I just uploaded a picture of skaters in Nathan Phillips Square to the gallery. One of my favourites.
Toffle . To me one of the advantages of the 6x6 is that it can easily be cropped to portrait, or landscape format, and still leave you enough of a neg.to make a good 20"x16" print without having to make the decision at the time of shooting, although I do try to compose square as much as I can.
Shot some Delta 3200 rated at EI 12,500 last night lots of images at 1/8- 1/15 at F3,5
I kneeled down for this shot of my wife, very slow shutter, very fast film, wide open.
Benji- I often shoot with a crop in mind... especially in situations where "zoom with your feet" doesn't work. For example, you want the boat and the lighthouse, but from the vantage point which puts them in the right perspective, they are too small on your frame. You can't walk on water, so you walk around the harbour, where both subjects fill the frame... but it's not the composition you want. Back around to the other side, choose your composition, and print for that in the darkroom. I know for some folks this is sacrilegious. (but I don't invite those people to my darkroom) That being said, there are times when I like to fill the empty space on a 6x6 with... nothing. It can be really quite effective.
Mark- You're a brave man. I have a dismal record when it comes to shots of people eating. I always seem to catch my subject at the absolute worst moment. As it turns out, a chewing mouth can look quite grotesque at times. (believe me)
I just added a picture to the gallery called "Lone Tree and Sky" which employs a lot of empty space. I could have cropped this in any number of ways, but to me it was just right at full 6x6.
Toffle I was just testing my pushing technique at a family gathering, I don't think it's a good shot except for the fact that the room was too dark to read a newspaper. The shots were mostly 1/8 at F3,5 and the film rated at 12,800 EI
That is to me quite miraculous that these came out.
I only shot one film, because I thought the chances of anything coming out were zero.
Rather than post more here's a link to a gallery:
BTW your shot of the sky is great.
I have to say, that 3200 is a really impressive film. Even though I've been told it is technically a 1000 rated film it pushes really well, as your pbase gallery shows.
Toffle I've been using it for a few years, but only in 35mm. This year I decided to have a go with the 120, mainly as for that sort of speed it's the only game in town.
Tone wise and to an extent grain wise the 120 version is to me just like a free lunch. My spot meter gave a reading from faces of 1/4 at F2 @ 6400 anywhere else just gave 'E' normally I meter for emerging detail and stop down 2 stops.
So hence my reason to push and the results are so good I'm going to try 25,000 EI later this week, BTW I develop in Microphen stock for 16 mins for 12,800
Toffle, In the case of your "lone tree and sky" I agree with you entirely .
That's where a good low light meter really comes in handy. The meter on my Rollei is good... within its limits. I've got an old Sekonic Selenium cell meter that I use when I need a little more precision, but even that is no good in even moderately low light. When I'm really up against it, I use my N80 35mm camera as a meter. It's got an amazing built-in meter that gets me down to much lower light levels, but it's a pain to be fussing with two cameras in the dark. One day I will get a really good meter and will venture forth without fear of the dark. (heh heh)
Regarding meters, I use a Sekonic L208 for the ballpark and the built-in 2.8FX one for reassurance when I am pointing at something. After all, the lights don't tell you how much over/underexposed you are when they are over a stop.
I have four meters I'm afraid to admit, but never carry more than one at a time, thats the quickest way I know to drive yourself crazy.
I use a Minolta Spotmeter F for critical work, transparencies etc
Most of the everyday stuff I just guess.. :-)
I used to have a Weston IV nice and pocketable, but can't say it was any more accurate than my built in version...
Yesterday I tested the meter on my Yashicamat 124, and compared it to the exposures I calculated using my Spotmeter & Lunasix Pro, and found it is reasonably accurate. One thing I noticed was the speed and aperture dials work in the opposite directions to my Rolleiflex.
It'll be a change to shoot square format again, after 5x4, 10x8 and 6x17, but I always find it easy to shoot to fit the format, seems second nature.
It amazes me just how accurate the 'sunny 16' rule is for most out-door photography. My meter is a Lunasix 3s which is a fine piece of kit, but generally I don't bother to use it - it's just one more thing to fiddle with and get in the way. But if I'm doing something in doors, or the lighting is problematic I would reach for the meter every time - and still bracket 2 stops each side!
I once traveled to Canada to shoot a wedding and accidentally packed my Pentax spot meter so the trigger was pushed in and when I went to use it the battery was dead. I was using my Rollei 2.8F with a meter that checks out when I test it against the spot meter aiming at a large plain surface. I decided Ok I will use the Rollei meter but the situation was a huge open sky with brilliant sunshine (wedding photographer hell)and the Rollei meter was nearly useless. It was so affected by the overhead sun and the adjustments to line up the needle were not nearly fine enough so that I could be off by a half stop or more and it still seemed to look right on the meter.
The FX meter is a million times better but I hate the leds.
I've just added an IR shot from this spring to the album. Shot with Ilford SFX, metered at ISO-6. Exposure was something like1/4@f16. I really like this film.
Hi Tom I really like that IR shot, suits the subject really well. The foliage looks a tad light on my screen, but it could be that I'm viewing on a laptop.
Did you use a deep red filter or the Ilford one? I haven't done any IR for years and then it was mainly HIE in 35mm and a few Portraits on colour slides
Lovely shot Toffle keep up the good work.
I used the Ilford gel, which is pretty much the same as an R-72. I just hold the filter in front of the taking lens while I press on my cable release. As for the light foliage, that's probably:
a) my propensity for gleaming highlights.
b) being afraid of the dark, I tend to overexpose a tad from time to time.
c) the quality of the scan, which I never spend enough time on... really, you can see detail on the print. :rolleyes:
This was a split-grade print, with just enough soft exposure to give tone in the lightest areas. The added hard exposure really gives a smooth tone in the mid-shadows.