I also think they happen to make pretty awesome subjects for photography, especially in the learning stages. So as you may have noticed, I take a lot of pictures of trees.
Recently I took a shot of the same tree with two different cameras.
Let us compare then, shall we?
I should note that they were taken a week apart from each other, and although they were both taken around the same time of day, lighting conditions were different enough to maybe make comparing the two shots a bit unfair.
Let's do it anyway.
The second one is better.
I mean, clearly.
But why is it better? That's the stuff I need to figure out so that I can get better, you know?
For one thing, I have got to start taking notes for every shot on every roll in all the cameras from now on. Because I suspect that the Holga may have been loaded with a lower speed film, and the day was slightly overcast, though by no means completely cloudy. I haven't told you all about my Holga yet, but it has just two aperatures, helpfully labeled with a little cloud and a sun. The actual working aperature is said to vary from camera to camera. According to the manual, cloudy is f/8, and sunny f/11.
I do know that I had set it for cloudy, for the slightly overcast conditions and the fact that I was shooting at a lovely estate which is basically surrounded by forest on all sides. So with the aperture being set as widely as possible, it is obvious that a higher speed film would have been better for the situation.
So there's that. I think I should always use 400 in the Holga unless it's a not a cloud in the sky type of day. Also, that film may have been expired. (Notes!).
The Minolta most definitely had 400.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay so I am either a totall dumbass for not having realized til just now that it might say on the negatives what kind of film it is, or I am a genius for having just now said to myself "Hey! I should see if there's any film identification markings on the negatives!"
Either way, I can now officially inform you that both pictures were using some sort of Kodak 400 speed film. Huh. Perhaps it was much cloudier than I remember? One great thing is that I can go back there on any Sunny afternoon and take the shot again and again until I get it right.
You can tell that I'm standing in pretty much the same position in both shots, and at about the distance, as I recall. I'm still trying to learn to properly compose with the Holga's useless viewfinder. I got close this time- there's pretty much amount of tree in each picture. I think if I had stepped just a couple of inches closer, it would be better. Holding the camera straight would help, too, of course. But you don't understand, I wasn't even holding the Holga to my eye. It was probably at least six inches from my face in terms of depth, and possibly height.
Holgas are weird. I mean, I'm still getting to know it, and I've taken some really cool pictures with it, but I still feel like I have no idea how to hold it.
As for the shot taken with the Minolta, it was the last of the roll. I had been in shutter mode, but switched back to auto for the tree. And really, I was thinking more about finishing the roll than taking a perfect picture of that tree, so I wasn't trying that hard. I love that thing. The camera, I mean, not the picture, which is not bad, but not great, either. Good practice.
What I really need to do is go back there with both cameras and put the Minolta on the same (aprox) aperture as the Holga- try to make duplicate every factor for both shots and do another, more equal and accurate comparison.
Here are some more shots I took with the Minolta that day. It's just so beautiful there.
In the ones of the stream, I experimented for the first time with a very high shutter speed, so as to try to capture the movement in the water. I think I was somewhat successful in that regard, especially in that last one.
No comments:
Post a Comment