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

[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 :)