Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Last week I promised myself to stop my street shooting while I print my photographs: I guess it will take me a couple of months... So I started to print, and haven't been out shoting for a few days.
However, today I was anxious... I imagined -first- auditive cures... I listened to Dylan's Can't Wait, and then to Lennon's Cold Turkey, and instead of being a relief, my anxiety got worse... So I tried desperately to find a honest way to cheat... 😀 I said damn, I need at least a substitute for the real vice, and in a hurry grabbed three cameras and went down to the corner just for a fast stupid test, for the pleasure of playing for a moment with my toys and burning some film again...
This is what I wanted to see: how much is the difference -just talking about OOF- if instead of using my 40 at f/2 at a given subject distance, I decide to use a 35 or a 50 at the same aperture. I had tested the three lenses in the past (individually) to see them perform at different focusing distances and f-stops, but I had never compared them with the same scene. I don't use my 90 or my 105 for street, so I just picked the three lenses I use the most for the few street situations I think require subject isolation from time to time. It was overcast and I used Acros in Rodinal, and all shots were f/2 1/250, on Hexar AF's 35mm f/2, CV Nokton 40mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 50mm 1.4 Ai.
Nothing too serious: it was a real quick, handheld test... Although in general I knew how the results would look like, now I've seen things in a more precise way than I used to imagine... For example I was surprised at how little OOF a 35 produces even at f/2 focusing at 1 meter: I thought it would be more than what really is... And I was also surprised at the huge difference in OOF if instead of a 35 I use the 40: I thought the difference would be minimal...
I developed and scanned as fast as I could, and now at least I feel fine again, and I'm glad I can continue printing... 🙂
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/5448236319/sizes/l/
Cheers,
Juan
However, today I was anxious... I imagined -first- auditive cures... I listened to Dylan's Can't Wait, and then to Lennon's Cold Turkey, and instead of being a relief, my anxiety got worse... So I tried desperately to find a honest way to cheat... 😀 I said damn, I need at least a substitute for the real vice, and in a hurry grabbed three cameras and went down to the corner just for a fast stupid test, for the pleasure of playing for a moment with my toys and burning some film again...
This is what I wanted to see: how much is the difference -just talking about OOF- if instead of using my 40 at f/2 at a given subject distance, I decide to use a 35 or a 50 at the same aperture. I had tested the three lenses in the past (individually) to see them perform at different focusing distances and f-stops, but I had never compared them with the same scene. I don't use my 90 or my 105 for street, so I just picked the three lenses I use the most for the few street situations I think require subject isolation from time to time. It was overcast and I used Acros in Rodinal, and all shots were f/2 1/250, on Hexar AF's 35mm f/2, CV Nokton 40mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 50mm 1.4 Ai.
Nothing too serious: it was a real quick, handheld test... Although in general I knew how the results would look like, now I've seen things in a more precise way than I used to imagine... For example I was surprised at how little OOF a 35 produces even at f/2 focusing at 1 meter: I thought it would be more than what really is... And I was also surprised at the huge difference in OOF if instead of a 35 I use the 40: I thought the difference would be minimal...
I developed and scanned as fast as I could, and now at least I feel fine again, and I'm glad I can continue printing... 🙂
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/5448236319/sizes/l/
Cheers,
Juan
