ruthenium wrote:
First, you could kindly tell the person in this photo that there are better ways of holding a camera when shooting.
Second, I am curious if the subject was masked when you processed the raw - would you be able to confirm/comment on this?
My daughter has tiny hands and was trying to turn the aperture ring on the Fringer adapter while also not dropping the rig, which is admittedly a bit tight to the body.
Subject was not masked. General edits in LR included -15 highlights, +25 shadows, no lens profile correction applied, and RNI Provia preset at about 70.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
My daughter has tiny hands and was trying to turn the aperture ring on the Fringer adapter while also not dropping the rig, which is admittedly a bit tight to the body.
Subject was not masked. General edits in LR included -15 highlights, +25 shadows, no lens profile correction applied, and RNI Provia preset at about 70.
Thank you - now I understand what her left hand was doing. It is also helpful to know that no masking and local correction on the subject was done - I appreciate your reply!
I don't mean to suggest that local corrections are wrong. In fact, I might have been tempted in this case to mask the subject and slightly enhance the microcontrast.
ruthenium wrote:
Thank you - now I understand what her left hand was doing. It is also helpful to know that no masking and local correction on the subject was done - I appreciate your reply!
I don't mean to suggest that local corrections are wrong. In fact, I might have been tempted in this case to mask the subject and slightly enhance the microcontrast.
No worries at all. I would also normally have done so with a mask, but for the purposes of this thread, I would feel it is disingenuous. Not to mention, it’s already pretty microcontrasty. Lol.
So this is actually how it really is? I was already wondering, because your scans always look authentic. If it's not a photo editing mishap, then I'm even more surprised. Very mysterious.😳
Nifty Fifty wrote:
So this is actually how it really is? I was already wondering, because your scans always look authentic. If it's not a photo editing mishap, then I'm even more surprised. Very mysterious.😳
I didn't notice it until the film was devd - I'll see if I can check out his bike some more next time I'm Venice (and he's around). It was a sweet ride!
Desmolicious wrote:
FYI Holga's mishaps happen in camera!
I also bought a Holga once, but only used it once. Given that I never scanned, but exclusively enlarged black and white prints in the darkroom, the limitation of only being able to expose with a single exposure value, exposure latitude or not, was just too annoying. It was a waste of time and paper. Nevertheless, I like many of the photos others have taken with it. Maybe I'll shoot a CN film sometime and have it scanned; then the exposure isn't so critical, and you can quickly correct a lot in Lightroom. I found a single Holga image when I did a quick search just now. By the way, if you ever want to shoot with filters, here's a little tip. I simply drilled a hole in the bottom of a Hasselblad filter holder and glued it to the lens. That way, I could attach my B50 bayonet filters (see photo).
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I also bought a Holga once, but only used it once. Given that I never scanned, but exclusively enlarged black and white prints in the darkroom, the limitation of only being able to expose with a single exposure value, exposure latitude or not, was just too annoying. It was a waste of time and paper. Nevertheless, I like many of the photos others have taken with it. Maybe I'll shoot a CN film sometime and have it scanned; then the exposure isn't so critical, and you can quickly correct a lot in Lightroom. I found a single Holga image when I did a quick search just now. By the way, if you ever want to shoot with filters, here's a little tip. I simply drilled a hole in the bottom of a Hasselblad filter holder and glued it to the lens. That way, I could attach my B50 bayonet filters (see photo).
Desmolicious wrote:
The ones now have two aperture settings plus a B setting for the shutter.
So you basically have infinite exposure values
You're absolutely right, of course, but I'm not good enough at shooting in B mode to achieve 1/30s or 1/250s.😇
As far as film is concerned, I've never been able to shake my compulsive need to achieve the most perfect exposure. I don't think anyone but me has ever used a Holga with a spot meter, haha. 😄
But seriously, I'm just not the Holga type. I need control, and the viewfinder alone, which doesn't match the actual image, drives me crazy. Incidentally, back then I had the feeling that it didn't matter which aperture I chose; the exposure didn't really change.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
…Incidentally, back then I had the feeling that it didn't matter which aperture I chose; the exposure didn't really change.
It seems that Holga forgot to connect that switch to the actual aperture mechanism on some of those. One of mine does nothing when I try to change apertures - checking w the back off and set to B.
Every now and then I come back and revisit this thread, I love this type of 3D pop shown above and I still believe in the contrast and tonal transitions contribute to the dimensionality. Here's my take.
