I changed the flange on a 50mm summicron and a 35-70 zoom to fit Nikon. The 50 worked fine. The zoom has a baffle that either had to come out or for some other reason didn't work very well. I don't remember ; it has been a while . The zoom had a little flair some times. The 50 wasnt much better than my Nikon AFD s, I have both the 1.4 and 1.8, so I put the Leica flange back on both Leica lens. Just for the record; The 50mm summicron is my all-time favorite lens. I have both Leica R and M systems because of that Lens. I use the Nikon stuff at work.
No, There use to be lots of round barns in the mid west. They were built around the silo. thay had pointed roof. probably all gone now. I always wanted to do a book.
What no round barns left?
Take the picture and call a veterinarian those things are full of preservatives.
If you're working with 35mm, I think I would just make a trip to the goodwill and pick up an enlarger and timer. I see complete darkrooms on craigslist for 50 bucks or less. Around Halloween time this year I was in the goodwill in Seattle and there must've been 20 enlargers there. I could've put together 4x5 Omega for 12 bucks.
I would first prime the metal with acrylic Gesso. If you don't want a white base, you can at a little acrylic pigment, which should tint your plates nicely. You can do all of that in the light. I would also prime several smaller sheets for test purposes. In the dark I would first coat the test strips according to the manufacturers recommendations. It seems like I used one of those foam brushes. But I don't recall for sure. I would leave one of my test strips un-coated to use for focusing. I would put the negative in the enlarger, crop and focus on the un coated test strip. Working in the dark, I would put one of my coated test strips under the enlarger. I would cover all but 1 inch with a black card. It was set my enlarger lens for around F8 and my timer for about 2 seconds. I would make four or five exposures each time moving my black card to expose another inch of the test plate. My final exposure would be five strips exposed from two to 10 seconds. Developed and fix according to the manufacturers recommendations. You can then evaluate your coating technique, exposure and processing. Use another one of the test strips to double check your findings. Then coach your full-size plates and make your final print. If you're doing more than one negative and their density varies much, you will have to repeat this process for each negative.
Hope this helps
How big are the prints going to be?
How do you plan on exposing it With out a dark room?
What's it say on that kids shirt?
For the most part portraits fall into two categories; environmental and studio. You should really shoot one or the other. I would've liked to have seen more of the foot bridge in the first shot. If the first shot had as much of the bridge as the second shot, I think it would have been perfect. It doesn't lead your attention out of the shot on the contrary it focuses your attention on the subject. It is classic fundamentally sound composition. You say you're a hobbyist but you've also expressed some interest in doing business. There are a whole host of rules built around professional portraiture work. For example, Eye contact sells. A photograph where the subject or subjects make eye contact with the camera is four times more likely to sell then the same shot without eye contact. So no matter how much we like the photo where they're walking away, it wouldn't sell. I didn't get a chance to watch Valenzuela's YouTube video, the computer I'm on right now has no sound, but his showpiece a beautiful black and white image would be four times more likely to sell if the subject to make contact with the camera.
Professional portrait photographers love to give seminars. I'm sure that The Twin Cities and Chicago are on the list. They're usually fairly inexpensive, and almost always entertaining. I recommend that you attend some. I think your work shows great potential. You seem to have a propensity for environmental portraits. I would concentrate on seminars that feature that type of work. Another possible commercial application would be stock lifestyle photographs. Good lifestyle photos still sell and your work seems to be leaning in that direction also.
Personally I would like to see more of the rustic log cabin not less. I don't have a problem with "atmosphere" in that sort of a photo. If you look at old photos, the most universally interesting ones have atmosphere. The cabin by the lake, uncle Russes old Studebaker, our first apartment on Clay Street that sort of thing. If I want a sterile environment I would shoot it in a studio. I do think you went over board with the retouching. It's a bit at odds with the outdoor garb and rustic cabin. Maybe a little noise after so much surface blur. Bob's kiss advice is great. Everybody thinks they want to see a kiss photo until they do. Faces distort And that's not terribly flattering.
Keep in mind all of this is subjective. The second photograph doesn't work for me in a number levels. The building overpowers the couple. The couple needs a little more fill lighting. The proportion is odd. It would require a custom frame or matting. If you want your work to be seen, make sure it will fit in a standard frame or matt. I went to a Leather Art photo seminar years ago they said they figure 99% of non-standard photos will never see a frame. The only time I've personally ever put text on the photograph is I'm doing an ad. Here again all subjective.
There all great. I'll be looking for your next post.
Digital changed things for a product photographer, suddenly we had to do post processing too. Before all we did was filter to .05 CC and the art Dept. did the rest. Now to get the work, most times ,I have to do the photos, PP. and the ad layout. Before we sent transparencies to the art Dept. now I send PDFs to the publishers. I'm not bitching, just observing. Sometimes I like it better this way, but it was easier then and digital was going to make it easier. Kind of ironic really.
I have directed many photo shoots working with photographers who used bellows cameras for on location shoots and produbct shots. Sadly, these days are all but gone but in the bigger markets. I am glad I was able to experience it.[/quote]
Sounds like we have similar backgrounds. In the early 80s I worked in several studio in Chicago. We did catalog work of course. Mostly Sears, that's when they did their big catalog. Mostly we used tungsten lights. The average exposure was about 12 seconds. Most of us never used exposure meters. After a while you could tell how long the exposure would be by stopping down and looking at the ground glass. I was considered a bit of a lightweight because I used a stopwatch. Most of the guys just counted alligators.
Large format was required for a number of reasons. With the swings and tilts not only can you correct distortion but more often we used it to pull focus. With the 10 to 20 inch lens you need all the help you can get. We shot transparency film, Ektachrome, with special processing. We bracketed in one third stops and always shot one black and white alternative. So each completed photograph consisted of three transparencies and one black and white negative. Sears, as did most other clients required that the image was shot to size. If the photo in the ad was 4 inches, so was the transparency. A two-page spread had to be shot with 11 x 14 camera. The large transparency was required for production assembly. The studio where I work had as many "negative cutters" has photographers.
[quote=D-Train]Very cool photo nonetheless. I don't understand how those photos could have been taken over a 15 minute period because people obviously move around during that time period. Still, it's quite an amazing and impressive photo (photo's?)![/quote
I saw a face there that just seem to melt away. The left side was fine but the right side was obviously an extrapolation. It's that white guy next to the girl in the blue shirt....right next to the redhead.
Well I'm an old studio photographer. We pretty much do simple things, where it's not difficult to control the outcome. Certainly my examples were extreme, and probably a bit overstated. The first photo I tried it with was one of the white stork with a strong blue background. Turn the white stork noticeably yellow. I also tried it with a peacock on a green lawn that was a disaster. His blues all shifted to Reds and grays. It's not a technique I would personally use.
What I do is: first set my black-and-white thresholds, then correct levels based on my high and low exposure setpoints. I look for a neutral point in the photograph with the great eyedropper and levels. If that doesn't work, and it does about 90% of the time, I will open "color balance" and try to massage things a bit and there.
I really don't take any of this personally. It is all for fun now.