# Walter Sondheim Fountain, Baltimore, MD. C&C Please



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

The Walter Sondheim Fountain in Downtown Baltimore, at the Inner Harbor. Please, let me know what you think.


----------



## BlackSheep (Nov 9, 2011)

Was this shot on film or digital?

It looks snap-shot-like to me, I think because there's too many elements in the background (assuming the fountain is the subject of course). Also it's too contrasty for my taste.


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

It is in fact film. ASA 400, B&W. Too contrasty, 'eh? If I were to offer the "RAW" image, would you take a shot at an edit? I'd be very interested to see how another would handle it.


----------



## BlackSheep (Nov 9, 2011)

RAW from film? Neat trick 

No offense intended on my first post, by the way, just my opinion. It's nice to see someone else shooting film, not many people do these days.

The reason why I guessed that it was a film shot is because the EXIF data lists a Noritsu printer as opposed to a camera. Based on that,  I was wondering if this a scan of a print? Or a scan of the neg?


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

How does the negative look ?
Are the highlights and shadow areas blocked up?


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

BlackSheep said:


> RAW from film? Neat trick
> 
> No offense intended on my first post, by the way, just my opinion. It's nice to see someone else shooting film, not many people do these days.
> 
> The reason why I guessed that it was a film shot is because the EXIF data lists a Noritsu printer as opposed to a camera. Based on that,  I was wondering if this a scan of a print? Or a scan of the neg?


Ha, that's why I put "RAW" in quotes. I just meant, un-processed. 

I took no offense at all, I would genuinely like to see how you would process the image. I am just getting into film. I like the idea of using it to better my skill over all...can't take a bunch of throw-away shots with film.  Plus, I bought that X-700, and it's really nice (which is what I took this shot with) and have been getting interested in playing around with film. 

And this is a scan of the negative. I just had the film developed, and scanned to a CD. Didn't really want the prints...at least not yet. This roll was, (admittedly) mainly, a test to make sure the 30 year old camera was working.



dxqcanada said:


> How does the negative look ?
> Are the highlights and shadow areas blocked up?


I'm not sure what you mean by 'blocked up'? I'll have to search through the negs and take a look at it.

For the record, here is the original image:


----------



## dots (Nov 9, 2011)

Which 400 film is it?


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

Kodak "Professional" C41.


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

Blocked up ... very dark or light areas on the negative with no other details ... either extreme over or under exposed areas.

I think the contrast of the original has better balance. The water does not get lost in the background as much

A yellow filter would have darkened the blue sky in the background, producing more contrast between it and the clouds.


----------



## BlackSheep (Nov 9, 2011)

I like your taste in cameras - the X-700 was my first camera, back in the day 

I totally agree with your comment about shooting film to improve your work overall, it does make a difference.

Going back to your image, there's two separate "bits" going on - the subject matter/composition, and then the exposure/post processing. 


Looking only at the exposure/post processing for now - based on the original scan (from your second post), you did a great job with the exposure - do you see how there is white + black + middle grey in the image? That is good, especially since the white isn't glowing/super bright, and the blacks aren't black holes, so to speak. When you (?) post-processed it in Gimp, you took out the middle greys, and by that the whites got too bright and the blacks got too dark - this is what I meant by too much contrast - all of the details got lost. 

Now, if you meant to make the image high-contrast as an artistic choice, that is a different matter - I'm just talking about standard, traditional photography. It is after all your image and you should do whatever you like with it


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

ADavis85 said:


> Kodak "Professional" C41.



Kodak BW/T400 CN ?
Dye based B&W films do not have the same contrast as silver based (real) B&W films.

You should try "real" B&W film ... Ilford HP-5, Delta... Efke ... Kodak T-Max, Tri-X ... if you can get it developed easily.


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> Blocked up ... very dark or light areas on the negative with no other details ... either extreme over or under exposed areas.
> 
> I think the contrast of the original has better balance. The water does not get lost in the background as much
> 
> A yellow filter would have darkened the blue sky in the background, producing more contrast between it and the clouds.


Ah, gotcha. I'll take a look at the negs tomorrow.

Thanks for the feedback, I see what you mean. I liked adding a bit of contrast to make the the puddle a little darker, and the words 'Walter Sondheim Fountain" stand out a bit. But maybe there's a better way to do that?


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

One thing to remember when shooting B&W ... you have to mentally discard the color when you look at a scene.
You have to see in monochrome ... see everything in tones of blacks, greys and whites.


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

BlackSheep said:


> I like your taste in cameras - the X-700 was my first camera, back in the day
> 
> I totally agree with your comment about shooting film to improve your work overall, it does make a difference.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, the X-700 is awesome. I like it, a lot. Plus, I got it for $40! 

I do see what you're talking about with the blacks/whites/grays. I'm glad the exposure is good...that means two things: 1) I actually did a (somewhat) decent job, and 2) the meter on the camera is working properly.

I did sort of add contrast, as an artistic choice...I made my last post before seeing this one from you, but I wanted to darken the puddle, and enhance the words in front of the fountain.

Thanks so much for the tips/feedback.



dxqcanada said:


> ADavis85 said:
> 
> 
> > Kodak "Professional" C41.
> ...


Ah yeah, I'd definitely like to actually get some real B&W film. I bought this film because I wanted to take some B&W pictures, and also because they were the first rolls being put through the camera...didn't want to waste a bunch of cash on 'good' film, if it wasn't working properly. But as I learn more about monochromatic photography, I will be playing with some more 'professional' film. As for getting it developed easily...there is a camera store near me, that does developing/etc...however, I think they have to do mail-out for anything other than C41.




dxqcanada said:


> One thing to remember when shooting B&W ... you have to mentally discard the color when you look at a scene.
> You have to see in monochrome ... see everything in tones of blacks, greys and whites.


Yeah, so I've read. I am enrolling in a 'Shooting Techniques' class for SLR/DSLR cameras in Jan. The next class I may take might just be the monochromatic course.


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

I remember one thing I did (many decades ago) when I first shot B&W ... I took a picture of a bunch of different colored objects that I had.
When I got the B&W print back ... I looked at how the colors represented themselves in monochrome.
I memorized this to view future scenes as the film would reproduce.
After a while it becomes second nature.
Then I bought a number of different color filters, and remembering my Art classes ... I used these to lighten or darken specific color subjects to manipulate how the B&W film would capture them. My primary color filters were, Red, Yellow, and Green.


----------



## dots (Nov 9, 2011)

Ilford Delta 100 my favorite. Also Rollei 100 Tonal. Ilford HPS800 and Afga APX100 too, but alas, no more  



dxqcanada said:


> ADavis85 said:
> 
> 
> > Kodak "Professional" C41.
> ...


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

Interesting idea, I will definitely have to try that. I've been learning (about photography in general, not just B&W) by just going out and taking pictures, and seeing how they turn out. But I'm very interested in taking some actual classes. I feel like I, personally, benefit from a classroom environment.


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

Kodak Panatomic-X was my favoured B&W film. After it was discontinued I then switched to Ilford Pan-F plus and Agfa APX25 (awesome images with medium format).


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

And, again, everyone...thanks a lot for the comments, and advice. I'm taking it all very seriously.


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 9, 2011)

ADavis85 said:


> Interesting idea, I will definitely have to try that. I've been learning (about photography in general, not just B&W) by just going out and taking pictures, and seeing how they turn out. But I'm very interested in taking some actual classes. I feel like I, personally, benefit from a classroom environment.



If you can find a course with B&W developing and printing, you will really understand how to use that medium.


----------



## ADavis85 (Nov 9, 2011)

Yeah, that's definitely what I want to do...learn to develop film myself. It seems rewarding, and frankly...quite fun. After I take the Shooting Techniques class, the next step will be a monochrome class and developing etc.


----------

