Portraits with high speed film and softfoucs
Vincent
I'd like to try some portraits with softfocus filter and high speed
grainy films. Any suggestion on what film to strat? (both color and
B&W).
Thanks a lot,
Vince
Mr 645
For a first try I would suggest shooting the Kodak TMZ at 1600. Also many
people complain about the develop times inside the Ilford Delta 3200 box yield
thin negs, so add 20%.
For color check out Fuji HG1600 in 35mm or Kodak PMZ in 120/220
Jon
Keith Wiebe
scanner and add grain? The quailty isn't going to be great anyway and a
cheap scan will suffice. I personally don't like grain at all!
Keith Wiebe
Vincent <vvw...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<37A8546A...@hotmail.com>...
zeitgeist
Vincent wrote:
>
> I'd like to try some portraits with softfocus filter and high speed
> grainy films. Any suggestion on what film to strat? (both color and
> B&W).
>
I've used Fuji 1600 but shot it at 800, you will still get
grain, but you still want detail.
Also, for that ethereal effect you may be aiming for, try
Kodak's Infrared with a filter and over expose it for the
halations. The film has no anti-halation backing, which
keeps the light from passing through and reflecting back
into the film, spreading out. A way cool effect. I think
one of the high speed recording films has that effect. Over
exposing creates more of it.
Spectrum can fill you in on the details as he's the one to
tell me. Its something I want to try.
D.Grabowski
<greenky....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Vincent wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to try some portraits with softfocus filter and high speed
>> grainy films. Any suggestion on what film to strat? (both color and
>> B&W).
>>
>
>I've used Fuji 1600 but shot it at 800, you will still get
>grain, but you still want detail.
>
>Also, for that ethereal effect you may be aiming for, try
>Kodak's Infrared with a filter and over expose it for the
>halations. The film has no anti-halation backing, which
>keeps the light from passing through and reflecting back
>into the film, spreading out. A way cool effect. I think
>one of the high speed recording films has that effect. Over
>exposing creates more of it.
This is interesting, I have seen b+w infrared shot in daylight for a
beach scenic portrait, shot in 35mm. and enlarged larger than I would
think likely for 35mm. nice job to that photographer, very pleasing
appeal.
We don't exactly know what effect this guy is looking for, other than
grain and apparantly a soft image. There is a husband and wife photo
couple that specialize in this sort of thing, they bring out a true
artisic sense of appeal in portraiture. Get this; 35mm. camera with
the focal length lens suited to capture a scene with usually a family
in the scene, could be anything from 35mm. lens to 135mm. lens or so.
1000 speed or faster film, enlargements out to around 30x40 and more,
this is intentional, their style restricts them to something like
20x24 as their smallest offering or the gig dosen't work . Anyway ,
this is then canvas mounted. They specifically shoot for an obscure
but recognizable image and it's fine looking at nominal viewing
distances.This goes beyond ethereal,as I stated it's almost obscure,
but artisically pleasing and recognizable. Apparently they do very
well offering this style work.
I beleive I saw this in a Rangefinder mag. article on them ( on line
mag. article at any rate ,about a year ago).
David Grabowski
SPECTRUM
>Why get high grain films when one can scan the pictures even with a cheap
>scanner and add grain? The quailty isn't going to be great anyway and a
>cheap scan will suffice. I personally don't like grain at all!
>Keith Wiebe
Grain can add an atmospheric feeling to an image. It has to be
the right image for the effect but the very first one I had seen which
I actually liked was a nude of a pregnant women. To put it mildly i
was floored .
Ask anyone on these groups and they will tell you that I
certainly am in favor of fine grained and super-sharp images. After
all , I'm the one that was trying to get agfa to make APX25 available
for 4X5 user's again ! But there come's a time and subject when
subjectivity is more important than objectivity.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic Inc
Photographer http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Darkroom processes, formulas, facts and information.
Weddings,portraits,commercial and stock photography
SPECTRUM
I think you need to define your needs a little better. I can
give you grainy images out of APX 25. And yet I've also used Delta
3200 pushed to EI 6400 and achieved nearly grainless results. Much
will depend on your format, development and so forth.
I suggest that you try HEI rated at EI 100 and developed
accordingly. An EI 50 will also give more halation to the image and
result in a less than sharp photograph.
About color neg films, the only grainy one's that I know of
would be Kodak's PMZ and Fuji's NHG II 800.
Lastly, don't get to carried away with in-camera filtration. I
just place mine under the enlarging lens.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic Inc
Photographer http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Darkroom processes, formulas, facts and information.
Weddings,portraits,commercial and stock photography
>Hi,
>
> I'd like to try some portraits with softfocus filter and high speed
>grainy films. Any suggestion on what film to strat? (both color and
>B&W).
>
>Thanks a lot,
>Vince
Michael Leenheer
SPECTRUM wrote in message <37d2c9f5...@news.cybercomm.net>...
>This reply was posted and mailed to the original author.
> Lastly, don't get to carried away with in-camera filtration. I
>just place mine under the enlarging lens.
Bear in mind, however, that filtration in enlarging produces in some cases
different results.
Soft focus is one example; on-camera, the highlights bleed into the shadows.
In enlarging it causes the shadows to bleed into the highlights. The
results do look different.
zeitgeist
"D.Grabowski" wrote:
There is a husband and wife photo
> couple that specialize in this sort of thing, they bring out a true
> artisic sense of appeal in portraiture. Get this; 35mm. camera with
> the focal length lens suited to capture a scene with usually a family
> in the scene, could be anything from 35mm. lens to 135mm. lens or so.
> 1000 speed or faster film, enlargements out to around 30x40 and more,
> this is intentional, their style restricts them to something like
> 20x24 as their smallest offering or the gig dosen't work . Anyway ,
> this is then canvas mounted. They specifically shoot for an obscure
> but recognizable image and it's fine looking at nominal viewing
> distances.This goes beyond ethereal,as I stated it's almost obscure,
> but artisically pleasing and recognizable.
A lot folks do this, it takes a disadvantage of a system and
makes a fetish out of it.
And obscure images work too. A lot of folks feel
uncomfortable with placing a wall portrait on the wall, but
love the imagery. the number of images made where the folks
are walking away, backs to the camera is rather high, try
it.
D.Grabowski
I agree with this in so much as the results do look different, one can
create his/her style accordingly though. FWIW I do little diffusing at
the camera and let the lab handle this personally. I like to keep
clean looking negs, if softening is required it stll can be had later,
vignetting may be another matter, I find at the camera vignettes more
pleasing than at the lab vignettes personally, once in a while a
certain image just seems to beg for vignette, I didn't shoot with the
vignette and it has to happen at the enlarger, it works but as you say
it's different.
David Grabowski
>
>
D.Grabowski
Perhaps one day I may try this, it goes against my nature to create
these little fuzzy negs though and actually expect something good to
come of it. This is not for everyone .
David Grabowski
SPECTRUM
>
>SPECTRUM wrote in message <37d2c9f5...@news.cybercomm.net>...
>>This reply was posted and mailed to the original author.
><snip>
>> Lastly, don't get to carried away with in-camera filtration. I
>>just place mine under the enlarging lens.
>
>
>Bear in mind, however, that filtration in enlarging produces in some cases
>different results.
Certainly. An color balance is a little tricky as well.
>Soft focus is one example; on-camera, the highlights bleed into the shadows.
>In enlarging it causes the shadows to bleed into the highlights. The
>results do look different.
Yep and I agree about the bleeding shadows. That's exactly why
I started using the Tiffen SFX 1 filter under my enlarger for a lot of
my wedding photo's. It helps the highlights somewhat.
David Glos
40-50% of my total exposure time. In raw theory, it shouldn't make any
difference if I use a strong filter, for part of the exposure, of a weaker
filter for all of the exposure, but I find the former yields sharper detail
with similar halation. Often, I leave the filter in place for burning
backgrounds and edges. Obviously, the effort can be somewhat labor
intensive....but....if you have access to a darkroom, and are really trying
to differentiate your work.
Face it, the simple fact is that with modern auto-focus/exposure cameras,
its really not too hard for the average idiot to create a technically
acceptable result under reasonable lighting conditions. Of course, sending
these people to the local hack 1-hour lab (Note: some of these places are
actually good, but not most) helps balance the equation back in your favor.
;-)
Regards,
David Glos
SPECTRUM wrote in message <37b7edb3...@news.cybercomm.net>...
>This reply was posted and mailed to the original author.
SPECTRUM
>I use an even stronger SFX 3 filter under my enlarger lens, but for only
>40-50% of my total exposure time. In raw theory, it shouldn't make any
>difference if I use a strong filter, for part of the exposure, of a weaker
>filter for all of the exposure, but I find the former yields sharper detail
>with similar halation. Often, I leave the filter in place for burning
>backgrounds and edges. Obviously, the effort can be somewhat labor
>intensive....but....if you have access to a darkroom, and are really trying
>to differentiate your work.
In my opinion it's much better for the photographer to print
his/her own work as he get's to see how s/he could have improved it.
Sooner or later it's bound to sink in.
>Face it, the simple fact is that with modern auto-focus/exposure cameras,
>its really not too hard for the average idiot to create a technically
>acceptable result under reasonable lighting conditions. Of course, sending
>these people to the local hack 1-hour lab (Note: some of these places are
>actually good, but not most) helps balance the equation back in your favor.
Personally I just love it when their batteries go dead
! RB-67 = NO BATTERIES and a neg that is nearly 5 times larger
than a 35mm . Fill flash at 1/400th, interchangeable backs and
on....... and on........ and on........... !
Guess you could say I like my camera !
Jacccko!
SPECTRUM wrote:
> Grain can add an atmospheric feeling to an image.
My my . . . You must be a true photographer **smile**
Isn't it nice having the know-how and skill to create on a
true canvas rather then artificially altering electrons? It takes
true skill, John. You must create nice work, as you appear
to understand photography.
Jacko the Lantern
By the way, the black and white image acskyline1.jpg on
your web page is inspiring. Good work.
dere...@my-deja.com
Vincent <vvw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to try some portraits with softfocus filter and high speed
> grainy films. Any suggestion on what film to strat? (both color and
> B&W).
In the 80's, an English photographer called Brian Ollier started doing
portraits using fast film and soft focus. He called his technique Pastel
Portraiture. His work was very good. He managed to get a tie up with Kodak UK
to promote the technique and Kodak produced a Data Sheet on it. I have done a
web search on his name and came up with nothing other than he is currently
sitting on the panel judging the UK wedding photographer awards.
It was a long time ago but if my memory serves me well the smallest portrait
he would sell was 20" x 16", because anything smaller looked like an unsharp
print, not a work of art.
Any other UK photographers know more on this technique they could maybe
contribute?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
dere...@my-deja.com
derek_ayr
Photo89188
so called hand and ring shots, what a joke.........you know it is a great
master of photography that can offer many different options for its
clients.....why would anyone limit what a customer might need? unless of course
you shoot like spec lips and then you can offer nothing but crap......
Warning
>
> you obviously have not seen the shit john calls photography?
Your hate will consume you, amatuer photographer Eric Scott.
SPECTRUM
>
One can only hope !
gcl...@penn.com
I have two nice old regular 8mm cameras. Is roll film still to be had
anywhere and if so can it be processed without having to put up my
first born to pay for it.
Thank You for your time.
Gary C. Lewis
Duke Center,
Pa.
Jerry Hammond
kept within the appropriate newsgroup.
Rec.photo.technique.people is not that newsgroup.
Thank you,
Jerry