Asbury Woods Creek

• 

  Chuck_P

• Oct 10, 2007

Of the flowing water photos that I've seen that have appealed to me the most, they have been in the 1/4 to 1/15 sec range. I think the 2 sec exposure creates too much of a blur and takes away from the qualities of the very high resolution techpan film.

 

• 

  Andrew Moxom

• Oct 10, 2007

T'is a nice photo. I do find the border bleed at the bottom a little distracting, and the RHS looks like there was an easel reflection. They need printing down a little.

Still a good image and good control of film that is normally very fussy!

 

• 

  djkloss

• Oct 10, 2007

thanks guys for the tips. I'm trying to stay away from scanning my negatives and go for the print even though negatives are easier. I will have to be more careful.
Yes, I agree, Techpan is very fussy! Got any tips?

 

• 

  Andrew Moxom

• Oct 10, 2007

I am in no way a Technical Pan expert, and shyed away from it as it was so finicky. So I have never even tried it. I know it can be mastered, and this image is fairly good overall.

 

• 

  craigclu

• Oct 10, 2007

I was surprised to see that this was 35mm and a zoom lens, to boot! Very nice image and technically well done. The last few rolls of TechPan that I did some years back really came alive in WD2D with very well controlled contrast.

 

• 

  djkloss

• Oct 10, 2007

I'm not familiar with WD2D. Is that a paper or film developer? I'm anxious to try the new Rollei ATP-V1. It's supposed to be a replacement for techpan. It might be hard to get chemicals here though.

 

• SusanK

• Oct 23, 2007

Most of my moving water shots are 30+ seconds long. The water in your image must've been moving quite swiftly to get that amount of blur at only 2 seconds. 2-15 seconds, on slower moving streams, look "jagged" to me... my images at those "short" times, feel like an accident. As though I stumbled and tripped the shutter. Thus, the longggg enxposures.

Very nice image !