[Cuthbert]

I like it besides the gold Rolex...too much show off for me, I usually wear Omegas or Longines....however since we are in a brand discussion I relaunch with this shot:

[filoxophy]

Hasselblad 500c/m
Carl Zeiss Planar C T* 80/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

Wow, love it! Very satisfying to the eye. Well seen.

[cooltouch]

Cuthbert, actually the "Rolex" was a knock-off, but that was the watch I wore back then, so it was apropos to the shot. These days I wear a cell phone for a watch.

Dunno if I have any blatant brand-name shots. I'll have to think on that one. Oh, if military aircraft can be used for this (McDonell Douglas, Lockheed, etc.) then I guess I got a few -- many of which you've already seen.

[Swift1]

Wow, love it! Very satisfying to the eye. Well seen.

Thank you

[LesDMess]

I like it besides the gold Rolex...too much show off for me, I usually wear Omegas or Longines....however since we are in a brand discussion I relaunch with this shot:

Both of these have amazing texture. I did a simple conversion to b&w and IMO they both look even better due to the texture. Good eye and execution.

[Cuthbert]

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]




Both of these have amazing texture. I did a simple conversion to b&w and IMO they both look even better due to the texture. Good eye and execution.

Thanks Les, to be honest, I think Colton's pic is better because he catched a very light, while mine was shot in a B&B room with strong incidental light in the morning, plus I just had Portra 160 and not 400, I would have preferred to close the diaphram more in order to have more DOF but alas I didn't have a tripod as well.

BTW I thought the shot sucked because I already posted it in the critique area and nobody criticised it:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/41-photo-critique/282480-macro-commercial-pic-sort.html

BTW, if I show in which condition the lens I used is you'll laugh....I bought that Micro-Nikkor for 20 quid or sort of because it looked so bad nobody was bidding it....can you please share your B&W conversion of both shots? I'm curious...

[LesDMess]

Thanks Les, to be honest, I think Colton's pic is better because he catched a very light, while mine was shot in a B&B room with strong incidental light in the morning, plus I just had Portra 160 and not 400, I would have preferred to close the diaphram more in order to have more DOF but alas I didn't have a tripod as well.

BTW I thought the shot sucked because I already posted it in the critique area and nobody criticised it:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/41-photo-critique/282480-macro-commercial-pic-sort.html

BTW, if I show in which condition the lens I used is you'll laugh....I bought that Micro-Nikkor for 20 quid or sort of because it looked so bad nobody was bidding it....can you please share your B&W conversion of both shots? I'm curious...

Please excuse the quick b&w conversion although I think even a straightforward desaturation would have worked just as well as I think the tonality is perfect for b&w - going from highlight to deep dark.



I thought this was a setup commercial type shot actually but of course there are two conflicting brands. Perhaps a backlit figure reflected in the sunglasses could have added another element of intrigue.
IMO the texture, tonality and tight composition makes this in better b&w not that I thought the color was vulgar and restrictive.
Clearly this benefited from directional window lighting.

[Swift1]

Thanks Les, to be honest, I think Colton's pic is better because he catched a very light, while mine was shot in a B&B room with strong incidental light in the morning, plus I just had Portra 160 and not 400, I would have preferred to close the diaphram more in order to have more DOF but alas I didn't have a tripod as well.

BTW I thought the shot sucked because I already posted it in the critique area and nobody criticised it:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/41-photo-critique/282480-macro-commercial-pic-sort.html

BTW, if I show in which condition the lens I used is you'll laugh....I bought that Micro-Nikkor for 20 quid or sort of because it looked so bad nobody was bidding it....can you please share your B&W conversion of both shots? I'm curious...

Actually, you would be appalled at what the light was like when I took my photo
If I remember right, it was very flat dull daylight near the end of the day. I think it was 1/30s @f/4. The original scan was somewhat flat. I added contrast by adjusting the tone curve, which also helped the colors. Ektar scans (in my experience) handle tone curve adjustment better than most other color films that I've used.

[Cuthbert]

Please excuse the quick b&w conversion although I think even a straightforward desaturation would have worked just as well as I think the tonality is perfect for b&w - going from highlight to deep dark.



I thought this was a setup commercial type shot actually but of course there are two conflicting brands. Perhaps a backlit figure reflected in the sunglasses could have added another element of intrigue.
IMO the texture, tonality and tight composition makes this in better b&w not that I thought the color was vulgar and restrictive.
Clearly this benefited from directional window lighting.

Mmm interesting...in my F2AS there is a roll of C41 Neopan and perhaps I should re-shoot this shot in B&W, and ironically I shoot it in colour because I like that jacket and the pre-washed denim that in reality is more yellowed (not so white)...I would have also like to use a pair of gilded aviators with green lenses but at the time I shoot that pic I just had the black ones with me.

I was inspired by an old commercial from the 80s that showed a denim shirt even if the product had nothing do with jeans or any clothes at all.



So I thought it would have been a good idea for a sort of commercial pic for the two brands should they work together (sometimes they do that, I remember a limited edition digital Leica that was sold with a brand of clothes or something like that) so that would be how I would make it.

I haven't seen Colton's pic in B&W by the way..

---------- Post added 12-19-14 at 06:41 PM ----------

Actually, you would be appalled at what the light was like when I took my photo
If I remember right, it was very flat dull daylight near the end of the day. I think it was 1/30s @f/4. The original scan was somewhat flat. I added contrast by adjusting the tone curve, which also helped the colors. Ektar scans (in my experience) handle tone curve adjustment better than most other color films that I've used.

Ahahaha! I also shot that pic at 1/30s and f4, with a Micro Nikkor I was surprised to get a decent shot after all.

So...you admit you post-process your shots? Then we have found the secret of your vivid colours!

Mine is straight from the negative, I also shot the denim jacket with Ektar (but without glasses):



But I prefer Portra for this particular kind of shots...still both film failed to record the "aged" look of the acid washed denim but I assume the problem was the light.

[Swift1]

Ahahaha! I also shot that pic at 1/30s and f4, with a Micro Nikkor I was surprised to get a decent shot after all.

So...you admit you post-process your shots? Then we have found the secret of your vivid colours!

Mine is straight from the negative, I also shot the denim jacket with Ektar (but without glasses):

I admit nothing
I "produce" my images to what they should be, based on original intent.
I do not buy into the "straight from from the negative" idea. A positive image made from a negative is a loose translation at best. How the translation was made is by it's nature a fabrication to a certain extent.
Try scanning the same negative once a year without looking at the previous scan. You will almost inevitably end up with differences from one scan to the next. Which one is "correct"?

[Swift1]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon EII 75/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[Jacquot]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon EII 75/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

I love this image, the geometry and color reinforcement are great, as are the textures. The yellow is fantastic. Capturing something so simple that also has so much interest is really masterful. Very architectural.

[Cuthbert]

I love this image, the geometry and color reinforcement are great, as are the textures. The yellow is fantastic. Capturing something so simple that also has so much interest is really masterful. Very architectural.

IMO he used the magic software for the yellow...

THIS is a genuine pic:



Please appreciate the cobalt blue impressed in the Portra film inside my F-1N.

[Swift1]

IMO he used the magic software for the yellow...

THIS is a genuine pic:



Please appreciate the cobalt blue impressed in the Portra film inside my F-1N.

Are you stating that my is not genuine?

[rob1234]

IMO he used the magic software for the yellow...

THIS is a genuine pic:



Please appreciate the cobalt blue impressed in the Portra film inside my F-1N.

God, you're frustrating! In getting an image from your physical negative on to my screen, a load of interpretation has been done. Just because you haven't done any of the post-processing, that doesn't mean none has been done...!!