HOME | DD
haikman — of angels
Published: 2008-01-18 00:47:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 534; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Vintage Fashion, re-scanmodel : Tanya [link]
featured by *OneTaintedAngel
Hasselblad 501CM
Planar CFE 2.8/80
Fujichrome RVP
XP in C41
straight scan, no digital post-processing
Copyright Helen Aikman 2008.
Not to be reproduced without permission.
Related content
Comments: 20
Your work is fantastic, I like very much the crossed process.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
love everything about this - it is brilliant, stylish and so original..
you are an incredible portraitist. .
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I want an Hasselblad too!!!
You make me speechless everytime
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank god there is at least one model left in the world that has not plucked her eyebrows as if they were poultry - when the makeup is this good please list to whom we give credit.
I was taught that photographers use SLRs and artists use waist level finders. Just listen to the sound of it, "Waist Level Finder". I would want this term on my resume' whether I had ever loaded a 220 back in a dark bag or not.
Why bother making this one out of focus? Is it that the depth of field did not offer you enough space to communicate the posture?
Just curious.
7
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
waist-level finder...yes I agree, but the best bit is the clunk of the shutter, can't beat that!
I shot this on f2.8 due to low light levels, so naturally I got the depth of field but I wanted it to have that feel too. I slightly defocused her face through the lens but the scan has actually decreased the sharpness a little too. The general feel that I wanted to create was one of grit and age rather than a crisp colourful rich fashion image.
Thankyou James.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like the feel of this.
How does a MF body compare to an SLR one to use? I have never had the chance to use one, and given the privce of digital backs I never will
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well mine has no digi back, I just shoot film with it and I intend to keep it that way! I've had a quick go with the CFV digi back for my Hassy but for the price it aint worth it particularly...yes the quality is there indeed but as a screen it's pretty poor quality to get a good judge of the shot. It's argued that it's only a screen and should be treated as film, but in that case what's the point of being able to view the digi shot if the screen quality is no reflection of the file quality? anyway, ramble over...
The MF body in my opinion is a dream to use in comparison to SLR. You can feel the quality in your hands almost. The weight of it is gorgeous and suits me as it just feels that much better in every respect than 35mm. The functions are so basic and the waist-level finder gives such a clearer view of your set. Can you tell that I prefer MF?!!
But I still think that 5x4 knocks socks off anything
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Improvements are always good, although your work is amazing! you've got the right idea, if you don't mind me saying so. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ha, that's by far the best way to go. ^^ maybe that's why all your work is so good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
