About a week ago, I took a walk in a local park with a Hasselblad 501C/M and a 350mm lens to see if I could get down with long lenses, which I generally don’t like very much (see previous post).
I didn’t feel like I’d done very well at the time, and the film I got back from it yesterday confirms that I was right. As I’m not used to shooting with long lenses, I’m not surprised that I didn’t really feel like I was shooting as myself. At times I felt like I was trying to look through Vicky Slater‘s eyes, but doing a crap job of it.
I should also note that I have a really hard time connecting with landscapes through "normal" (sharp, even coverage) lenses in general.
As promised, here are some of the results, shot on the new Kodak Portra 400NC-2.
Close to something, maybe, but no cigar.
These are the lab’s proof scans. I think this shot has the most potential, if I can pull more detail out of the trees when I re-scan it. I’ll reserve judgment until I see it.
It feels kind of pretty, in a really classically conservative way. Which I think may be my problem with long lenses and "clean" landscapes in general: when I like them, they usually feel very reserved and forced into a box. I may find something aesthetically pretty in what I’ve shot after the fact, but it’s not how I generally see, especially not landscapes.
This isn’t great, but I suppose it’s passable as geometric masturbation, which is a type of photo I love to make but don’t think necessarily makes for compelling viewing unless it’s done extremely well. Kind of like playing a 20 minute jam with a band: really fun for the people playing, but not something you’d inflict on anybody else.
Depth of field test with a long view/burn frame at the end of the roll. Safe crap.
Your commentary makes it all worthwhile!
:)
How do you mean ‘through my eyes’ Nic?