No makeup, window light (the catch light is a softlighter I used with the ISO 50 film), no retouch or adjustment except to downsize. Straight film scan. Tri-X, Leica M6, zeiss 35 (either the 2 or 2.8...I forget which at the moment).
I tweaked the white and color balance for a more lifelike rendition, but otherwise untouched. Olympus Epl1 + Leica 90 tele-elmarit. the old Leica glass really is as good or better than anything modern. Makes the oly kit lens look like shit (when really, it's a perfectly marginal lens. Haha).
Natural as far as natural light? No Makeup? No photoshop? All of the mentioned? I'd like to clarify that before posting and being accused of not comprehending what you mean, and God forbid yet another ball less post get started to take further jabs at that!
Marty McBride wrote: Natural as far as natural light? No Makeup? No photoshop? All of the mentioned? I'd like to clarify that before posting and being accused of not comprehending what you mean, and God forbid yet another ball less post get started to take further jabs at that!
D M E C K E R T wrote: Been on a no photoshop kick lately.
No makeup, window light (the catch light is a softlighter I used with the ISO 50 film), no retouch or adjustment except to downsize. Straight film scan. Tri-X, Leica M6, zeiss 35 (either the 2 or 2.8...I forget which at the moment).
i've always loved it. it was my favorite in school...and it's still my favorite going back to film.
it's just rock solid. you almost can't screw it up. looks good almost no matter what, in some way.
conversely...none of the rolls of pan-f plus i've shot have come out right. VERY thin negs...developed myself, and at a lab...over the course of 3-4 shoots, and 2 formats...same result. strange. had the same luck with efke. *shrug*
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: ...
Share your photographs.
Here's mine:
Mickaiayla, 2012
OH!
I look forward to posting some very soon. The make up that was on had long wiped off as it was a quickie self powder job for a suprise shoot but, close enough to call bare, and with no post processing too. Hmm, the photographer did tell me I could post but, I will wait in case he wants to do any post work on the photo I want.
Will edit to update.
Jen
p.s. so glad that we had our impromptu shoot!
i've always loved it. it was my favorite in school...and it's still my favorite going back to film.
it's just rock solid. you almost can't screw it up. looks good almost no matter what, in some way.
conversely...none of the rolls of pan-f plus i've shot have come out right. VERY thin negs...developed myself, and at a lab...over the course of 3-4 shoots, and 2 formats...same result. strange. had the same luck with efke. *shrug*
Indeed, pretty much bomb proof, and you can make it bend to your will. Gritty, sooty and chalky? Yep. Creamy and dreamy? Yep. Soft? Grainy? Punchy? Bite? Yep.
I've had the same experience with PanF+: really thin negs. I haven't got a good handle on it yet, but I'm slowly transitioning to Ilford anyway (HP5+ and FP4+).
AgX wrote: Indeed, pretty much bomb proof, and you can make it bend to your will. Gritty, sooty and chalky? Yep. Creamy and dreamy? Yep. Soft? Grainy? Punchy? Bite? Yep.
I've had the same experience with PanF+: really thin negs. I haven't got a good handle on it yet, but I'm slowly transitioning to Ilford anyway (HP5+ and FP4+).
i like ilford in general. i've had great experiences with hp5, fp4, xp2, all the deltas (particularly 120 size 3200 shot at 1000 <3), and sfx. just...not panf+. i have a few rolls left...i feel compelled to make it work. i refuse to let it beat me. (like plus-X used to. i never got on with that film, despite everyone around me loving it. EVERY roll was somehow messed up...dense, thin, scratched, fogged, stuck to itself in development, you name it. it just hated me. lol)
| 
| 
| edu