- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Slyelessar
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Urban 35mm film shots
- Thread starter Slyelessar
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,500
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
An interesting selection. All apart from the top left seem to lack the crispness I'd expect from equipment produced in the last 40 years (I read you like vintage stuff in another thread) giving them a much older look that works in some cases, but not others.
Top left - interesting scene of river & people flowing side by side. It would be nice to have a bit more detail in the dark area occupied by the pedestrians, especially in such a small image.
Top Right - The LH negative space doesn't work for me, and the use of shallow DoF is spoiled by the softness of the image, and it needs rotating just a little. There's a drying mark on the hand that's intruding from the right.
2nd row - This works well, especially if we pretend the chap in the silhouette is in the US navy & holding binos instead of a phone, so that we can think he's scoping out a Japanese city in WWII (yes, I recognise the gherkin & tranny etc). Drying marks/fibres on this one too - they don't add authenticity to film.
3rd row - Best of the set - surreal images that benefit from the softness of the image and the tonal range used. Sadly there are more film marks that spoil the image.
HTH
Top left - interesting scene of river & people flowing side by side. It would be nice to have a bit more detail in the dark area occupied by the pedestrians, especially in such a small image.
Top Right - The LH negative space doesn't work for me, and the use of shallow DoF is spoiled by the softness of the image, and it needs rotating just a little. There's a drying mark on the hand that's intruding from the right.
2nd row - This works well, especially if we pretend the chap in the silhouette is in the US navy & holding binos instead of a phone, so that we can think he's scoping out a Japanese city in WWII (yes, I recognise the gherkin & tranny etc). Drying marks/fibres on this one too - they don't add authenticity to film.
3rd row - Best of the set - surreal images that benefit from the softness of the image and the tonal range used. Sadly there are more film marks that spoil the image.
HTH
OP
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Slyelessar
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't see it in rows, so not 100% sure on those.
With the river and people image, I had the all the film pushed 2 stops when developing (400 asa to 1600 asa). Stangely enough, I gave it more contrast/ shadows post editing, because I preferred it with more shadow
The one with the gentleman looking over the river was only shot on an Olympus Trip 35. I like the composition. The drying marks etc, all just happened and were not added for any kind of effect (the film also fell down the back of my desk while I was scanning haha!). Interesting story you came up with there! I like
The one looking down the steps is focused on the shadows on the wall cast by the light bouncing off the water. This shot didn't quite go as planned, as you pointed out due to the shallower DOF- but this is because over how heavily overcast it was that day. Two shots taken in this attempt, the other was F16 and was just too dark (I don't like to overly edit, especially film).
With the river and people image, I had the all the film pushed 2 stops when developing (400 asa to 1600 asa). Stangely enough, I gave it more contrast/ shadows post editing, because I preferred it with more shadow
The one with the gentleman looking over the river was only shot on an Olympus Trip 35. I like the composition. The drying marks etc, all just happened and were not added for any kind of effect (the film also fell down the back of my desk while I was scanning haha!). Interesting story you came up with there! I like
The one looking down the steps is focused on the shadows on the wall cast by the light bouncing off the water. This shot didn't quite go as planned, as you pointed out due to the shallower DOF- but this is because over how heavily overcast it was that day. Two shots taken in this attempt, the other was F16 and was just too dark (I don't like to overly edit, especially film).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,500
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't see it in rows, so not 100% sure on those.
With the river and people image, I had the all the film pushed 2 stops when developing (400 asa to 1600 asa). Stangely enough, I gave it more contrast/ shadows post editing, because I preferred it with more shadow
The image appears small on my screen, smaller than the others, making it harder to see detail in shadows. This probably looks great printed 20X30, but a different approach to tonal range is needed in smaller sizes. If I were producing a print in the darkroom then I'd probably dodge that area for a 10X8 and print a bit deeper for something larger that one could walk up to & have a closer look.
The one with the gentleman looking over the river was only shot on an Olympus Trip 35. I like the composition. The drying marks etc, all just happened and were not added for any kind of effect (the film also fell down the back of my desk while I was scanning haha!). Interesting story you came up with there! I like
The one looking down the steps is focused on the shadows on the wall cast by the light bouncing off the water. This shot didn't quite go as planned, as you pointed out due to the shallower DOF- but this is because over how heavily overcast it was that day. Two shots taken in this attempt, the other was F16 and was just too dark (I don't like to overly edit, especially film).
Not suggesting you add marks for effect, but just like dust bunnies in digital, then need removal before presenting images. I used to spend time & care with pencils removing marks from prints before they were presented or mounted, but now it's incredibly simple and there's no reason not to clean up.
OP
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Slyelessar
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The image appears small on my screen, smaller than the others, making it harder to see detail in shadows. This probably looks great printed 20X30, but a different approach to tonal range is needed in smaller sizes. If I were producing a print in the darkroom then I'd probably dodge that area for a 10X8 and print a bit deeper for something larger that one could walk up to & have a closer look.
Not suggesting you add marks for effect, but just like dust bunnies in digital, then need removal before presenting images. I used to spend time & care with pencils removing marks from prints before they were presented or mounted, but now it's incredibly simple and there's no reason not to clean up.
That's fair enough, the world would be a boring place if we did everything the same
I do love the 24mm for these kind off shots.I would rather leave the scratches/blemishes in on the film (everything is air sprayed before scanning). The 'imperfections' are as important to me as the 'perfections'. That is probably just the musician in me shining through.
- Messages
- 23,500
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Y'know, this is really annoying. I'm a musician, so I can't be bothered to deal with the crap on my images? Really? Well in that case I can't be bothered to crit your images in the future. You're on ignore.
OP
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Slyelessar
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I only meant as someone who is creative I embrace all aspects of art, and what matters to me personally will differ from the next person. It's the silence inbetween, the miss placed finger and notes, the small imperfections and the human aspects that I am drawn to. I try and mean this in an open and honest way. Removing this with technology is not always what feels right to me. If something doesn't feel right would you still do it? To say I 'cant be bothered to deal with crap on my images', although humourous, has missed the point I was making.
I appreciate time people take into commenting, I mean no ill will. You clearly have experience with prints, and it is information I can take on board and think about
Last edited: