Recent Activity. - 8 new images

alexn
Posts: 95
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:58
Location: Brisbane.
Contact:

Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby alexn » 10 Jan 2013, 19:27

Here is a bunch of what I've been doing recently.
BW's are all on Acros 100.
Colour work is a Mix of Velvia 50 and Ektar 100 (These are my first rolls of Ektar ever shot, and my first go at C41 processing).

"Vortex" - Ektar 100
Image

"Fractal Dreams" - Ektar 100
Image

"Garden of Zen" - Ektar 100
Image

"Silk and Stone"
Image

"On the Edge"
Image

"Beauty in the Gorge" - Velvia 50.
Image

"Left Behind"
Image

"Rush"
Image

"Radiant Beauty" - Ektar 100
Image

"Inner Flow" - Ektar 100
Image

"Break of Day" - Ektar 100.
Image


All films developed at home in CPE2.
BW's in Rodinal 50:1 @ 21c
C41's in Tetenal rapid C41 Chems @ 38c (standard dev)
E6 in Tetenal kit @ 38c.

Sorry for the massive post - I have been without internet access for quite a long while and have done quite a bit of shooting as a result. There are plenty more from the past 4 months, this is just my favs.


C41 chemistry and the process are so much easier to handle than velvia that its just not even funny... its two baths, the chems are half the cost, I measure between 6.7 and 7.3 stops of range in Ektar 100 (depending on the light) which annihilates the 4.3 to 5.3 that I see on velvia, and is especially useful in contrasty situations (where I find myself shooting 90% of the time)

Ektar has earned its spot in my film bag... Its colours are bright and vibrant enough to engage viewers but not so saturated as to draw attention away from the images detail. I find with velvia the colour seems to take center stage and people can overlook the image's finer subtleties...

Thanks to Lachlan for pushing me to try the film by sending me a few rolls to test...
http://www.facebook.com/alexartphotography - Alex art photography on Facebook
http://www.alexartphotography.com - Alex Nicholas Fine Art Photography

Andrew Nichols
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 17:19

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby Andrew Nichols » 11 Jan 2013, 16:37

Great work

Lachlan717
Posts: 494
Joined: 03 Aug 2012, 16:49

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby Lachlan717 » 11 Jan 2013, 17:01

Andrew Nichols wrote:Great work


+1.

Thanks for setting the bar so high, you bastard!!

jars121
Posts: 93
Joined: 29 Jul 2012, 21:56

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby jars121 » 11 Jan 2013, 18:31

Number 2 is stunning. I've got to try me some Ektar!

alexn
Posts: 95
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:58
Location: Brisbane.
Contact:

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby alexn » 11 Jan 2013, 19:58

as a result of these tests with ektar, I have just bought 50 rolls, and halved my usual order of velvia 50 from 100 to 50. I still plan on shooting velvia quite a bit, but I will pick and choose the situations where it will work best, and use Ektar in situations where the contrast is too harsh for slides..

Thanks for the positive responses guys. I really enjoyed shooting and developing these.. I'm also happy to announce that a few of these have made it to print form in preparation for my upcoming exhibition.. They have been printed on Red River polar pearl metalic paper 40"x13.3". Framed and matted, all hand signed and numbered, ready to go... I am thinking that it will be aproximately 6 months before I exhibit at this stage, but I am keen to get these in the public eye and see how I go... Worst case, I have a 1m wide pano for every room of my house :D
http://www.facebook.com/alexartphotography - Alex art photography on Facebook
http://www.alexartphotography.com - Alex Nicholas Fine Art Photography

Andrew Nichols
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 17:19

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby Andrew Nichols » 11 Jan 2013, 22:45

Not to sound like rain but are these large format.

alexn
Posts: 95
Joined: 26 Jul 2012, 13:58
Location: Brisbane.
Contact:

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby alexn » 12 Jan 2013, 08:33

Nope - 6x17cm medium format. Last time the question was asked here, MF is allowed as a lot of the knowledge and skills required to master MF applies to LF. I do also shoot LF.. My landscapes almost always get done on 6x17 as it is just how I see things...

Also, I would put to anyone that being 'Large' format is a description of size... a 6x17 negative, while it is a roll film, is 106cm2 a 4x5 neg is 108cm2. is 2cm2 really enough difference to call 6x17 small in comparison. Obviously a 6x6cm at 35cm2 is small by comparison, and 35mm is tiny at 9cm2.

Its a futile arguement I know, and I would never go so far as to call 6x17 large format. I would however that if you're discriminating on size of the negative, then calling 6x17 "not large" and 4x5 "large" is a bit silly when the difference is tiny.
http://www.facebook.com/alexartphotography - Alex art photography on Facebook
http://www.alexartphotography.com - Alex Nicholas Fine Art Photography

Walter Glover
Posts: 917
Joined: 31 Jul 2012, 22:31
Location: Canterbury, NSW

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby Walter Glover » 12 Jan 2013, 09:19

I have never considered 6x12 or 6x17 as small format. In the case of 6x12, I always shot it with a RFH on a 4x5 camera.

And what of formats such as 6x9? Many fine view cameras are available that shoot no larger than 6x9.
Walter Glover

"Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." —Robert Galassi

Andrew Nichols
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Dec 2012, 17:19

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby Andrew Nichols » 12 Jan 2013, 10:45

Yeah fair call I'll put my police whistle away
I did not realise that it was only such small difference.
Thanks for explanation.

User avatar
Maris
Posts: 569
Joined: 27 Jul 2012, 16:02
Location: Noosa

Re: Recent Activity. - 8 new images

Postby Maris » 13 Jan 2013, 12:12

Walter Glover wrote:I have never considered 6x12 or 6x17 as small format. In the case of 6x12, I always shot it with a RFH on a 4x5 camera.

And what of formats such as 6x9? Many fine view cameras are available that shoot no larger than 6x9.

Walter Glover makes a salient point. Consider the following:

Image
Flowering Water Lillies, Noosa
Gelatin-silver photograph on Freestyle Private reserve VC FB photographic paper, image size 21.3cm X 14.7cm, from a Kodak Tmax 100 negative.
Titled and signed recto, stamped verso.

The camera used was a 4x5 Tachihara 45GF...large format.
The lens was my normal 8x10 lens, a Fujinon-W 300/5.6...large format.
Focussing and Scheimpflug camera movements were set up on a ground-glass screen by me working under a dark focussing cloth...large format.
The ground-glass screen was removed and replaced with a 23Graflex rollfilm back offering the 6x9 format...oh, oh, not large format.
The darkslide on the 23Graflex was pulled, an exposure made, and the darkslide was replaced...large format style actions.

Nett result: definitely medium format and not large format. But why? Is it the key criterion of large format photography that pieces of film must be exposed and processed individually however big or small they happen to be?


Return to “Places”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron