New shoot.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
I did not plan to do a new one soon but I found it hard to pass on and was rewarded by a break in the skies and pretty decent light. I did not process a lot of photos yet. I'm slowly uploading them to tumblr. The fujiroids came out pretty well this time, sadly I quite suffered from missed focus since it took me a while to explain how tiny the DOF is and that she should not move away or closer to the camera.
Should be nice for emulsion transfers but haven't done that yet.
Relatively few poses, this one you'll see a few times.
keep postin
Got to work too! Be back after a break.
>>2716875
>>2716877
>>2716878
Beautiful shots OP! Amazing softness of the light and model's skin. Great colours and textures. It's so refreshing to see someone here who knows what he is doing and is not only taking pictures of dirt and buildings to avoid any contact with another human being.
I wouldn't worry about the focus too much, to me it's perfect! As Henri Cartier-Bresson said “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”
>>2716875
>>2716876
>>2716877
Why are these underexposed?
>>2716879
The only one that I actually like. The rest is pretty boring. It's the only one that conveys any form of emotion. >>2716877 is good too actually, it just really irks me that it's so underexposed.
On a side note, she has aesthetically perfect tits.
>>2716892
>it just really irks me that it's so underexposed
get your autism checked, it's an aesthetic choice, not an error in exposure
>>2716892
I also like how she is bathed in shadows. Builds a certain mood. I do agree some of them might have been slightly more exposed, wouldn't call it an error though.
>>2716896
this
Yeah they look great and all but did you bone?
>>2716892
Are you retarded? It's fine if you don't like them, but why are you so fixated on the exposure? You do realize that people underexpose and overexpose for aesthetic/artistic reasons, right?
>>2716896
>>2716911
That's what you tell your mom when you fuck up.
These are not slightly, mood-inducing underexposed, these are more than a full stop underexposed. The B/W ones are underexposed as an artistic choice, the color ones are just too dark.
You can also smear semen and shit all over your negatives before you scan them and call that an "artistic choice". It's not going to make your fuck up any better. Not that the OP's are as shit as that, but the argument is retarded.
>>2716912
Nobody cares about the opinion of an autist.
>>2716912
You're an idiot, stop posting.
>>2716912
There is no such thing as a "correct" exposure. There is plenty of detail, and a higher exposure would change the mood entirely. Your opinion is not fact. Try to keep that in mind.
http://tiggersix.tumblr.com/
This is his tumblr. Follow him.
>>2716912
>These are not slightly, mood-inducing underexposed
Yes, they are. Are you having fun needle-matching in manual mode for pictures of sunsets and flowers?
Thanks for the feedback. The first two are indeed a little darker than they could be, but I shot them at 1/30th at f/2.5 and I could do no slower or wider open. The light got better later into the shoot. Also, I will always prefer underexposing to overexposing, because underexposure yields workable negatives (as you'll see), but overexposure seems to ruin them.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
Thanks for the other feedback too. I'm posting a few more than I would normally pick, there definitely is missed focus here and there. In my defense, it's pretty difficult to do with little light. Actually, more of the 6x6s are out of focus than I expected, I guess I should think of getting a better focusing screen because I tried my best and I don't think it was her fault in this case.
>>2716875
Pics are nice but read the damn sticky and resize them before posting.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
>>2716996
File sizes are small which is what matters.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
This one gave me some WB trouble since I let the scanner guess and was lazy to scan again.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.10 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
Colors are super inconsistent, mostly because they are from fujiroid positives, fujiroid negatives, astia, portra, and CR 200. They are not really meant as series so I think it's OK.
>>2717000
>That cheek highlight.
You implied these were natural light? Are you just using a backdrop near a window?
Were you directing poses and expressions?
>>2717003
Yes, these are natural light. I can't realistically use strobes because I have ancient shutters and quite a mix of cameras.
Posing-wise, I would suggest basic pose (sit here, turn a little this way) and she would try things. In this case she is much more experienced than I am so most of it was great and I just said hold that.
>>2717015
i like the way all these shots work as a study. but id love to see her in a garden, a kitchen (srs), a bathroom.. i mean having her within a context, not so isolated and "on her own"
>>2716984
>>2716928
>>2716971
>>2716924
Fuck. My laptop screen was still dark as fuck from last night. Just got on the desktop and realized I'm retarded. My bad.
>>2716876
Still a bit dark though. Nothing that couldn't be fixed in scan or LR though.
>>2716990
>I will always prefer underexposing to overexposing, because underexposure yields workable negatives
You can work with information that lands on the film, but you can't create information in a scan that isn't there.
>>2717000
You can easily fix that if you pull the reds a bit to orange and do the same for the yellow.
>>2716999
>>2716990
Amazing. What film is that?
>>2717000
I fucking love this shot
>>2717016
I usually try to do that at least to some extent, but in this case there wasn't enough light anywhere else but by the large windows.
>>2717020
I meant something else. This is a negative from #3. You get it by bleaching off the dark backing on the film. It isn't meant to be used but it is valuable to me. The problem is that if you over-expose the positive, the negative will be somehow.. spent. I'll find an example.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
The previous negative is borderline OK, this one, from a more underexposed positive is better:
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
>>2717020
And the film in the 4x5s is FP4+ (6x6 is HP5+).
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Comment - Projection Equirectangular (2) FOV 3 x 2 Ev 0.00 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
sharp as tits bruv
These make me miss my girl.
>>2717020
>screen set to minimum brightness
>ur pics r underexposed
This is no ordinary retardation, there's been a full-scale outbreak of Down's syndrome in your area.
>>2716999
Ok... make us scroll to see the entire picture... its your choice I guess. Takes away from being able to fully enjoy the pic.
>>2717110
>changing his namefag name because he spoiled the name by showing everyone his retardation level
>is a retard again
fuck off, drop the name, enjoy the pics and shut the fuck up.
>>2717070
the amount of texture and simultaneous softness is driving me crazy.
>>2717110
Sorry about that then, my browser automatically scales them, I didn't know that might not be the case in general.
>>2717123
It's a 21cm Voigtländer Heliar. I really like the lens. This is the same photo as the OP I just forgot to flip it and then decided I like it better this way.
>>2717130
hella fuck. what film is this.
the dynamic range is retardedly awesome. still natural light?
>>2717134
Portra 400, all is natural light. Strobes haven't been out of the drawer in two years.
>>2717110
Actually, I just realized that I always open photographs in a new tab, and that auto-scales them. I'll shrink them more next time, meanwhile you can do as I do...
What polaroid holder are you using? I've been looking for a film holder to shoot fp in my 4x5.
>>2717141
The big one.. fuji pa-45 I think.
>>2717149
Shit, I can get one on ebay for $45.
These are 4x5 or 3.25"?
>>2717155
4x5 which are sadly going away. I think I probably have 8 last exposures :(
I have a polaroid 3.25" back which is really crappy. It's super difficult to pull out the darkslide without moving the camera. For that I would recommend one buys the fuji one, since it surely can't be as bad.
Those blown highlights, especially in the monochrome are killing it for me OP. Overall they're great for the most part but several of them have the same blown highlight on her nose and it's scarring the images
Not enough boobs.
>>2717181
lolwut
>>2717186
lolwut what, the exact same spot on nearly all of them. at the very least it could have been toned down and coloured slightly so it doesn't stand out as much
>>2717221
Lolwut i have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you complaining about the specular highlights on her skin? Those are totally natural and an acceptable stylistic choice. No one has perfectly matte skin unless they're using a fuckton of make-up. Also, they aren't even blown, so I don't even know why you're posting in this thread.
>>2717226
Several of them have blown highlights, are you using a decent monitor?
>>2716881
This is the first one where it starts happening bad enough to merit mentioning, on the tip of her nose and the bridge of her nose too
>>2716998
Here again on the same spots on her nose, under her right eye and also on her forehead
>>2717000
Same again on her nose here and also on her cheekbone is very far gone
the vast majority of them have the exact same spot on her nose blown out. I know it's only a small piece but it goes against the feel of the images, distracts you and brings you out of the image. I saw those and I started wondering how hard the light source was
Am I the only one seeing these? Maybe I'm coming across as anal now or my monitor has gone to shit but the highlights really stand out to me
I have done little post-processing other than trying to correct what scanner broke and removing dust. I can see that highlights and skin imperfections can worry you, but I prefer to leave it as-is. I've been to the other extreme and now find some of my old photographs puke-worthy.
>>2717135
wow those skin tones are awesome!
Did she had any makeup?
>>2717235
> Am I the only one seeing these?
I (OP) see it now that you point it out, but it doesn't really bother me. I can re-scan- the default scanning cuts quite a bit of highlights off and I always move it right to take most but not all in, I should have moved it further right probably. Will do next time but I don't really have time to go over them again. (Since it would include scanning, cloning out dust..)
>>2717242
No that's completely understandable. sorry for pointing them out but they were glaring at me, otherwise they're perfect images
>>2717241
Yes. I asked for no makeup but she put on a little anyways. I think it was fine but she could have gone with even less or no.
>>2717243
No worries, thanks. I take all of the feedback and I might have been doing this (blowing a bit of higlights) for a while without noticing.
>>2717244
the makeup did it good helped with some pinkish tones she did a good choice in that part.
Anyway awesome lighting and pictures.
>>2716912
plz go
>>2717133
She should go see a doctor about that mole. It's huge, it's screaming melanoma.
>>2717407
>mole
Anon that's a birthmark you fucking retard
>>2717429
are you a doctor?
>>2717130
I really dig the hand on the foot thing with the open eyes.
>>2717114
>...it's the same name. Yodaddy in both posts.
Big mouth just got a foot put in it... shut up bitch.
>>2717407
Are you dumb ? It's a simple naevus, nothing pathologic.
these are classy as fuck
>>2717067
that color shift in the highlights looks like ass though (and not nice ass like your model's)
>>2716876
why the shitty blur?
>>2717915
>that color shift in the highlights looks like ass though (and not nice ass like your model's)
That's sort of a desired look for bleached negatives, actually.
>>2718026
desired or not it looks like shit
WHAT CAMERA DID YOU USE
>>2716875
two questions for you op coming form someone who would like to start photography people (not necessarily nudes):
1. where do you find these people?
2. how much do you pay them? is it per hour?
>>2717915
That particular one is borderline overexposed, if you compare it with the subsequent bleached negatives you see that it is sort of mottled in the highlights. If the positive where even more exposed, negative would be completely useless. Low contrast and motled.
>>2718078
That will depend on where you are. It is normally per 2-3 hour session or so. In most cases they are travelling models- they tend to come for an assignment and fill the spare time by shooting with local photographers. I would say 100$/session is a common rate for an experienced model.
>>2718076
:) I don't think the knowledge will enrich you. A Chamonix 4x5, a Speed Graphic, and a Hasselblad.
>>2716879
You should have stopped here and never shown the world the rest of the shoot.
Too late now tho.
I will smash your face with a hammer
>>2718105
What is a good resource to find them? Are there any websites that are a sort of hub for hiring models?
>>2718325
Depends on where you live.
>>2716912
Faggot get back to /b/
>>2716912
You are so fuking retard...
>>2718605
Lets say California.
The model used is too attractive for me to accurately assess the quality of the photos.
Try again with someone ugly.
>>2718661
shut up faggot. youre a nobody with no photos. you are of no contribution here. its Op's thread, people come here to see his work, its not a place for you to defend your e-name, fucking useless autist.
>>2716912
Here's the good exposure my goodsir (sorry ruin photo op)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:26 12:36:02 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1190 Image Height 1540
>>2718635
It seems to me that most of the modelling and photography is actually done in LA and perhaps through agencies. I would reach out to photographers and modelling agencies there. You can also look for instagrams/tumblrs of models which sometimes advertise their travel plans so that you can book them in advance.
>>2718676
But.. he apologized and said it was his monitor's fault!
>>2718811
Thanks for the tip. I ask primarily because I am not a professional (yet), and would like to take photos of people yet wouldn't want to waste my money and their time whilst I try and learn.
>>2716885
>As Henri Cartier-Bresson said “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”
As is softporn photography that has been done a bazillion times before.
Yeah. Refreshing. Thats the word...
>>2716954
>as are the tones and the heavy, pictorical mood, dutch golden age painting era like
>pictorical
so, paint some 'pictorical' shit and leave photography in peace.
>no vag shots
2/10, would not fap
>>2716877
Could you put some clothes on her. Nude is not art, it's a fucking meme at this point.
>>2717002
Too orange
>>2717070
love this.
>>2717434
I don't know about him but I am and in my professional opinion that shit is nasty.
>>2721501
clothed photos are not art. That's what Facebook is for.
>>2721608
Too stupid to understand that it wasn't THAT she was naked, but that nudity and posing is the only theme of these shitty meme pictures.
>>2721645
Don't you hate it when photos specifically taken to show the body of a model in a neutral setting only show the body of a model in a neutral setting? FUCK WHAT A FAILURE.
In other news, your car is a terrible car because it is not a swimming pool.
>>2721648
Next you'll be telling me how flower macros are high art, you fucking autist lol
>>2721666
Educate me about what is truly art then, with the links to your photo thread, so that I may learn to appreciate things correctly?
>>2721670
Sorry, I actually make a living with my photography. The last thing I need is some kek-autist riding my dick.
Try using your brain.
>>2721683
Yeah, no I didn't think so.
>>2716875
Great, an armpit. /p/ is so shitty
lol @ the massive butthurt a handful of good photos can cause on the little shits of /p/.
>>2721693
Mediocre photos
>>2721687
gtfo
>>2721519
It's the Rollei CR200, I'm not too fond of the film. When underexposed it's very saturated, when overexposed it's sort of overexposed portra looking (pic related, the purple sky is more likely due to the scanner but colors are still funky).
If you feel strongly that the photos just suck and aren't art, I won't object. I'm not a photographer or an artist by trade, I'm a mathematician. I just like pretty things both concrete and abstract.
>>2722593
Don't pay attention to people like that. Anyone who tears you down without support to their argument, or anything remotely constructive, is not critiquing you, they are critiquing themselves. These aren't the most creative or most gorgeous photos ever taken, but they aren't trying to be that, either. They're well done, they're very nice to look at, and while there is some room for growth and critique, saying "This isn't art" or "these are terrible" or "These are mediocre" is just some insecure baby's way of making himself feel like a better photographer without having to actually pick up his camera and create something.
Please keep shooting, and please keep sharing. We aren't all like that.
>>2722595
This comment sounds like it was made by an insecure person. Just because someone doesn't like something you did doesn't mean that something is wrong with them. That's infantile logic that fragile people use to feel better about themselves... cuck.
>>2722995
This comment sounds like it was made by an insecure person.
>>2722590
>>2717002
I feel like this stuff is meant to have a sort of Kodachromy vibe to the colours.
Like an intentionally retro palette.
Blue go cyan, greens go brown, reds go orange.
Haven't shot any myself though.
Do you know if it's the same film as the CN, just with different processing instructions?
>>2722995
It's not the "not liking something" it's the way it's expressed. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, yes, but nobody has the right to expect that everyone listen to his opinion and change their own, and noticing that someone has an opinion different than yours doesn't give the right to yell at them. There is not a single anon on this board with any credibility whatsoever, so saying "no you're an idiot for liking this" is a sign of a ridiculous person who should be dismissed at all costs.
the asshurt in this thread is unbelievable. good job OP.
>>2723040
I would be surprised if it would be the same film, I think it's rather than there are two and one of them also gets labeled as "crossbird" for cross processing. I did order and shoot both. The CN is sort of OK, you still need to correct because it is sort of blue after reverting but way less than normal negative film and thus you won't get strage colors across the range if you adjust the WB only.
>>2723447
Yeah, I'm pretty fascinated by the concept of a clear base neg film.
I feel like you'd get a lot more latitude in your blues, because you're not starting with a file already skewed so far to one end of your DSLR/scanners' orange sensitivity. The only thing stopping me so far has been that it seems to have garbage resolution, and also that I've been able to get Superia 200 for so cheap for so long.
In MF the resolution wouldn't matter so much, obviously, but again I still have a tonne of other stuff to shoot through.
