Ghost riders - 12/100

[focalintent]

Ghost riders, originally uploaded by Focal Intent.

Another long exposure. This one was 2 minutes on ilford panf with the hasselblad using a 40mm lens that I rented for the weekend. I loved the 40mm lens. I think it will end up being the next lens that I buy. This shot pretty much clinched it for me, too.

Comments

[sweetbaboo.livejournal.com]

Holy cow that's pretty!

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

Fuck! Gorgeous!

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I think this may be my favorite photo yet :)

(and yulia thinks i should also add a "When?" to my comment *duck*)

[kryscat]

Purdy!

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I love the trolleys here

[edrabbit.livejournal.com]

wow... this has got to be one of my favorites from you so far... the straight lines, the curves of the tracks, the twinkles of lights, the light transparency, and the perspective.. all great.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Thank you! This shot took a bit of work. There's 4 'bad' versions as well - though most of them i knew were bad when I did the shot (e.g. deciding the angle didn't work - thinking that what went on during the exposure didn't work, etc...) - I also forgot about reciprocity failure on the first shot.

I am happy that the 'last' version of this that i took was the one that I kept. I definitely want to start doing more shots like this - that are thought out and planned, even if on the spot. I sometimes give in to 'snapshotting' a little too easily. (Though not so much with film it seems0.

[jhimm.livejournal.com]

this is probably one of those endless debates,
but do you think it is possible to get photos with this quality
without using a film-based camera?

photography is something i've always wanted to be serious about,
and Aiden seems to think i have some talent for it,
but there's simply no way we'll have the space for a dark room
any time in the next 5-10 years.

are non-snapshot digital cameras capable of that intangible
that black & white film seems to somehow find?

[sol3.livejournal.com]

this is probably one of those endless debates,
but do you think it is possible to get photos with this quality
without using a film-based camera?

Probably depends on how you mean "this quality". The image as pasted here is a fairly low resolution - so from a resolution standpoint, i think cameras of any scale are probably there - hell point and shoots are probably there.

As far as tonal range - I don't profess to know enough about the tonal range of film vs. digital to even think about entering into that debate :)

The focus sharpness and 'starring' effect are both from shooting with a narrow aperture - f/16 or f/22 - something that can definitely be done with digital. Likewise, you can do long exposures with digital. For laughs, I should go back and attempt to re-create this shot with the canon - just to see what it looks like for comparisons.

photography is something i've always wanted to be serious about,
and Aiden seems to think i have some talent for it,
but there's simply no way we'll have the space for a dark room
any time in the next 5-10 years.

You don't need a darkroom for film! I don't have one. I have a changing bag that I use for for loading film into a daylight tank and I'm using Diafine as my developer which, amongst other things means I don't need to be precise about timing and water temperature. A standard fixer and photo-flo bring up the rear and take care of me not using distilled water for my rinses.

Then the images are simply scanned in.

are non-snapshot digital cameras capable of that intangible
that black & white film seems to somehow find?

I've definitely gotten b&w shots that I love off of the Canon 5d. The trick is to slow down - use lower iso's (which have less noise and higher dynamic range) and tripods and such. Some people talk about a "3d" effect that medium format seems to have, even on the digital level. I think that comes from the fact that for any given angle of view with a medium format camera you need to use a longer lens than you would on a 35mm camera (and even longer by far than a point and shoot). Depth of field is a function of the physical length of the lens - narrower depth of field I think adds to a perception of depth in a photo.

Ironically, one thing that people love about small point and shoots is because the lenses are so small (~2-5mm) their depth of field is insanely deep letting you get everything appearing in focus :)

Also - at some point in the next year I hope to make a leap into medium format digital (it's going to take me nearly a year of saving up like a fiend to be able to afford one, though). It'll be interesting to compare film and digital output at that point :)

[jhimm.livejournal.com]

For laughs, I should go back and attempt to re-create this shot with the canon - just to see what it looks like for comparisons.

that could prove very instructive and enlightening, actually.

You don't need a darkroom for film! [details]

i don't know what any of the rest of that means,
but i'll take your word for it :)

[jhimm.livejournal.com]

as an aside,
this is my hands down favorite of the shots of yours i've seen so far.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I think it may be for me, as well.

I was just telling someone else that when I clicked the shutter (or rather, released it, two minutes later) - it was the most satisfied i've ever felt with a photo. Which is really telling considering i wouldn't even see it for another 24 hours :)

I can't wait to get back from hawaii so i can order up some large prints of it. (Though, that said, i'm looking forward to a relaxing, very slow moving, vacation :)