Portraits

[Haselsh1]

Here are some portraits of friends and family. Photography is what I've done since I was ten years old. Apart from Chemistry, it's all I know.

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/Portraits/KathrynHowardWebsite1.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/Portraits/KathrynHowardWebsite2.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/Portraits/NickyChurchillWebsite.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/Portraits/SammyWebsite.jpg

Along with working in the Chemical Industry as a chemist for twenty seven years I've only had one spell of six years away from photography and that was in the late eighties. I love traditional photography techniques. See if you know which ones are digital and which ones are analogue...??? You may be surprised.

[Edwin66]

Well they are all digital now, one way or another.

Is the last one friend or family?

[Themis]

Very nice photos Shaun. The third is particularly good imho.

(impossible to say which are digital at this resolution)

[webby]

The 4th one is very artful. Sexy, but tasteful.

[Haselsh1]

The thin pale grey first two images were shot with a digital camera. The last two images were shot using a medium format Bronica camera and Ilford Pan F+ film. The negatives were then scanned using an Epson V700.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

the top two were the ones that jump out as digital images
the bottom 2 apear to predate digital?

"thin pale grey" :lolsign: you really aren't a fan are you?! you should have a crack at lightroom buddy, the depth and tonal graduation that is lacking in the top images is easily obtainable to the level of the bottom 2 with a d3 and lightroom!

were the top 2 taken with a dx nikon per chance?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

sorry to hi jack buddy, im just trying to demonstrate my point
d3 edited in lightroom
0 clipped highlight
minor clipping of highlights in the shadow areas of the grooms jacket and in dark areas of foliage
you must agree that the image isnt flat and the tonal graduation, especially in the subtletys of the clothing, is very good

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC0141-3.jpg

[The Vinyl Adventure]

... im gonna try and find a better example

[The Vinyl Adventure]

bugger it, i have come unstuck a bit here... il show you what i mean when the studio is up and running!

[Haselsh1]

The first two images were taken using a Nikon D70 and were adjusted in Photoshop CS2 using the channel mixer and manual levels.

And, using the Photoshop histogram, there is a full range of tones in both of the digital images.

When these images are printed out onto cotton fibre paper they produce a beautiful range of tones but are still nowhere near as good as a very good darkroom print. I'm afraid that digital just does not have the quality factor that silver has.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

your missisng out on the level of manipulation that lightroom allows. recovery, fill light, blacks, cliarity... all controls developed by photographers
the thing that is often over looked when comparing digital to film is that the pro cameras actually aim to produce flat images.. i would never use any of my photos straight out of camera, they look dull! the flatter the image to start with,the more control you have over manipulation! did you shoot in jpeg?
shoot in raw, and have a fiddle with adobe bridge before you use the controls in photoshop its self. ironically concidering its name, i actually find photodhop quite poor for adjusting images, its good for editing, but for adjustments you need raw shooting and bridge to make a digital slr worth using!!
il show you what i mean properly one day shaun, im not expecting to change your mind, but i do feel that you are perhaps not getting the best out of your digital experience!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

i like the photos by the way, the second 2 are better for sure!

[Haselsh1]

I only ever shoot RAW but do make full use of CS2's manipulation which I find excellent. I simply find that all digital monochrome is flat and grey and so far I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Until digital monochrome becomes as good as film, I'll stick with silver.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

i shall make it my mission to show you a non flat digital b&w image... problem is for me it all looka really good on my photo screen in lightroom in adobe rgb, but as soon as it is exported into srgb for cheap printing or browser the quality is lost!
i might send you a print in the post one day shaun! :)
have you tried lightroom?

[webby]

Hamish, that wedding photo is beautiful.

[kcc123]

Yes, it is indeed an excellent photo.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

i cant belive photobuket have banned that last image...bloody silly in my books
!!

cheers lee and king

[Haselsh1]

Yeah Hamish, given what paedophiles get away with on the internet it makes no sense Photobucket banning an image of an adult that showed nothing. Whatever...!!!

By the way, the last two images were originally printed onto Agfa Record Rapid exhibition paper as part of a panel for the Royal Photographic Society. This was from 2003 and was part of my application for an LRPS. The Royal Photographic Society didn't mind a half naked female.

[Werner Berghofer]

Shaun,

I simply find that all digital monochrome is flat and grey and so far I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Until digital monochrome becomes as good as film, I'll stick with silver.
that’s exactly my opinion too. I just returned to analog photography. Really good grayscale images are not possible with digital cameras.

Have a look at the photographs of Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com/portfolio.cfm?nK=7648&nS=0&nL=1). He’s using an analog medium format camera.

[Edwin66]

Yeah Hamish, given what paedophiles get away with on the internet it makes no sense Photobucket banning an image of an adult that showed nothing. Whatever...!!!
IIRC there was a hint of a nipple, presumably Photobucket have rules that get enforced without question. If they have to judge each photo subjectively they wouldn't be able to cope with volumes.

[Marco]

Have a look at the photographs of Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com/portfolio.cfm?nK=7648&nS=0&nL=1). He’s using an analog medium format camera.

They're sensational!! :wow:

Marco.

[Werner Berghofer]

Marco,

They're sensational!!
that’s absolutely true! Look what Nick Brandt has to say about his reasons for still using analogue, silver-based film:

“I’m very reluctant to move to digital. I like the details in the film negative. I like the latitude within the shadows and highlights.”

Quoted from: Elegy to A Vanishing World: the photographs of Nick Brandt (http://www.bowhaus.com/news/brandt.php4)

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Marco,

that’s absolutely true! Look what Nick Brandt has to say about his reasons for still using analogue, silver-based film:

“I’m very reluctant to move to digital. I like the details in the film negative. I like the latitude within the shadows and highlights.”

Quoted from: Elegy to A Vanishing World: the photographs of Nick Brandt (http://www.bowhaus.com/news/brandt.php4)

Ah that's it then, if that chap says it, it must be true!
I'm sure it would be possible to find an equaly compelling arguament from another photographer who uses digital! I very rarely get into this convo as I am happy using either digital or analogue I personnaly find the results I get out of digital better, but that isn't really a factor in this as others find different! The point for me is that there are probably an equal amount positives and negatives for either format, and as such fo me argueing for one over the other is frankly pointless! I was mearly suggesting to shaun that there is more to digital than he is evidently currently geting out of it! I'm not trying to convert him, I'm not trying to convince him he is wrong. I'm just saying that there is more to it than the quality obtainable with a d70 and cs2... I don't even mind if he belives me or isn't willing to investigate ... I was just trying to be helpful!

[Werner Berghofer]

Hamish,

I was just trying to be helpful!
no hard feelings here, please :-)

My education as a professional photographer started in 1972. At this time photography was completely analogue of course. Five years ago I purchased my first digital camera, and until now I don’t feel comfortable with this kind of photography.

Contrary to you I do not work as a professional photographer anymore. When taking photographs exclusively for my personal joy, I love to feel an ancient, heavy Nikon F3 in my hands (just received one in mint condition a few days ago), using manual focus, fixed lenses with outstanding quality. I use black and white film, which I develop myself and transform them into digital format by means of a film scanner.

http://www.berghofer.com/photos/vienna/03.jpg

I have not yet seen a converted grayscale image taken by a digital RGB camera matching the tonal width and the optical quality available in the analogue, black and white process.

In my opinion the manufacturing quality of cameras and lenses reached its all-time high in the late 1970s. Most of the equipment which was built later – not to mention today’s even high-end digital cameras – matches the sensual and haptical experience of touching and using for example Leica or Nikon cameras from that era. Anything else just feels like cheap plastic.

Of course I am aware that this kind of work-flow nowadays simply is not possible anymore in professional photography. Luckily (see above) I’m not a professional photographer anymore.


Ah that's it then, if that chap says it, it must be true!

Nick Brandt is a well-known photographer. His work is loved all over the world. Have you any idea about the prices of his prints? In his case, anything he says about image details of analogue, medium format black and white negatives definitely is true. Believe me, that chap sincerely knows what he’s talking about :-)

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Sorry Werner, bad day, I hadn't meant that to come accros quite as sarcastic as I now read it to be! I'm in the shop today and I have had a couple of people rub me up the wrong way with daft false info, some of which obtained from that perveyor of complete toss - sir ken of Rockwell - very frustrating! I shouldn't come on here when I'm in a grump really!
Anyway, I too love my f3! I have a stunning 135mm 2.8 ais lens that I picked up for a silly £45, that and my 50mm 1.2 ai are 2 of the loveliest lenses I own! I quite frequently go out with either on my f3hp ... Half hour and you can guaruntee I have a smile back on my face whatever my mood! And that def can't be said about the d3! For me though film will always be the hobby and digital the profesion!
I shall add you to the list of people to send a digital print to once my studio is up and running! I am confident I could show you an image that you would not be able to tell if it came from film or digital!

[Haselsh1]

For me though film will always be the hobby and digital the profesion!


Today, in 2009, I fully understand that statement.

Digital photography is purely about convenience and when one is working to a serious deadline one cannot waste time and therefore money buggering about with film, developing and printing. I am very fortunate, my main business is as an Interflora florist or at least a partner in such a business. My job is to drive many miles a day in and around the North Yorkshire Moors delivering flowers but as an aside to that, I get to take my Hasselblad and a wide angle lens and study the landscape, standing stones and stone crosses. These images are then turned into commercial pieces that hopefully sell. The fact is though that they don't have to. What I do is photography as wall art. I can take the time and use silver halide based photography as an expression which is where digital falls to pieces. Like CD it is just far to clinical and therefore has very little artistic expression.

If you question that, take a trip to the Royal Photographic Society's headquarters in Bath and take a look at any of their exhibitions. There is no comparison whatsoever between digital and darkroom. Darkroom is exquisite, digital is almost trivial.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

do you see what you do as a hybrid of the formats, in as much as you do chemical develop and digital print?

[Haselsh1]

Hamish, I do indeed.

Scanners these days are so good that they can easily scan the inherent sharpness of a film. On top of that they can scan the grain and every other characteristic of a negative. This means that even though my prints are made by D Studio onto cotton fibre papers using carbon black inks in a very digital way, they still have the depth and quality of a film based negative.

This is what I now prefer and this is how I do my photography. I have the best of both Worlds.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I shall have a bit more of a play I think! The main problem I have with scanning negs is that I can never get them flat in the holder, this seems to lead to aberations in the final image... Any tips? I tried flattening them in a book but it didn't seem to work that well?

Did u show you my experiments with some old tatty cameras shaun... Hamishgill.blogspot.com . I love messing about with old cheap kit, just dont have the time at the mo!