Does this count as “something different,” or is it still a photocliché?
One of the first things I shot with my 50mm f/1.8 was this collection of daffodils. Shot at f/1.8 and very close range, the depth of field is almost nonexistent. While this is certainly a cliché, I tried to process it a little differently. Does it work?
My students developed their first rolls this week, with some success. Unfortunately, one of our cameras has serious meter problems and another has light leaks. This process has been a constant reminder of both how difficult and rewarding getting a working vintage setup can be.
Nikon D200, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8.
Look what I found.
Another old shot of an old truck, this one from some time around October when I was testing out my brand new (to me) K1000. I’m trying to get back to posting regularly, but it’s tough because none of the film I’ve been shooting is developed yet (a black and white roll and a roll of ancient cheap color film I found in my boss’s office). This isn’t one of my favorites, but it fits the theme.
Pentax K1000, SMC-M 50mm f/2, Fuji Superia X-tra 400.
New equipment doesn’t provide new things to shoot at.
The sign on the door:
“KEEWAYDIN COMPUTERS and KEEWAYDIN AQUATICS We are undergoing an upgrade in our facilities and cannot operate our business here temporarily. Please call 237-5560 for further information. Deliveries remain here as usual.”
Nikon D200, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 (which really is a razor at f/4).
It’s true, I’ve posted a lot of these.
Here is yet another take on this classic. I like the dark tones and the prominence of orange and blue, along with the slightly distorted wide-angle perspective.
I am headed off to the desert tomorrow (armed with plenty of film of all kinds) for a week’s worth of backpacking, so I hope to return at the end of the week with all sorts of interesting things (hopefully photos- interesting stories about brawling with the TSA about hand checking my Portra 800 or finding more light leaks are not the sort of interesting things I hope to return with). This is a part of the country (and really a world landscape type) I have never seen before, so it’s anyone’s guess what I’m in for.
You know you’re a photographer when you sacrifice precious pack space (and weight) for a camera, two lenses, and roughly ten rolls of film (the final roster has yet to be determined, but I’m planning on carrying everything from Velvia to APX400 to the now-dead 100UC).
This particular shot is another remnant from the days of my Pentax digital SLR, which has been sold off.
When I had scanned all of the negatives from my cross-processed slide roll (see here and here) and was looking at my virtual contact sheet in Lightroom, I noticed something strange: The same character appeared twice. Though it seemed completely illgocial, upon closer inspection there really is no denying that the subject of this photograph is the same one shown here (note the tight white sweatshirt, bouquet, and shoes- I couldn’t believe it myself at first). The first was shot through a plastic window as I climbed a flight of stairs on one side of a parking garage, and as I wandered around the roof shooting, this guy apparently made his way all the way around to the opopsite corner where I unknowingly caught him again.
So why isn’t this one color? The more I look at this roll, the more I like them procesed black and white. Part of me feels like that defeats the entire purpose of cross processing (usually done for the crazy color shifts, which I have yet to see), but it does keep the sharpness, graininess, and high contrast intact (in fact, these things might be more noticeable). Though at first I tired to convince myself that the color versions were “truer” to the form, I think I’ll go with what makes images I like better from now on. For most of these, it’s E-6 processed C-41, scanned, and digitally converted to black and white. If I’m happy with the result, what difference does it make how I got there (assuming, of course, that I didn’t steal the image from someone else and put my name on it or something of that nature).
Maybe I should just go back to digital.
Kodak Elite Chrome 400 (expired a while ago), Ricoh KR-10 Super (unlikely to see more use due to light leaks), C-41 (color negative) cross procesing, digital black and white conversion.
I am not pleased with CVS. It isn’t the first time.
This roll was my first experiment with redscale photography. Basically, it’s shooting film backwards. Because the backing layer (which is now in front) is red/orange and the light must pass through it to create the image, the resulting print leans heavily toward red/orange tones. This is completely analog- no Photoshop filters or anything to alter the colors (just a little “S” in the curves after scanning, which had more to do with how thorougly CVS destroyed my negatives. More on that in the next sentence).
The redscale train really derailed when I brought the film to CVS for developing. I had rolled the film (Fuji Superia 400) in a Kodak Gold 200 cassette (it’s much easier to reroll it in another cassette than into the same one) and marked it “FUJI 400 REDSCALE” so I wouldn’t forget. The clerk looked completely overwhelmed by this, and after I explained it, she looked even more confused (never a good sign). When I came back to get my negatives, I was amazed. How anyone could think negatives looking like this are acceptable (this is with digital image correction in the scan). I can’t even imagine what one would do to make them look like that. Perhaps add some pond scum to the chemistry?
Fuji Superia 400 reversed for redscale, Minolta XD5, custom CVS “distressed” developing.
I’m pleased that I’m pleased with two of the images from my very first cross-processed roll. My expectations were low, but I am going to go get some more Elite Chrome tomorrow (the store was closed today). I think this is a nice contrast to yesterday’s Valentine’s image. Between the two, it seems like everyone should have something to identify with. This one was so sharp (with none applied in scanning) that I actually backed off the clarity a little in Lightroom. I have learned three things about cross processing E-6 film in C-41 chemicals: It’s unpredictable, it’s grainy, and it can be so sharp it makes my head hurt. My hypothesis: Bright sun and overexposure make the colors go crazy (more formal testing of that one will commence when I get more film).
Kodak Elite Chrome 400 slide film (expired 10/2007) shot in a leaky KR-10 Super and processed (poorly) C-41 by the drones at the CVS in town.