Chasing the Light

[bulldurham]

5:56am CST ISO 32, F:/22, 9 min 45 sec Lee Big Stopper

 

[sscarmack]

Lovely BW.....however I'd love to see some color on this.

 

[bulldurham]

I have a ton of color shots but I can assure you the B&W just blows the color right out the door.

 

[timor]

Holga lens would give you this effect for the fraction of the cost of Lee filter and without 9 min exposure.
Holga Lens for Digital Cameras

 

[bulldurham]

I have a holga lens and it doesn't even get close. There is a huge difference between a internet jpeg at 72dpi and a 20x30 on metal at 300dpi.

 

[bulldurham]

I am curious, Timor, but have you ever actually posted a photograph anywhere in the Photoforum? I've looked pretty extensively and most especially in the B&W section and while I see a lot of responses, I don't see personal work. So...why not?

 

[timor]

I have a holga lens and it doesn't even get close. There is a huge difference between a internet jpeg at 72dpi and a 20x30 on metal at 300dpi.

The resolution thing it might be a factor.
I shoot only film and "wet print". I don't scan negatives as it is pointless, similar to showing RAW files. My scans from prints are not too good with my scanner plus most is anyway too big for it. In addition I am not very talented photographer (in sens of art ) nor I have opportunity to go to interesting places so there is not much to show to the wide public. If here and there in threads are some of my scans, they are only for learning purposes. You might find them in film or darkroom sections...
Something of my lo-fi snaps:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/attachments/user1878_pic3621_1384274771-jpg.60135/

 

[bulldurham]

Why do you feel scanning negatives is pointless? I do it all the time for my alternative processes work and get beautiful results. Jon Cone scans negatives from the National Archives of artists like Cunningham, Callahan, Dorothea Lange (I have two prints of his from Lange) at very high resolutions and gets stuff even the original artists never were able to pull from their negatives. As far as wet printing, I am not sure if there is a correlation between the two as I "wet" print in the same sense whilst doing Pt/Pd and have never had issue one. (As a newspaper photographer years ago, I did enough wet printing to last several lifetimes and I have yet to see an advantage when a dry negative print is always far superior. We wet printed because we were on tight deadlines, breaking stories, or whatnot and since they were going to be reshot through an 80-100 point screen, precise imagery wasn't at the top of the needs list.)

As to not being a "not very talented photographer (in sens of art )" what makes your critiques so "expert" as you seem to think everything you say has this wonderful experienced advice. Frankly, most of what you say is what I'd call, "Seat of the Pants Critiquing" sans the experience of an actual pilot. You live in Toronto and can't find anything of interest to shoot??? Really? I might suggest a few more forays into the field with your camera, Holga or whatever and learn to scan negatives or prints properly then relate your own experiences first hand and not vicariously as the armchair quarterback. Until such time, please refrain from making comments to my work.

 

[Fred Berg]

Beautiful photo which is positively oozing with mood.

 

[Gary A.]

I like the ooz. If this was my image, (I wish it was), I'd dodge out the berm a bit, kick up the contrast (I'm a contrast freak). But to my eye, the lack of contrast, where I would want/expect contrast, builds up a tension ... I appreciate this self-generated contradiction. I am surprised with the motionless character of the grasses after a nine minute 45 second exposure. I'd love to see this in print.

 

[timor]

Why do you feel scanning negatives is pointless? I do it all the time for my alternative processes work and get beautiful results. Jon Cone scans negatives from the National Archives of artists like Cunningham, Callahan, Dorothea Lange (I have two prints of his from Lange) at very high resolutions and gets stuff even the original artists never were able to pull from their negatives. As far as wet printing, I am not sure if there is a correlation between the two as I "wet" print in the same sense whilst doing Pt/Pd and have never had issue one. (As a newspaper photographer years ago, I did enough wet printing to last several lifetimes and I have yet to see an advantage when a dry negative print is always far superior. We wet printed because we were on tight deadlines, breaking stories, or whatnot and since they were going to be reshot through an 80-100 point screen, precise imagery wasn't at the top of the needs list.)

As to not being a "not very talented photographer (in sens of art )" what makes your critiques so "expert" as you seem to think everything you say has this wonderful experienced advice. Frankly, most of what you say is what I'd call, "Seat of the Pants Critiquing" sans the experience of an actual pilot. You live in Toronto and can't find anything of interest to shoot??? Really? I might suggest a few more forays into the field with your camera, Holga or whatever and learn to scan negatives or prints properly then relate your own experiences first hand and not vicariously as the armchair quarterback. Until such time, please refrain from making comments to my work.

Your attitude duly noted. Especially the quickness in judging people. For that I owe you a case of equally cheap beer. You don't know me enough. Beside, this is a forum about photography only. If you don't like negative comments about your pictures, avoid them.

 

[bulldurham]

QUOTE]Your attitude duly noted. Especially the quickness in judging people. For that I owe you a case of equally cheap beer. You don't know me enough. Beside, this is a forum about photography only. If you don't like negative comments about your pictures, avoid them.[/QUOTE]

My attitude should not be in question, thus you should have only responded to the request. I don't mind negative comments from those I feel are working photographers who understand why an image works or does not because they've experienced the same issues. I don't always agree but I do respect the opinion. Of course it is a forum about photography - eh? Quick judgement...naw, I've read your palaver for a long time; I just now decided I wanted to know more about you as a photographer and discovered nothing. I think it is time for you to man a camera and show us what you know instead of telling us what you think. You do as you like, just leave me out of further comments until you we can all have a crack at your work. Fair is fair.

 

[bulldurham]

I like the ooz. If this was my image, (I wish it was), I'd dodge out the berm a bit, kick up the contrast (I'm a contrast freak). But to my eye, the lack of contrast, where I would want/expect contrast, builds up a tension ... I appreciate this self-generated contradiction. I am surprised with the motionless character of the grasses after a nine minute 45 second exposure. I'd love to see this in print.

I would appreciate an edit showing me what you mean. I did knock down the brightness in the middle-ground berm by about 15% and burned in the foreground by almost 25% with a bit of contrast in each area. I too am a contrast freak and have been trying to tone it down a bit as sometimes I tend to go overboard.

 

[bulldurham]

Thanks, Fred. I've had some other comments on other forums questioning the use of the Big Stopper and long exposures (and this one should have gone another minute to compensate for the rain which was rapidly approaching) but I cannot get this kind of melding any other way.

 

[timor]

Fair is fair ? We not in any sort of competition. You just ignore the comments you don't like.