Large Format Portrait

[16831]

Taken on 4X5 Agfa Ansco large format camera of WWII vintage with a 135mm f5.6 Wollensak lens. Shot on Tri-X under tungsten lighting at 1/30 sec. at f16. I sepia toned the bottom photo for effect.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[kilofoxtrott]

This old analogue equipment still rocks when it is in the right hands.

Very well done
Klaus

 

[gchappel]

I love tri-x film.
I hate tri-x film.
Shot with it for probably 20years-only 35mm. It was all I could afford. It does have a certain "look" that digital can not emulate. Nicely done here.
If you are going to the trouble of 4x5- I would lose the ring. It has the same sparkle as the eyes and draws attention away from the face.
Thanks for sharing
gary

 

[Binnur]

Both very nice. The second one looks better to me as the light doesn't cause some distractions and I can see her beautiful face better.

 

[Bart]

These are really beautiful!
So wonderful to see this old equipment still delivering.

I would lose the ring. It has the same sparkle as the eyes and draws attention away from the face

Does it?
when I read this remark, I first thought you were taking about a part of the camera, lens or lighting.
then I went back to the original post to try to understand it.
When examining the second photo, then I found the ring you referred to

To be clear, I don't write this to be argumentative!
Just to illustrate not everyone observes an image in the same way

 

[gchappel]

Just to illustrate not everyone observes an image in the same way

Certainly not argumentative!
Funny, the finger ring in the second image was the first thing I saw, and once I saw it- that was all I could look at.
Most things about art are just opinions. I really like to hear the different opinions on my own work. I often learn, and I sometimes ignore. But always interesting to hear how others look at our images. In shows, I often have people point things out in my images that I never ever saw.
gary

 

[16831]

Certainly not argumentative!
Funny, the finger ring in the second image was the first thing I saw, and once I saw it- that was all I could look at.
Most things about art are just opinions. I really like to hear the different opinions on my own work. I often learn, and I sometimes ignore. But always interesting to hear how others look at our images. In shows, I often have people point things out in my images that I never ever saw.
gary

I see what you're saying about the ring. I purposely composed the picture that way. The girl and I were classmates in high school - and the ring is her high school ring. If I were smarter, I suppose I would have taken 2 pictures - one with and one without the ring.
Thanks for the feedback.
I also have a cropped version of the top photo cutting the light out of view which I like better. I don't know which people would prefer so I'll upload it and let you guys opine on which is better.

 

[16831]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[16831]

I love tri-x film.
I hate tri-x film.
Shot with it for probably 20years-only 35mm. It was all I could afford. It does have a certain "look" that digital can not emulate. Nicely done here.
gary

Tri-X really dominated a picture in 35mm the grain was so prominent. For 35mm I pretty much used Plus-X Pan in the old days and was very pleased with that. In large format, the speed of Tri-X was a real benefit, and of course, the grain wasn't an issue at 4X5 and larger.

 

[JW53]

Really like the 1st image and the chromy tones in her hair. If I was to add toning would probably have gone with selenium vs sepia. Although used Tri-x back in 60-70, switched over to Ilfords Fp4 late 70’s. Currently use fp4+ with 35 mm and in 4x5 . If I need little more speed for 4x5 will use hp5+. Both developed with pmk pyro.

 

[gchappel]

If the ring is part of the story- well done! You have made it important.
gary

 

[gchappel]

Tri-X really dominated a picture in 35mm the grain was so prominent.

I actually got interested in photography because of tri-x grain.
The art department at my college contacted the chemistry department for help in minimizing grain while pushing tri-x 4-5 stops.
The chemistry department sent me- probably thought they were sending Mr. Bean
I had never seen a darkroom before, had no idea that a stop bath was different than a stop of light- I knew nothing about photography. I did know chemistry. This was 1971-72,
Worked with some chemist contacts at Kodak labs and over about a year actually got the grain under some control- it was only the size of marbles instead of basketballs. I remember it was a 2 developer process with different agents and different temperatures, but otherwise don't remember the details.
Then I fell in love with darkroom printing- and here I still am some 50yrs later.
gary

 

[Phil K]

Very nice photos and I like the mood very much.

And I enjoy the above discussions.

 

[Bart]

View attachment 1677019

This one works much better for me

 

[dossy]

I really love the lighting and processing in #2. In truth, I was immediately drawn to her right eye until I read the comment about the ring! Her eyes and expression are just beautiful.