Skip to main content

Architecture

I wanted to expand on scanning the 4x5 instant film negative bit further. I'm really excited about this because it offers such a distinct texture and color that it stands out in our world of sparkly clean digital images.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of clean digital imaging but I think there are more to imaging than trying to translate the light into clean digital files.

I've noticed that film is catching on a new wave, especially from the younger generation.  The reason I think is the fact that they grew up in the digital age and film is something new to them.  For us older generation who have grown up in film, we see the digital imaging as something new. On top of that, digital imaging has improved so much in the last 5 years that the old argument digital vs film has become pointless, as far as 'quality' was concerned.

But now, I'm questioning that idea of "quality".  Does quality mean more megapixels? more accuracy in color?... I think that value of 'quality' varies from person to person, if not, per project to project. Here's one way of seeing it; What is the quality of wood? It is great as a building material, its light, somewhat flexible but strong, very shape-able...  I think film has an inherent quality that is well suited for a certain look. It brings tactile texture to the two dimensional image, adding another sensory element in your photo other than visual.  I think that's huge.

In the past several weeks, I've been playing around with this polaroid negative thing and I'm happy with the results that I'm getting.  I'm telling you, its more than just nostalgia.  With full movements of a large format camera, the look simply stands on its own.

 Linhof 4x5 with Fujinon 150mm, Fuji FP-100c45. The back of the "negative" was bleached away so it can be translucent producing a negative.  Washington DC, one of many museums... I forgot which.


The Native American Museum.

The colors were worked a bit in Lightroom after dust spots were taken care of in PS.  I love the "organic" feel of these images. My approach was more visceral with more interpretation of the architecture. I did not want to do the typical architectural shots where all the lines are parallel and everything in focus. You know me.


Comments

  1. MimiApril 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

    Oh 'visceral' eh. I like this approach. I think photos are just more effective when you take them with your heart. If you have to reason through all different techniques and variations, you will not able to capture that special moment that you may never see again. Plus when you do it with your heart, you can better show your own style and the photo's ingenuity. These images are awesome. I like the tilted lines either by lens distortion or whatever it might be. Imperfection is good. It's all about learning then breaking all them rules :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan ChungApril 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

    Well said, Mimi!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Large Format ...Slight Return

Took out my Linhof 4x5 field camera out for a spin. Tripod, cable release, focusing cloth, loupe, lightmeter, and film holders! The gang's all here. Linhof Technica III, (circa 1940's) with Fujinon 150mm 5.6 a modern lens design.  Bull Run Park near Manassas VA.The camera is wonderfully made with machined aluminum with German engineering. Like Butter. Working with a 4x5 is a whole different world. It takes long to set up and there are so many things that you can screw up. "Did I cock the shutter? check focus?, meter reading, dark slide out? lock the movements?... There are like 13 different steps that you have to make to take a picture.  So why do it when I can just point my 5d and shoot in easy one two steps?  Reasons may vary, but I do it because of the camera movements. The tilts, swings, shifts. These cameras were made so you can technically control how the image hits the film plane. You can achieve "technically perfect" images, whatever that means. 
5 comments
Read more

Boston: B&W Architecture with Leica Q2M: From a Purist Perspective.

I swear I was going to switch out my black and white ONLY Leica Q2M to a regular Q2 color camera before going to this trip.  I"m glad I didn't.   Oh, before I forget, take a look at my icandy slide shows .  I will be making slideshows that is designed for big screen TV's.  Take a look at this one: Ok, back to the topic on hand.  So one of the most asked question about the Leica Q2M is, 'why limit yourself to just black and white when you can easily convert color photos to BW?'  Very good question.  My answer is,  if you know with certainty you want the best quality BW image possible, you want the dedicated monochrome camera.  Am I being a staunch purist? or is there a practical argument for it? Let's talk about it.  Beacon Street Boston,  MA One of many beautiful architecture on that hill.   First, this camera doesn't have any moire filter on the sensor.  Moire filters are on most color camera sensors to get rid of those annoying repeating patterns that loo
Post a Comment
Read more

Polaroid Negative?

I've been wanting to do color large format for awhile. When there were photo labs around the corner, it wasn't hard to do a E-6 process in a day or two. Now that process has gotten expensive and if you're doing sheet film, its even more pain. So my solution... Polaroid! well technically, it should be called "instant film" since Polaroid is trademarked term. I'm using  Fuji FP 100c45. But here's the twist. I wanted a different look. If I want true colors, I wouldn't bother with the cost of 2 bucks per shot.  I also was fascinated with some surface texture that I saw on polaroids.  I recently came across some sites that talks about turning a polaroid into negatives. Its true that Polariod years ago did have those positive/negative film, but they've discontinued all instant film a couple of years ago.   The process is simple. you take bleach and take off the black stuff on the part that you throw away.  Once the black part is off, you have a negati
5 comments
Read more