I've been lurking here a while this past summer, waiting for the day I had something to actually post. I've recently started the first year of a portfolio program at The School of the Photographic Arts: Ottawa (http://www.spao.ca) and will primarily be shooting with a Hasselblad 500C/M for the next two years.

Yesterday evening I took a research trip for a still life assignment to a nearby drain. The purpose of the trip was to test different lighting possibilities for a series of shots I'll be taking in the coming weeks. One of them in particular (which happens to be the lighting I'll be using) looked pretty good on it's own without the planned subject matter, so I thought I'd post it.



The next two were just for padding out the roll.




This last one is a really thick negative, so the scanner didn't handle it too well. I salvaged what I could of it.

They were all taken on Ilford Pan-F+ 50 ISO roll film and developed by myself with Rodinol at 1/50.

First one is great, the other 2 could have been great but I guess the way you metered the scene was not correct. You should have used spot metering on the right place and I suspect you used average metering. Correct? What kind of meter do you use, a Metered Prism or a separate light meter??

Handheld incident meter, a Minolta Flash Meter IV.

I was taking readings off the walls, rather than outside. I'm also purposefully overexposing the film to get thick negatives. The scanner didn't handle them too well, so I got a bunch of nastiness in the highlights. Once I get into the darkroom it should allow those last two a bit more give for dodging/burning.

It's been a while since I've been working with film, and it's definitely the first time I've been restricted to hendheld meters so I've got a lot to learn still. That's what school is for, I hope.

That first shot is BOMB!

I'm curious to see what prints look like, scan 'em when you get them! I find that digital scanners don't always do negative film justice since the "actual" exposure of the image on the neg is so up to interpretation by definition of the medium, as opposed to reversal film where there's a clear visual definition of what's on the film. I find the exposure of the first shot (as it appears) very attractive. The other two are a bit light, but the contrast is so wack (in a good way, I <3 Pan-F) I dunno if it should go much darker.

Posted by Quarantine That first shot is BOMB! I'm curious to see what prints look like, scan 'em when you get them!

Will do, I'll need to have prints of the still life assignment made for October 16th, so expect some scans posted around that time. Considering it was the 3rd roll I've shot in the camera and definitely more challenging metering, I think they turned out pretty well. The last two have plenty of detail in the negatives, just the scanner wasn't playing nicely with them. Once I get a bit of free time I'll spend a few hours at school playing with them (and doing a lot of burning) and see what I can come up with.

The next two years of school are going to be pretty amazing, from what I've seen of this camera so far.