Yet Another Cycling Forum
Random Musings => Gallery => OT Gallery => Topic started by: harrumph on 09 January, 2011, 08:10:09 am
-
Inspired by andyoxon's Alpine picture inna-Ansel-Adams-stylee, I have started converting most of my pictures into black and white.
As Charlie Waite has pointed out, it solves the green-everywhere affliction which can plague landscape photography in England :)
(http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/marshanp/R0010073.jpg)
This one was taken on Glydwr's Way, near Meifod, on December 31st 2010. Hard to believe, but a couple of days earlier I had been trudging through foot-deep snow.
Cropped and contrast boosted slightly in Irodio; RAW saved as TIFF; conversion via Picasa's standard B&W option. I did try using the "Filtered B&W" option; it produced different results, but on this picture I didn't prefer any of them; I thought the vanilla conversion truer to what I saw on the day.
-
Lovely image - makes me want to be there ;D
-
T400CN film with the Leica and much-maligned Summar lens. The lens is uncoated so tends to flare, but sometimes this means it copes with shadow detail better than a modern lens.
(http://www.peeble.com/summar11.jpg)
For me, b/w photography has been pretty much dead since I lost my darkroom (the last two houses have had nowhere to set one up). At university I taught about 100 people how to print properly, as in how to get proper blacks. I even got pretty good at colour neg printing, although white balance is a total nightmare to get right (tip: always use the same brand of film and get it processed at the same pro lab, then your basic M/Y filtration will be constant).
-
That's very nice. James Ravilious (http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=james+ravilious&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=TqQpTem3KojMhAeA44GvCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CEwQsAQwAw&biw=1024&bih=631), one of my favourite photographers, preferred uncoated lenses :)
-
Both very nice, although rogerzilla's pic would get my vote because for some reason the stronger light/dark contrast just does it for me. I like B&W photography even though I'm no good at it :)
-
The trick to learning is to shoot a couple of rolls with a strong red filter, or at least an orange filter (an orange filter has a minimal effect on the final results, a red filter more so). This teaches you to ignore colour.
B/W works better for certain genres than others; portraiture is an obvious one. Francis Frith notwithstanding, it's not ideal for travel photography.
-
I'm a sucker for B&W architectural photography, particularly bridges for some strange reason.
I've got B&W photos of the Humber Bridge and the Millau Viaduct taken on cloudy/foggy days and I just love them - far more atmospheric than they would be in colour. Sadly, it wasn't me who took the aforementioned pics.
My last couple of cameras have been digital, but you've now got me wondering whether or not my old Olympus OM-10 still works.
-
Ideally, get some Tri-X and learn to love grain. You may also need to develop it yourself as it's near-impossible to get traditional b/w film processed well by a lab. The kit (tank, washer hose, drying clips) is cheap. Paterson Aculux is the best developer for it.
-
T400CN film with the Leica and much-maligned Summar lens. The lens is uncoated so tends to flare, but sometimes this means it copes with shadow detail better than a modern lens.
For me, b/w photography has been pretty much dead since I lost my darkroom (the last two houses have had nowhere to set one up). At university I taught about 100 people how to print properly, as in how to get proper blacks. I even got pretty good at colour neg printing, although white balance is a total nightmare to get right (tip: always use the same brand of film and get it processed at the same pro lab, then your basic M/Y filtration will be constant).
Lens flare can add to some photographs. Regarding a darkroom, can't you do as I do, and just set up in the kitchen as and when required? All you need do is blackout the windows, set up your enlarger and five trays for developing and have somewhere to hang the prints to dry (in my case this is an old indoors clothes line). And my kitchen is tiny (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/ClipartEtc/DSCF0011.jpg) compared to most.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1417/1116336421_a9ad36e213_o.jpg)
-
Ideally, get some Tri-X and learn to love grain. You may also need to develop it yourself as it's near-impossible to get traditional b/w film processed well by a lab. The kit (tank, washer hose, drying clips) is cheap. Paterson Aculux is the best developer for it.
I've done B&W developing before, albeit a few years ago - the experimental aspect of my PhD involved high-speed photography of explosions and I had to develop all the prints myself, so I know my way around a darkroom, so to speak.
The biggest problem I have is space, as in not enough of it. The only darkroom candidate would be the room I'm sitting in now, which is full of computers, music gear and assorted bits of junk relating to model railways :)
-
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1417/1116336421_a9ad36e213_o.jpg)
I find the weirdest thing with HIE isn't the white foliage or the black sky, it's the halation (as in "making haloes", nothing to do with halogens) around highlights (which is also why foliage "glows"). This is why you're supposed to load it in the dark; the film has no anti-halation layer and can act as a fibre optic, channelling light down the film and into the cassette.
(http://www.peeble.com/stpaulfs.jpg)
-
That's why I liked HIE so much. The halation gave it a look no other IR film had. It saddens me to know I will never make photographs like that again. Yes there are other IR films, but none with the characteristics of HIE.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1376/1117170902_99d8615cea_o.jpg)
-
Ideally, get some Tri-X and learn to love grain. You may also need to develop it yourself as it's near-impossible to get traditional b/w film processed well by a lab. The kit (tank, washer hose, drying clips) is cheap. Paterson Aculux is the best developer for it.
I've done B&W developing before, albeit a few years ago - the experimental aspect of my PhD involved high-speed photography of explosions and I had to develop all the prints myself, so I know my way around a darkroom, so to speak.
The biggest problem I have is space, as in not enough of it. The only darkroom candidate would be the room I'm sitting in now, which is full of computers, music gear and assorted bits of junk relating to model railways :)
You don't have a kitchen or bathroom?
-
...rogerzilla's pic would get my vote because for some reason the stronger light/dark contrast just does it for me...
Oh, I agree! A Leica seems to have a distinct edge over my Ricoh compact - must get one. <looks at prices, even second hand> Oh :-\
That cathedral picture is positively surreal - it has an almost David Lynch quality about it :thumbsup:
I have made mine look as the scene did, to the best of my memory; here is a higher-contrast version:
(http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/marshanp/R0010073HC.jpg)
...but it is a lie (the difference may not be terribly apparent on all monitors). I decided that I preferred the more truthful original.
-
Ideally, get some Tri-X and learn to love grain. You may also need to develop it yourself as it's near-impossible to get traditional b/w film processed well by a lab. The kit (tank, washer hose, drying clips) is cheap. Paterson Aculux is the best developer for it.
I've done B&W developing before, albeit a few years ago - the experimental aspect of my PhD involved high-speed photography of explosions and I had to develop all the prints myself, so I know my way around a darkroom, so to speak.
The biggest problem I have is space, as in not enough of it. The only darkroom candidate would be the room I'm sitting in now, which is full of computers, music gear and assorted bits of junk relating to model railways :)
You don't have a kitchen or bathroom?
I do, but the bathroom has no power (and a big window) and the kitchen has an entire wall of windows and a glass door into the hallway. All the upstairs rooms have a pane of glass above the doors, just to add to the problems.
The last time I had a darkroom I used a kitchen with an exceptionally well-fitting door and a window which could be blacked out from the outside (which was actually a covered area). Even so, sunny days were a bit of a no-no.
-
You don't have a kitchen or bathroom?
Bathroom is stupidly small, kitchen is full of bikes :)
-
I agree! And that cathedral picture is positively surreal :thumbsup:
+1
Absolutely love the 'black sky' effect
-
Ideally, get some Tri-X and learn to love grain. You may also need to develop it yourself as it's near-impossible to get traditional b/w film processed well by a lab. The kit (tank, washer hose, drying clips) is cheap. Paterson Aculux is the best developer for it.
I've done B&W developing before, albeit a few years ago - the experimental aspect of my PhD involved high-speed photography of explosions and I had to develop all the prints myself, so I know my way around a darkroom, so to speak.
The biggest problem I have is space, as in not enough of it. The only darkroom candidate would be the room I'm sitting in now, which is full of computers, music gear and assorted bits of junk relating to model railways :)
You don't have a kitchen or bathroom?
I do, but the bathroom has no power (and a big window) and the kitchen has an entire wall of windows and a glass door into the hallway. All the upstairs rooms have a pane of glass above the doors, just to add to the problems.
The last time I had a darkroom I used a kitchen with an exceptionally well-fitting door and a window which could be blacked out from the outside (which was actually a covered area). Even so, sunny days were a bit of a no-no.
My kitchen has a window at one end and a glass paned door at the other. I bought enough blackout material to cover the window and door. To be honest a darkroom only needs to be totally dark for open film developing, a few pinholes here and there will have little noticeable effect on print developing. Even so I only set up at night.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/496298956_d92b762d2f_o.jpg)
-
(http://www.peeble.com/summar11.jpg)
I am completely smitten with this look, rz... Were you using a III? an M?
Do you have any tips on how to achieve something similar without resorting to film? (er, preferably without having to buy an M9)
-
You don't have a kitchen or bathroom?
Bathroom is stupidly small, kitchen is full of bikes :)
At home (where I grew up) I made a cover for the bath with thick plywood, and blackout boards that fitted into the window frames. Topped off by hanging sheets of black (garden centre) polythene over the window and the door. Power cam in via an extension cable under the door.
It would take me about 10 minutes to set up.
Mostly black and white, but some Cibachrome printing too. All with a rubbish Patterson enlarger.
The Cibrachrome prints haven't faded in 35 years. Brilliant.
-
I like Rogerzilla's first pic a lot. It looks dark but you can still see all the details. I'm not keen on photos which look as if they are colourless, rather than monochrome, IUSWIM. Black and white is not the same as shades of grey. Not that I could take any of these.
-
You may also need to develop it yourself as it's near-impossible to get traditional b/w film processed well by a lab.
Ilford have an excellent process and print service for black and white film. I have used it for a couple of 120 rolls and the results were superb.
Black and White Prints from Film - Black and White Prints from Film | 35mm Black and White film | 120 Black and White film | Colour process black and white films. (http://www.ilfordlab.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Print%20scans/eastbeachboats1750.jpg)
-
There's some great pictures here, but you knew that already.
Carry on posting them please :thumbsup:
edit: I'd buy b+w films for my camera in the hope of getting an interesting photo back once developed but didn't know what I wanted to get, or how to get it even if I did know.
There's some photo's I like from Venice but they're small and don't know if they'd stand upto enlargement or how to do it if they would.
-
I didn't mean to kill this thread, sorry.
-
...there are other IR films, but none with the characteristics of HIE.
I know nothing about IR photography, but ISTR seeing in an advert in this week's Amateur Photographer that Efke make infra-red film in versions with and without an anti-halation layer. Might that be what you are after?
Flickr: Discussing Efke IR820 Aura in I Shoot Film (http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157614078331926/)
-
...there are other IR films, but none with the characteristics of HIE.
I know nothing about IR photography, but ISTR seeing in an advert in this week's Amateur Photographer that Efke make infra-red film in versions with and without an anti-halation layer. Might that be what you are after?
Flickr: Discussing Efke IR820 Aura in I Shoot Film (http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157614078331926/)
I have tried the Ilford, Rollei, and Adox (formerly Maco) IR films, Efke have quality issues, so I'm not sure I would want to chance it.
Kodak HIE was unique among IR films as it was predictable with a near perfect halation effect.
-
Presumably EIR is now also unavailable? That was actually easier to use (just fit a strong yellow filter and set the light meter to 200 ASA), although it didn't really record much IR; it was more of a colour-shifting trick. Red paint always came out bright yellow; the only things that were near normal colour were stonework and blue sky.
-
I used HIE in either the Bessa R3M, or the Rolleicord. That way I could still see to compose the shot.
-
i just used it with a red filter.
-
i just used it with a red filter.
So did I, but it was still quite a dark one, Wratten 25. Gave great results without IR too, especially skyscapes:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2097/2083608547_299307ce99_o.jpg)
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5370201981_2073fa0349_z.jpg)
Pentax K100D with Kood IR filter. Converted to B&W in gimp.
:thumbsup:
-
This one was near Great Bedwyn, Wilts
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/4219796024_cf06f88c1a_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/4219796024/)
P1030516 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/4219796024/) on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/people/25983110@N05/)
I don't normally take 16:9 but it seems to work OK. Taken on dynamic B&W 'film', LX3.
-
I like that. Any post-processing work done on it?
I have just discovered contrast masking (http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_contrast_masking.html). Endless fun (well, endless the way I do it, anyway...), and it does seem to put some filmic oomph into digital images.
-
I am completely smitten with this look, rz... Were you using a III? an M?
Do you have any tips on how to achieve something similar without resorting to film? (er, preferably without having to buy an M9)
The look comes from a Summar, the cheapest (these days; it was the best they could do in the 1930s and an upgrade from the Elmar) and most unfairly-maligned Leica lens. If you find a nice neglected one without cleaning scratches (I did) and get it cleaned for £30-40 by CRR Luton, it's a stunning lens. Except at f/2, it's very sharp. It flares like a bugger because it's uncoated, but that also gives the legendary "Leica glow" around any highlights. The camera was a IIIa.
It's a straight commercial print from T400CN C-41 process film. I scanned it and gave it a selenium-toned tint, that's all.
The best shots I've taken with the Summar are these: mostly wide open at f/2. Damn the sharpness, feel the bokeh. I've actually just bought a Summicron, but I'll never part with the Summar.
Baby (http://www.peeble.com/baby.htm)
I wish Mrs Z would grow her hair again...