Trio of J-12 Photos

[Stephanie Brim]

Three reasons why I love the J-12 so much.

Moment of Reflection.

Day's Garbage.

Cheap Death.

All caught on Tri-X at ISO 400 and developed in Rodinal 1:100. First time I've used Rodinal with this film. I'm trying 1:50 next time.

 

[Silva Lining]

Great shots, I've recently bought a J12 and currently have it on a Zorki 4, gotta finsih the film off now, your shots have inspired me to get out there a do it!

 

[martin-f5]

not bad, well developed sharp and good contrasts

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Nice pictures, Stephanie.

That J-12 is a real bargain. Just picked up a chrome one for the Nikon.

 

[Dingo]

Just to heat up the thread :

http://www.pgallery.net/dingo/folder-3489.html

Shots from a Kiev J-12. I love Russian stuff (and Russian girls).

 

[w3rk5]

Nice shots Stephanie. 🙂 I like the one titled, "Reflection" best.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

My favorite is the cigarette signs. What would have really *made* that one is if I had gotten a smoker standing right beside it.

 

[kaiyen]

The reflection one is the best. The other two just don't do it for me. Well done, though.

allan

 

[remrf]

Of the three (all of which appear properly exposed and developed) only the first has any appeal to me but none of them reach out and grab me. If you don't get all huffy on me I'll tell you why.

In the western world (at least that portion of it that reads from left to right) the human eye tends to look at an image in a reverse "S" starting at the top left and then zig zaging down through the image until it reaches the bottom right. Skilled artists and photographers can cause the eye to do otherwise but it is a trick that should be used sparingly and with much thought to the overall composition.

Your photos have a subject plopped dead in the center of the image and don't really give the viewer's eye any paths to travel to the subject and then out of the image.

The subject can actually be almost anywhere in the image as long as the photographer gives the viewer the paths mentioned above.

As an example were you to have gone for a lower angle in the first image with the trees in the background in the upper left of the image the eye could then follow its natural inclination and arrive at the subject which was the reflection which would have been in the lower right quadrant of the image( The tail end of the reverse "S"). Or you could have used the road or the sidewalk as the line directing the eye to the subject.

There are very few hard and fast rules of composition but there are quite a few general agreements we the viewing public have developed over the centuries of people viewing images. I can and I'm sure you can think of photographic images that ignore the above and work anyway. But most of them were done by a skilled professional who knew exactly what he or she was going to achieve.


I would suggest looking at lots of books on art with copies of the masters as well as the masters of photography. I think you will find that those images which "grab" the eye are the ones where the artist took care to guide his viewers through their journey through the image. It is rarely done by accident.

When I get it all right I call it a photograph. When I don't I call it a test shot.

 

[kaiyen]

One of the things that made me pause about joining the March Madness Challenge is that I didn't want to post stuff that I didn't think was at least "very good." I refuse to put stuff online that are just quick grab shots, unless they are the serendipitous kind that miraculously result in a pleasing image. Most, sadly, do not end up very good. And for many of the reasons that you've cited here - I've bullseye'ed the subject, I've failed to create any kind of edge tension, or leading lines, or...

Good points. Good things to consider for future photos. I think it would be wise to only post images online and here on RFF that strive to meet those goals. I am going to try, at least.

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I think that only putting photos online that are the *best* is a bad idea. I'd never get critique from anyone if I did that and I'd never get better. I've come a long way since I started.

One other thing: I think that, to do what remrf said in the reflection shot, I'd need a wider lens. I hadn't really shot outside with the J-12 much so I decided to give it a whirl. Had I taken a step back from where I was I wouldn't have gotten a good reflection. I was between a rock and a hard place with that one.

 

[remrf]

I think that only putting photos online that are the *best* is a bad idea. I'd never get critique from anyone if I did that and I'd never get better. I've come a long way since I started.

One other thing: I think that, to do what remrf said in the reflection shot, I'd need a wider lens. I hadn't really shot outside with the J-12 much so I decided to give it a whirl. Had I taken a step back from where I was I wouldn't have gotten a good reflection. I was between a rock and a hard place with that one.

Perhaps not Stephanie. By lowering the camera angle I think you could have gotten both. Not every shot has to be from the standing position.

 

[Trius]

Steph: Well-processed, and I like the first one compositionally. Just curious, will you try 1:50 because you're dissatisfied with 1:100, or just because you want to experiment? I don't see anything wrong with how the 1:100 worked for you!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I want to try it to see if I like 1:50 better before I decide on 1:100 as my standard dilution with Tri-X.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Perhaps not Stephanie. By lowering the camera angle I think you could have gotten both. Not every shot has to be from the standing position.

Ooooh...okay. I see where you're going with this now. I wasn't quite clear on what you meant. If the water is still there I can try to get this shot again tomorrow. I'll post the results. Should be...we've had crappy weather lately.

 

[tedwhite]

Steph: go ahead and try 1:50 and show us what you get. Perhaps doing the same grey, wintery, snowy shots, so we can what tonal and grain differences emerge.

A bit OT. have you done TriX in D76 1:1?

Ted

 

[Stephanie Brim]

No, but I have some and I have LOTS of Tri-X...

I suppose what I could do is do the same shot from many different angles so that it uses up the roll, cut the roll in half, and do one half in D76 1:1 and the other in Rodinal 1:50 and compare it with these negs from Rodinal 1:100. If you want me to, that is. This way we can see the differences between Rodinal and D76 as well as the differences between Rodinal 1:50 and 1:100.

 

[jlw]

I can't imagine the differences are going to be all that pronounced when seen in the form of scans posted on a web page!

 

[kaiyen]

Stephanie,
There is a place for photos for critique, and another for photos for display. If your posting these photos was to seek critique, then I apologize that I misunderstood you in my agreement to remrf's post. I didn't realize these were test shots; you didn't really say that they were one way or the other, I guess. Of course one learns through comments from others. I just didn't know you were seeking critique, that's all.

I think that changing one's taking position from standing is one of the best ways to get new perspectives on things. It really adds a dynamic element to a photo. There is something about crouching down low or sometimes getting up higher.

On APUG, they have a gallery just for critiques - things are posted there specifically to seek critique. There, one can tell that people are seeking feedback, as compared to showing stuff off.

If you're going to do testing, the ideal scenario is to shoot an entire roll of the exact same shot. Then you compare the different dilutions and developers. But even I'll admit that's a bit overkill most of the time. Have fun trying the different combinations 🙂

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Oh yeah - if you do want to show the differences on the web, I think what you need to do is:

1 - 100% crops from multiple locations on each negative, both smooth tones and areas of high detail
2 - some method of examining shadow detail differences between the combinations.

allan