I just meter off tarmac or grass and get on with it
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I have been doing similar work - the CV 35 1.7 on a Canon P. I prefocus and preset exposures as best i can. I'm running 400+ speed film (tri-x at 800 is my fave) though, which helps dramatically, and using compensating development to help control contrast.
Nice shots Colin. Can't wait to see more.
Nice shots Colin. Can't wait to see more.
John Elder
Well-known
Nice work. My favorite combo also is a 35mm lens on a Leica M. Some advice:
learn to estimate distances as accurately as you can 4ft, 6 ft , 10ft. Learn where those distances are on your lens WITHOUT LOOKING at the lens. Also zone focusing when the light is bright works well. Contrary to Henry: NEVER shoot at f16 unless depth of field absolutely requires it. Performance of any 35mm lens at f16 sucks due to diffraction limitation.
learn to estimate distances as accurately as you can 4ft, 6 ft , 10ft. Learn where those distances are on your lens WITHOUT LOOKING at the lens. Also zone focusing when the light is bright works well. Contrary to Henry: NEVER shoot at f16 unless depth of field absolutely requires it. Performance of any 35mm lens at f16 sucks due to diffraction limitation.
peter_n
Veteran
As John says get to know your lens really well if you can so that you can pre-focus as you are bringing the camera up to your eye. The largest aperture I use is f8, and HP5+ does really well in HC-110...
colinh
Well-known
Actually, I've already started going down to f/5.6 or f/8 which means ISO 400 or 200 aren't quite as necessary anymore.
Is FP4+ the film with the greatest lattitide in the 100-200 range? (not counting XP2 )
colin
PS. Here's the shot of a not-pretty-girl, mentioned earlier. Let me know if you think I should stick with the girls
DELETED
Is FP4+ the film with the greatest lattitide in the 100-200 range? (not counting XP2
)colin
PS. Here's the shot of a not-pretty-girl, mentioned earlier. Let me know if you think I should stick with the girls
DELETED
Last edited:
iml
Well-known
colinh said:I'd like the resolution of ISO 100 at ISO 200
If you're cropping heavily from scans, you're going to struggle to achieve that.
That aside, I do like this set.
Ian
colinh
Well-known
Actually, I've already started going down to f/5.6 or f/8 which means ISO 400 or 200 aren't quite as necessary anymore.
Is FP4+ the film with the greatest lattitide in the 100-200 range? (not counting XP2 )
colin
PS. Here's the shot of a not-pretty-girl, mentioned earlier. Let me know if you think I should stick with the girls
DELETED
Is FP4+ the film with the greatest lattitide in the 100-200 range? (not counting XP2
)colin
PS. Here's the shot of a not-pretty-girl, mentioned earlier. Let me know if you think I should stick with the girls
DELETED
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
I prefer shots with pretty girls.
phatnev
Well-known
The second one is definitely the masterpiece, as far as tonality, complexity, composition, but the third one, it captures young love, which is something that everyone can relate too and is probably my favorite subject, and so I think the third speaks the most to me.