Surrey Street market was granted a Royal Charter in 1276. Millets is a a shop selling outdoor equipment.
This was another experiment with the yellow/green filter and I can't say I like it. Contrast has been reduced too much. I also wish I had given this shot a little more exposure.
I should do so well. I'm also feeling my way through the detail of yellow/orange/yel-grn. Landscape or anything where foliage is prominent, it seems helpful & gives the expected boost in exposure, lightening the folliage. 'Seems to wash out or moderate contrast in the sky.
This seems like Britain's version of NYC's flatiron bldg. Quite photogenic. The presence of people, normal activity, sidewalk stands gives more interest for me than exclusively architecture.
Haha. Yes it is a very modest sort of "Flatiron". It's an interesting building because as well as being on the corner, the street levels are different.
Nicely done, the dodging and burning (dodging cars and burning film). Yes, the building (and therefore the photograph) is most interesting because of the differing street levels. You guys are going to convince me soon enough all i need is a Zeiss S-I camera as my MF tool.
Very witty. I had to re-read your comment as it is a negative scan and not a print. Yes some challenging dodging of cars and people. For once the building is straight unlike my other wonky photos. I'm still finding some very odd and disappointing angles in my photos despite trying hard. I think it is just more difficult with this type of camera. I may take a break and use my SLR again for a bit. MF can get expensive and tiring. Only 12 shots on a roll and my scanner can only do 3 frames at once so it takes ages as well. I have learnt how to get 2X 120 films on a developing reel and that saves me time and chemicals. I shot 2 rolls of Pan-F yesterday and I really have messed that up somehow. Everything looks underexposed. I must check I didn't set the meter incorrectly. They are a dreary set of dark photos, a bit of a setback. Somehow I thought I might get better results now but I never did 20 years ago so I don't why I had such optimism! Edit: light meter was set correctly for the Pan-F mentioned.
I like these images you put here in the galleries. There is nothing wonky at all about any of your compositions. Don't know from Pan-F, never experienced it. I think quality counts not quantity, and that the difference in the two formats is about the circumstances and situation not the number of frames that can be popped off. What your images convey does not really strike me a "popped off", nor as "candid" fleeting opportunity of street photography. And, of that roll of 35mm you would likely only want a few frames anyway, so the perceived scanning inconvenience is, in my opinion, rather more a strawman than a reality.
Yes, that is true. MF is definitely something that needs more time in composing especially with an elderly camera like this. It is not something that could be used for candid pictures. For one thing, I am too slow to focus; for another it takes to long to set the aperture and shutter to be any use for candid photos but I have an SLR for this. I think 12 shots on a roll does lead to more discipline -I stood around for quite a long time waiting for the light to change when I was taking these photos. On the other hand, if it took 3 shots to bracket exposure 2 of the 3 might be crooked in some way but I haven't posted those wonky shots here. I took 3 of the Town Hall (which is a big Victorian building with a clock tower) and I am not pleased with any of them. I do feel a bit like a kid using a camera for the first time when I see most of a roll at silly angles. It may have something to do with the fact I am significantly astigmatic.
I'll post one of the Town Hall pictures and see what you think.....