First Portrait of the Year

Mahoneyd187

Mahoneyd187

Messages
2,604
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
...had to be of the Mrs I'm afraid, she makes a reasonable test subject lol.

Tri-x shot at 800
Developed in Ilfosol 3 (last of this before I switch to my massive stash of D76)
Massive Dev chart times

Mamiya RZ67 with 180mm 4.5 w-n shot at F5.6 1/30s

6636784651_8cb0a2a724_z.jpg


Even though Ilfosol 3 is supposedly for slow/medium films, I don't think it's done me far wrong with both HP5 and TriX
 
"First Portrait of the Year ".................

A very nice one too.

The tight crop works very well
 
duttytd said:
Agreed the tight crop works well. Im not to keen on the 2 catch lights in the eye, i find it quite distracting.
Click to expand...

It's extremely difficult to use any kind of fill light on a face without creating a second catchlight, even a reflector under the chin in a clamshell beauty light set up creates a second catchlight, a Tri-flector creates an additional 3 catchlights as well as the key. Besides it's on purpose, it's a hard fill light, a la Hollywood portrait styley. Most Hollywood glamour shots of yesteryear have these, they used predominantly paramount and loop lighting for the key and a hard fill.

Granted the styling isn't Hollywood portrait at all, it wasn't my aim, but lighting wise it's similar.

No worries if you don't like it fella, not trying to defend or justify it, just explaining my thinking for having it there :)
 
In all honesty portraits aint my field and im not going to talk like i know anything about it lol.

I really like the style of shot and credit you for it. You can't please everyone ;-)
 
duttytd said:
In all honesty portraits aint my field and im not going to talk like i know anything about it lol.

I really like the style of shot and credit you for it. You can't please everyone ;-)
Click to expand...

Lol no problem dude thanks for the comments
 
duttytd said:
Agreed the tight crop works well. Im not to keen on the 2 catch lights in the eye, i find it quite distracting.
Click to expand...

Catchlights??......no I think that's her natural sparkle!! lol
 
MindofMel said:
Great great shot! Good job on not retouching it and PP-ing it to kingdom come aswell. Very natural.
Click to expand...

Hi there!

Many thanks :)

Part of the reason I love film, requires much less work in PS to get the look I like. This neg was scanned, then 10mins max in Photoshop for curves and clean up with healing brush. Job done.

I could get it super super clean if I wanted to but I just don't, been there done that.
 
A cracking portrait that just shows why film is so good. Love it.

Mart
 
Looking good that, certainly shows the grain advantage of MF up very well! Only cheeky negative comment - you missed a spot, halfway between her right eye and hair line, loks like it may have been a slip with a brush in PS perhaps?
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Looking good that, certainly shows the grain advantage of MF up very well! Only cheeky negative comment - you missed a spot, halfway between her right eye and hair line, loks like it may have been a slip with a brush in PS perhaps?
Click to expand...

Hey Alan,

I don't miss spots ;) It's a scar, and I always leave freckles, moles and scars present, as they should be (y)
 
Totally agree, it just looked like a slip with the burn brush rather than a skin thing (y)
 
Nice shot, very nice. I think it really illustrates that absolutely pin sharp isnt required, its just a tad soft (not out of focus - soft, in the real sense) BUT because of that its a really lovely shot, it really shows why film still has the edge over digital, this film shot just compliments the model without resorting to skin softening etc which can look artificial, this just looks beautifuly graded from light to dark and is a really "nice" shot.
She's a cracking looking lady but its not her looks that make the shot look so good its the lighting, the "colours" etc.
Can you guess I like it.

Matt
 
Thank you kindly for the comments and feedback. And I agree entirely with your film comments, I've only been shooting film for a very short while, months rather than years, and I'm amazed by the stuff.

To be totally honest, the softness you find appealing is probably due to the small image size, at 100% of the full res scan (easily over 100mp) I can quite easily view each blood vessel in her eye and each eye lash. I was amazed considering I shot it at 1/30s. Hope that doesn't detract from your appreciation of the shot lol :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top