The "Post a Picture You Took" thread

[naija 2869]

If you are committed to staying APS-C, this would be the week for you. New camera and lens offerings from Fuji and new lens offerings from Sony. Still think if that's the format you want to stay in, Fuji is the best, but they are a pricey option for sure.

[DougO 5257]

I'm pretty backed up on my editing while trying to learn affinity photo and bouncing between apps. But here's a painted bunting I photographed last week. 

 

[DougO 5257]

The non-destructive cropping/resampling/sharpening is a revelation. Affinity Photo seems to crunch the hell out of photos when you just resample down to a web size pic and makes the far duller than it did in Photoshop or even  GIMP. But the workaround is pretty amazing, though weird to get used to, which I still haven't. Probably something like Lightroom if it were a bit more like Photoshop, but without the file management stuff. Almost too many options and ways to do stuff to deal with.

[DougO 5257]

Yesterday. Still trying to get acclimated to the new editing stuff.

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Finally got several rolls developed and scanned.  One roll was a "test" roll from my recent acquisition of a Nikon F2.  I have to say, I am really impressed with that camera and am ready to start shooting another roll this week.  I also recently bought another 50mm lens for my AE-1 as the last roll I shot was hugely disappointing.  However, with the new (old) lens, the same blur/focus problem persists.  So different lens, different film...same problem.  I figured the only other thing could be the pressure plate, but it appears to be fine.  I am going to post a two shots, one with the F2 and one with the AE-1.  Hardly scientific, and not shot at the same aperture, but close enough to show the problem.  But first, here are a few shots I liked from the various rolls.  Sorry for the bandwidth killing post.

Nikon F2, Kodak Gold 200

Pentax 6x7, Kodak Ektar 100

Canon AE-1, Kona Moonstruck

Alright, here are two shots comparing the F2 and Canon AE-1.  Both with 50mm lenses.  Nikon had Kodak Gold 200 loaded, Canon had Kona Moonstruck (boutique film based of kodak film).  I don't recall the aperture for each shot, but likely not drastically different as these were shot back to back.  First, the Nikon.  Much, much sharper.  Colors are what you would expect from Kodak Gold.  Second is the Canon AE-1 with my replacement lens (moonstruck film).  As mentioned earlier, it appears I am still having the same problem...soft, blurry image.  Especially just right of center.  I have no idea what is happening.  Any ideas?

 

[Anton Chigurh 3325]

All of the AE-1 photos look soft, but it seems the worst at infinity focus. You’re using a 50 1.4, right? QC and sharpness on those was much better than the 1.8. If it was a 1.8, it could just be a crappy copy of the lens, depending on which vintage it is. My FD28 2.8 is pretty soft, so I don’t like using it.

If you take the lens off, does the mirror seem to be sitting in there normally, or is it canted at all? The pressure plate was my only other suggestion but you said that seems fine.


The shots are great, though. That F2, damn!

[DougO 5257]

Looks like the film plane may be off, as it does look sharper more on the left-center side. Could also be some issues with internal haze or lens blemish or coating issue, but you would probably see that.  As Anton suggested, give it a test a at gradually smaller apertures and see if it gets way better.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Thanks y’all. 
What is confusing me is this looks like the same issue on two different 50mm f1.4 lenses.  How is that possible?  Mirror looks fine. Even if it wasn’t, then I would think I would miss focus altogether. But this is like parts of the image are soft, others not so much. I am perplexed. Here is a photo I took with the same camera and the old 50mm. Pretty sharp. 
 

 
at this point I am reluctant to put another roll through it. Which sucks. 
But damn, this Nikon F2 is great. A few shots I also took alongside my Pentax and I liked the Nikon shots more. Not all. But a few.  I loaded it with a roll of ektachrome. Hope to shoot that roll this weekend. 
 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Patricio Swayze

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

The wife of an artist friend of mine has brain cancer.  She had a baseball sized tumor removed from her brain and has responded well to chemo.  He has sworn that he will paint her name 1000 times.  I went to see them today in Austin and after a nice BBQ lunch, he sprayed #38.  That might seem like a long way to go, but not for the homie.

 

[Bevoette 1469]

Went to Este Park for my daughter's wedding 

[Bevoette 1469]

[DougO 5257]

Couple of cell phone pics from the lake yesterday evening. 

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by DougO

[Armybrat 41047]

Red Rock Canyon Park, Nevada….

 

[PittsburghTiger 6253]

Early morning in St. Tropez.  We had some great beach weather 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Kind of slow lately.  Working on a role of ektachrome in the F1.  A few digital shots from the past couple of weeks.

 

[DougO 5257]

Not the greatest photo, but black-capped vireos are not easy to come by. 

 

[Player 4578]

Just now on the road to Inverness.

[Alex Karev 1038]

[Anton Chigurh 3325]

New York Hill is better.

[Alex Karev 1038]

[Alex Karev 1038]

23 minutes ago, Alex Karev said:

This photo was not so much about the food, but the building , architech, and decor.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Alex Karev
spelling

[Alex Karev 1038]

Grand Canyon 2008

[Litig8r 416]

Sam Baker did a house concert at my house.  He was singing Angels when I took this photo with my phone.  No idea where the blue image came from.  

[Litig8r 416]

from the same house concert 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Litig8r

[DougO 5257]

A recent hummer. 

 

 

[Longhornstampede 3195]

The last remnant of a ghost town once known as Bugtussle... 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Here are a few scans from that roll of Ektachrome E100 I shot with the F2. 

I took a drive out to Eagle Pass/Del Rio and Sanderson to get some shots for a project I am working on.  About to send a couple of rolls off for processing and scanning, but here are a few digital shots.  Not all of these are relevant to that project I am working on.

 

[83Horn 1660]

Dang, there are some talented mofos on this thread.  These pictures are beautiful.  If I tried taking pictures of random buildings, trains, or junk cars, they would look, at best, like boring snapshots of buildings, trains or junk cars, nothing more.  It's the difference between a work of art, and snapshot that leaves you wondering, "Why the hell did I take that picture?".  There truly is more to photography than proper exposure settings.  You need a vision, and the ability to create what you envision on film, or your flash card.  I'm jealous of you guys.

[Longhornstampede 3195]

14 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Here are a few scans from that roll of Ektachrome E100 I shot with the F2. 

I took a drive out to Eagle Pass/Del Rio and Sanderson to get some shots for a project I am working on.  About to send a couple of rolls off for processing and scanning, but here are a few digital shots.  Not all of these are relevant to that project I am working on.

 

I grew up in Del Rio.... Recognized the Press building immediately. I remember going in there as a kid and heading upstairs to hide or play in the toy section. Awesome pics

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

On 6/28/2022 at 2:31 PM, Litig8r said:

Sam Baker did a house concert at my house.  He was singing Angels when I took this photo with my phone.  No idea where the blue image came from.  

Perhaps Mr. Baker is a synesthesist and the heavens aligned to conjure perceptual imagery into reality. (he has walked a long and winding path, so at this point nothing would surprise me).

[Mdhorn 6100]

On 6/2/2022 at 1:35 PM, DougO said:

I'm pretty backed up on my editing while trying to learn affinity photo and bouncing between apps. But here's a painted bunting I photographed last week. 

 

I'm amazed every time I open this thread and see this.  I find it so damn hard to get a good pick of a bunting.  They're so small, never close, super skittish, and the lighting has to be damn perfect too.  

[Humble Beast 258]

 

[naija 2869]

Went through Paris/Charles De Gaulle to and fro as a layover. Took these while there.

These two on the first pass through

 

 

On the way back ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Prepuce of Doom 21143]

Took a couple of funky pictures with the ~2 second Night Mode on my phone. 

The ISS and a 757 on its way from ORD to SFO. 

 

The same 757 and a spooky tree. 

[DougO 5257]

 

[Bevoette 1469]

[Hook1997 5435]

Destin on the beach at night with a iPhone at ten second exposure. 

[Hook1997 5435]

Destin on the beach sunset….  Going to go to the actual sunset side for pics Friday. 

[Cajun 11766]

Last Friday evening after a big storm over Canyon Lake.  iPhone pic, no filters or edit…

[Cajun 11766]

One more from a few weeks prior…

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I got a scans back from the last couple of rolls I shot. 

Pentax 6x7, Ektachrome:

Nikon F2, Dubble Film Apollo:

Digital shot from last weekend.  Honestly, not sure how I feel about it ethically speaking.  I struggle with whether taking photos like this are ethical, but I also want to document the people and places I see.  This woman undoubtedly has had an incredibly tough life.  I often see her asking for money at a gas station in the 5th Ward.  This time I stopped and took the photo and gave her some money.

 

[Mdhorn 6100]

I think as long as you're giving them money, there shouldn't be issues.  It would be one thing if you were famous and the photo was going for a lot of money and they were getting a $1 for their image but then again the image only exists because you take it.  I always wonder about it too.  I always found Juliana Beasley's photographs of the people of Rockaway Park haunting: https://www.lensculture.com/jbeasley

Yours kind of give me a similar vibe.  Color probably dates it more but I think what you're doing is recording a time and place that will only exist through documentation.  We've seen the desolate areas in your visitations of decay and ghost towns, remnants of its inhabitants.  But now you're documenting the inhabitants of wards that will either change or die.  It really is damn fascinating.   

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

14 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

I think as long as you're giving them money, there shouldn't be issues.  It would be one thing if you were famous and the photo was going for a lot of money and they were getting a $1 for their image but then again the image only exists because you take it.  I always wonder about it too.  I always found Juliana Beasley's photographs of the people of Rockaway Park haunting: https://www.lensculture.com/jbeasley

Yours kind of give me a similar vibe.  Color probably dates it more but I think what you're doing is recording a time and place that will only exist through documentation.  We've seen the desolate areas in your visitations of decay and ghost towns, remnants of its inhabitants.  But now you're documenting the inhabitants of wards that will either change or die.  It really is damn fascinating.   

Thanks.  Yeah, I am not trying to exploit anyone, but I understand the argument (and in fact have gotten into heated arguments about this).  I view "street photography" different than "street portraits" in that the former is almost always candid and the latter you approach the subject.  I try not to focus on people that are struggling, but unfortunately, that is what I see a lot of.

[Mdhorn 6100]

2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Thanks.  Yeah, I am not trying to exploit anyone, but I understand the argument (and in fact have gotten into heated arguments about this).  I view "street photography" different than "street portraits" in that the former is almost always candid and the latter you approach the subject.  I try not to focus on people that are struggling, but unfortunately, that is what I see a lot of.

Street photography fits a larger narrative/condition/social realism. I also like that people project their own interactions and emotions onto the subject--thus the argument factor.  At least it's worth fighting over.       

[Bevoette 1469]

[Hpara759 1783]

On 6/5/2022 at 10:20 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

 

 

 

Had one just like that...1977

[Bevoette 1469]

[BabaYaga 15428]

Hirtshals, Denmark.  10th Battery along the Atlantic Wall.  Visited personally by Rommel in '43 to oversea completion.  

 

[DougO 5257]

Some pretty neat clouds out this evening.

 

[naija 2869]

On 7/20/2022 at 9:32 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

Thanks.  Yeah, I am not trying to exploit anyone, but I understand the argument (and in fact have gotten into heated arguments about this).  I view "street photography" different than "street portraits" in that the former is almost always candid and the latter you approach the subject.  I try not to focus on people that are struggling, but unfortunately, that is what I see a lot of.

What's your side of the argument? I think the more accessible photography has become, the more people try to lay claim on what's real and what's not, i.e, candid vs non-candid. I think once you are past documentary photography, much of that doesn't hold weight. There is nothing wrong in asking your subject to pose for a picture, even if encountered on the street. Is the goal to document an object or to tell a story? 

W. Eugene Smith is easily one of my favorite photographers. Turns out he posed some of his subjects and scenes, such as the one at at Minamata. He also employed artificial light, and didn't care what anyone thought about that.

Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother was not only posed, but also manipulated (in today's vernacular, you'd say photoshop was employed). 

I don't think either picture is worse for knowing the background beforehand, that it was not just a "spontaneous" thing.

Edited August 10, 2022 by naija