[Jonathan Mac]

The north coast of Spain. Yashica Mat 124G and Tri-X.


124G Kodak Tri-X Galicia 005a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


124G Kodak Tri-X Galicia 001a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


124G Kodak Tri-X Galicia 002a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[sculptormic]

Pentax 645Z FA 45-85

Calais

[marcusyoung]

a120 MACRO F4

MARCUS

[sugus]

Mamiya 6MF, 4/45mm, CineStill Xpro C-41 50 Daylight 120

[TDvN57]

"realistic" = simulates reality, assuming your 'reality' is a frozen instant with a limited fov, preserved in a two-dimensional box.

"believable" = the monster under your bed.

I aim for realistic and believable with a healthy dose of artistic license. Not sure if this is a contradictory triangle.... Somewhere in the middle of that should be acceptable. I draw from the world of model makeup (I'm not a model photographer - disclosure). What would be the difference between a model putting on make-up, or I use fancy editting software to achieve a similar end result. To me there should be no difference. Then apply the same principle to landscape. If I bring out the colours (or effects) that are there, but not necessarily visible when I look at the same scene. However if I put on some sun glasses, I will see a lot more, or if I add certain filters to my camera lens, I will see different effects, or I use software to bring out certain effects. To me that is acceptable.

If I start to add features that did not exist, well then I think it will start to move outside of the realm of photography. Just my opinion. (Apologies for the typos, while finger typing)

[Jonathan Mac]

Adventure park last summer. Yashica Mat 124G and Portra 160NC.


Yashica Mat 124G Fuji Reala 001a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


Yashica Mat 124G Fuji Reala 006a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[itshimitis]

They say that Wales is the land of the Dragon, well one appeared to be breathing fire over the Bristol Channel this evening...

Pentax 645Z DFA 55 f/2.8 12 shot pano handheld at 1/60 f/8 ISO 400

[mattb123]

645D & Arsat 30/3.5

[susanb]

How's this for lens flare? 124G and Portra 160NC


124G Kodak Portra 160NC 017a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

I really like 1 and 8. The spatial aspect of 8 is tricky but right on. I'd like to be there.

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 12:13 AM ----------

A120macro.(resized, uncrop)


marcus

Your focus and dof are really nice. Ain't easy with those critters flitting around and not posing just right.

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 12:15 AM ----------

654z & Mola Setti
The perfect combination

Love the colors, skin tones and composition. Nicely done.

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 12:18 AM ----------

I'm going to be spending most of the next three months travelling in Asia and Europe, so won't be seeing a lot of the pups after this week. Managed to get some shots of them from their level, though I had to suffer a double shampoo (brand name, Dogslick) complete with head massage - they give full grooming with their teeth, gently, but just slightly weird...

Pentax 645Z DFA 55 f/2.8

1.



2.



3.



4.

Awww, you all will miss each other!

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 12:20 AM ----------

Sydney Harbour Bridge from below.

Pentax 645Z with 25mm f4 DA lens.

[/url][/IMG]

Wonderful unique view and with star trails no less!

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 12:26 AM ----------

I hope members do not regard this post as too much of an intrusion into a format I know little about but I have worked my way steadily through the images in this thread, admittedly skipping most of the text, so there is now no doubt in my mind that the difference in quality of medium format is really evident, whether its because of the size of the format or that its’ being used by more experience photographers or because most shots will have been taken on a tripod/monopod or some combination of all three would be an interesting subject for debate.

I realise that I am looking at images downsized for the web which may have come through a number of sites before they reached the forum and appear on the screen of my iMac and therefore may not give a completely true rendition of the original, but I think I prefer the film image over the digital, which is fortunate as there is no chance of me being able to purchase a 645d or 645z.

However, if I may comment on the digital images I think the 645D, in certain circumstances, even with its limited range CCD specification sensor, produces more realistic images than does the 645Z which to me look much more mechanical or perhaps clinical would be a better word. I have noticed this type of difference, which I find very difficult to describe, between CCD and CMOS sensors before so if given a choice I would try for the 645D.

Kind Regards

CD

Well, kinda like comparing digital to analog sound or a combination of the two.

Then there's post production, digital dark room or physical dark room?

Kind of like people, they're all special in their own way.

[BostonUKshooter]

They say that Wales is the land of the Dragon, well one appeared to be breathing fire over the Bristol Channel this evening...

Pentax 645Z DFA 55 f/2.8 12 shot pano handheld at 1/60 f/8 ISO 400

Great pano!.....looks like something from Game of Thrones...

[sculptormic]

Pentax 645Z A 35

French facade # 324, Dieppe, France

[mattb123]

Out for a walk last night.
645D & FA 45-85

[itshimitis]

I intended to go to Rhossili, but traffic meant if I had continued, I would have missed the light, so went to Mumbles instead, where I was able to catch the rising of the Harvest Moon...

Pentax 645Z DA 28 - 45

1.



2. FA 75



3.



4. A* 300 f/4



5.

[Ed Hurst]

Pentax 645Z with 28-45 f4.5 DA lens.

Hornby Lighthouse (near to the entrance to Sydney Harbour from the ocean).

[IMG][/IMG]

[jt_cph_dk]

Ladakh, Himalaya, Pentax 67, Super Takumar 6X7 2.4/105, Kodak Portra 160NC, Epson V750, Ps.

Deep in the valley at this early hour when the sun has not yet risen above the ridges to brighten the blues of the night.