Pentax 645n

[drmoss_ca]

Left over from Christmas:


and today:




Medium format doesn't seem to do it for me now I have tasted the hard stuff. But I have a freezer full of tiny 35mm and small 120 film. I shall do my best to use them up, but the serious stuff will be on sheet film from now on.

Chris

[jww]

You can always PIF that camera ..........

[CMur12]

I appreciate you sharing your photographic experience with us here, Chris.

There is something singularly attractive about large format (LF). My experience of composition on a groundglass (in medium format) is entirely different from that through an eye-level finder. Swings, tilts, rises, and falls afford a level of control somewhat analogous to that of the shave with an open blade, I would think, which might explain some of the appeal for you. The detail and tonality of LF are unsurpassed. I have seen some LF prints that were so detailed I could have sworn that I would have felt all of the textures of the scene if I were to run my fingers over the print.

What has always slowed me down from pursuing LF is the inconvenience of sheet film. I have often viewed my slow, deliberate approach to medium format photography with my TLRs (Twin Lens Reflex cameras, almost always on a tripod) as "large-format-but-a-bit-too-lazy." Perhaps one day, I'll take that step into large format.

- Murray

[drmoss_ca]

Pentax 645N, 120/f4, HP5+, single strobe, HC-110, Rondinax 60, Nikon 9000:


Like Father, Like Son by chrism229, on Flickr


Chris 1 by chrism229, on Flickr


Chris 2 by chrism229, on Flickr

Chris

[Squire]

Wonderful detail and tone. You're looking good too.

[drmoss_ca]

Pentax 645N, 75mm/f2.8, Tri-X @400, HC-110 1:49, Rondinax 60, Nikon 9000:

Holly by chrism229, on Flickr


Mary by chrism229, on Flickr


Emily by chrism229, on Flickr

Chris

[brothers]

I can feel the competence and professionalism of the staff.

[Squire]

I can see an office party.

[brothers]

LOL, me too.

[drmoss_ca]

It's been a long time (and a long story), but I finally got around to doing some portraits that I had promised this couple back in the summer. 645n, 120/f4, FP4+, HC-110, a strobe, two fill lights and the X1 for the scans.


Calora and Keith 3 by chrism229, on Flickr


Calora and Keith 2 by chrism229, on Flickr


Calora and Keith 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

Chris

[brothers]

Nice work. I suspect they loved them. Not related to these photos, but in general, do studios use airbrush to enhance photos? I remember when my mom took my little brother and me to the studio. She still has those on her wall, and they really look like they were airbrushed.

[drmoss_ca]

The only 'airbrush' would be a virtual one. Airbrushing was exactly what it sounds like, a tiny spray can to adjust a darkroom-made wet print. Even I, still using film, scan the negatives with a special scanner and once digitised will adjust things a little in Lightroom or Photoshop. Professionals can't afford the time or the costs of film and, mostly, have never learned how to use it, so they are starting out from the very beginning with a digital file and certainly will use whatever tools they have on their computers to rework the images. Many people take that way too far and end up with lurid and unrealistic pictures that make me wretch.

C.