dogbunny
Registered Boozer
I took this photo a few weeks ago on my first roll of film with a spotmatic and a takumar. I was using lomo 100 film. ( i assume that accounts for the lines and the weird pops of light). It was very low light. Only the glow of the computer monitor. I balanced the camera on my knee to shoot. I thnk it was at 1/15 and wide open. Is this the best clarity I can hope for under these conditions? I like the photo for the most part. I guess what confuses me is that I really thought I'd focused perfect. Save a tripod, what could I have done better/more. I really enjoy the challenges of manual pics but I don't know enough.
Your experience is appreciated. Thanks for your input.
Your experience is appreciated. Thanks for your input.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think the Lomo film is designed to look bad. That's the appeal of Lomo, isn't it?
ivansanzana
Member
You created an image, as long as the image is pleasing to your eye that's all that matters. the experts may take it apart, but you are right, I like the texture, the grain, the angle, the colors, the soft edges (Not all photos need the have sharp edges) and if the subject is someone you care about and like looking at, I think you just may have created a masterpiece. (Why don'y you re-post ist in B&W with extreme contrast, I think it would lkook great).
marcr1230
Well-known
you might be able to do better, but if the lens is wide open and the subject is close and turned to the side like the posted image, the depth of field will be minimal, only one distance from the lens will be in focus. when the subject is facing you for example, you can expect to have both eyes in focus. here the tip of the nose, the eye and the ear are on different planes, and with a wide open shot, you can't expect all to be sharp.
j j
Well-known
It looks to me like the lines and noise are the scanner trying to find detail in an underexposed negative. The atmospheric result is nice. If you want a less noisy image either try again and give the film more exposure or work on this file by darkening the background.
emraphoto
Veteran
Th lines are from the scanner (as mentioned) and the 'pops' of light are dust on the film or scanning surface.
The focus could be soft for other reasons than your skills or camera set-up. Modern, low cost scanners are difficult to set up to nail the focus. It takes time and patience.
If I was forced to guess I would assume Lomo is buying rebadged film from a major manufacturer. I don't think it's specfically lo-fi film.
The focus could be soft for other reasons than your skills or camera set-up. Modern, low cost scanners are difficult to set up to nail the focus. It takes time and patience.
If I was forced to guess I would assume Lomo is buying rebadged film from a major manufacturer. I don't think it's specfically lo-fi film.
Would help to know what F-Stop was used. It looks like F1.4 to me, or a short telephoto used wide-open. The Takumar normal lenes used Thorium, slight yellow cast to the image.
The eye of the subject is in focus. 1/15th on an SLR is a little less steady than using an RF, mirror slap and finder black out makes it a little more difficult to hold still during slow exposure.
But it is a good photograph, in focus, narrow DOF. Color balance is difficult because of the lighting, and scanner had a hard time with shadow detail.
The eye of the subject is in focus. 1/15th on an SLR is a little less steady than using an RF, mirror slap and finder black out makes it a little more difficult to hold still during slow exposure.
But it is a good photograph, in focus, narrow DOF. Color balance is difficult because of the lighting, and scanner had a hard time with shadow detail.
Proteus617
Established
In the words of Bill Pierce - "Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."
I think the softness of the Takumar wide open suits your subject very well. Nothing at all wrong with that lens or your focusing technique.
I think the softness of the Takumar wide open suits your subject very well. Nothing at all wrong with that lens or your focusing technique.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
It looks good. Computer monitor light is generally an unflattering light source for portraits. I don't know what filter you would use to neutralize the color (fluorescent?). I think you should try converting it to black and white and play with the color mixing. The gradations on the face and the background will probably look really nice.
/
/
ampguy
Veteran
Looks fine. Better than most of the shots around here with expensive gear. Just print a couple 4x6's at costco, give one to her, and put one up in your bathroom or in a shoebox.
thegman
Veteran
+1
Agree with this, I'm not really a portraits guy (at the moment), but I like this shot.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Thanks a bunch
Thanks a bunch
I kind of guessed that too, just because the lomo label is a sticker applied to the roll of film. Sometimes it develops with lines, or odd separation like the coating applied to the film is coming apart. Maybe it is just old film. I only got it because it was cheap and I never used it before--just something to play with.
Correct 1.4. It sounds like the scanning can also be an issue. I don't really mind the lines and the dust. The focus was what kind of bugged me. It is soft and I like that, but I guess I thought it would be a little sharper
Hehe. I like it, but the subject (my wife) is already annoyed with all the pictures I take of her. She told me the people at the processing place must think she is vain to have so many pictures taken of her.
I'm thinking about getting a film scanner some time this year. I guess it wouldn't hurt to scan it through again and see what comes out. Thanks for the advice everyone. All of your input made sense to me.
Thanks a bunch
I kind of guessed that too, just because the lomo label is a sticker applied to the roll of film. Sometimes it develops with lines, or odd separation like the coating applied to the film is coming apart. Maybe it is just old film. I only got it because it was cheap and I never used it before--just something to play with.
Correct 1.4. It sounds like the scanning can also be an issue. I don't really mind the lines and the dust. The focus was what kind of bugged me. It is soft and I like that, but I guess I thought it would be a little sharper
Hehe. I like it, but the subject (my wife) is already annoyed with all the pictures I take of her. She told me the people at the processing place must think she is vain to have so many pictures taken of her.
I'm thinking about getting a film scanner some time this year. I guess it wouldn't hurt to scan it through again and see what comes out. Thanks for the advice everyone. All of your input made sense to me.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
I think the softness makes for a moody mysterious shot. I like it. I guess you moved slightly and that would show up close at a 15th.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I like the foto. Had you used a Leica Summilux ASPH it would have been different. Temper the expectations to the gear used. Also, pretty good at 1/15 sec.