# A Swiss Watch



## Josh66 (Jun 17, 2008)

...Well, more of a clock really - but still Swiss.

1






2





3






These were all shot with a 350D w/ 100mm Macro (all shot at 1:1 too, BTW).  I normally don't do B&W with digital (seems like I can never get it to look as good as film), but I want to get better at it so I thought I better try a few.

I know the flash (pop-up flash) completely blew out some areas...  I'm working on that.  After I figure something out for better lighting I plan on re-shooting this clock.  I want to try it with the 70-200mm+50mm, via macro coupler (that should give me 4:1, right?) too - but I don't think I'll have enough DOF for something like this...  I'll give it a try anyway though and see how it comes out.

Anyway, what do you guys think?  Did I go too far with the contrast?  I don't think so, but I wanted to know what you thought.

I think I like #2 the best, followed by #1.

PS - If anybody knows how to get this thing working again that would help too.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 17, 2008)

I think the contrast might be a little high, but it's hard to judge; I suggest doing a reshoot with some nice diffuse lighting and maybe a longer exposure time.

How to get it running... geez, don'cha know anything???  You can clearly see that the laughinshaft has come loose from the gigglerod.  Put it back on and your in business!


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 17, 2008)

I think I might be able to rig something up with a couple spot lights covered in tracing paper...  I'll give that a try when I re-shoot this.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 19, 2008)

4





5





6





OK, I think these are a lot better.  What do you think?

I think I like #5 best out of this set, maybe #4.

I have a color version very similar to #4 (same POV, opened up a little more - f/16, I think) that I like a lot.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 20, 2008)

Are they bad, or just boring?

I'm not looking for a pat on the back, but I would like to hear _something_...

I think the second 3 are much better than the first 3.  Is there anything else I can do to make these better - or is it just a boring subject without much room for improvement?

I think #5 is the best of the 6.  I liked the first 3 a lot at first, but after re-shooting it they don't look so good anymore.


----------



## jacksonfinter (Jun 21, 2008)

now im really nobody to comment on anything technical or anything really at all but i really like them all espescially the last 3, i dont think the subject is boring as i think the intricate design is quite nice to look at.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 21, 2008)

Thanks.  I don't think they're boring either (but I can see how some people might).


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

These are awesome! 1, 4, 5, and 6 ROCK! 

I don't spend much time in the B&W section so I missed these before. 

They are excellent!


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 17, 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 23, 2008)

You're welcome! I meant it.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2011)

Reviving my own thread, so it's OK.  

I reshot this a few days ago on Efke KB 50.  I think it looks much better on film...




04191123 by J E, on Flickr

Efke 50 in Xtol.

This one is similar to #6 above. (I do like this composition better too.) The difference in the fine detail blows me away...  **** digital.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 21, 2011)

That's quite nice 0\\\\\\0.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 21, 2011)

Very nice reshoot Josh.   :thumbsup:


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2011)

Thanks guys!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 21, 2011)

Same lens from the old pics and the new one?  I really like it.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2011)

Thanks.  Yes, same lens - 100mm macro (non-L).  The first ones were shot on a 350D, this one was on a 1N RS with Efke 50 ISO film.

Both are also at or close to 1:1.  You can really see how much more coverage full frame gives you.

I can't remember what aperture the 350D ones were at (exif should still be there though), this one was at f/11.


edit
You'll notice that the gears are relatively the same size in both of them - they were both close to the same magnification.  The extra area of the 35mm frame lets you fit a lot more in there though.

Seeing the new one makes me wonder why I thought the old one was good 2 years ago.  :lmao:


----------



## altitude604 (Apr 21, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Reviving my own thread, so it's OK.
> 
> I reshot this a few days ago on Efke KB 50.  I think it looks much better on film...
> 
> ...


 
wow! i can actually see the difference between this and the ones on the digital.

definitely the best in the series as well... not just for the fine details although it certainly helps!


----------



## OrionsByte (Apr 21, 2011)

It seems like it's better lit as well. Was your lighting setup similar?


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2011)

Thanks.  I think my 'eye' has improved a lot over the last 2 years.  (I hope so anyway.  LOL)

BTW - it's a scrapped aircraft 7 day clock.  (The cannon plug connector on the back (for the lights - the clock is entirely mechanical) is bent.)

It did work, but the main spring is wound too tight, and I can't figure out how to release it...


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2011)

OrionsByte said:


> It seems like it's better lit as well. Was your lighting setup similar?


 I can't remember what the lighting was on the first one, but this one was just ambient room light.


----------



## mishele (Apr 21, 2011)

Blast from the past......lol


----------



## andrewKn (Apr 22, 2011)

Its insane how much this looks so much better on film.

f/11 iso50 film with ambient light? Did you push process?


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 22, 2011)

andrewKn said:


> Its insane how much this looks so much better on film.


I know, isn't it?!  I swear, had I shot this one first - the earlier ones would have went straight to the recycle bin.  



andrewKn said:


> f/11 iso50 film with ambient light? Did you push process?


 No (but I do love pushin' me some film, lol).  I can't remember the exact time, but I think it was around a 2 minute exposure.  I think it metered for something like 40 seconds, and I just guessed how much extra to give it to account for reciprocity failure.  (I've been having a hard time finding data sheets for Efke film, guessing seems to be working so far.   )

Also, because I'm using a 1N RS (which I love), I lose 2/3 of a stop compared to a 'regular' SLR, so that doesn't help for low light, low ISO stuff.

The mirror is just a thin film - it doesn't move, you shoot through it.  It passes more light than it reflects (into the viewfinder).  You can actually see the shutter through the mirror when you remove the lens/body cap.


----------

