Suzanne Revy said:I love his work! I have never heard of him before, but there is a wonderful quality to his images, and he has captured rural life with such dignity. His work also reminds me of the French painter Millet. Thank you for pointing this work out. It's just wonderful!
This was in fact the reason why he used the old uncoated lenses - makes quite a difference. I knew someone once who did a series of pictures of a village in the South of France at midday, normally a total no-no because of the screaming contrast of the overhead sun, but he used an old Nikon F and original lens, which shortened the tone scale considerably and gave a very pleasing effect. I use an uncoated 5 cm Elmar myself from time to time for the same reason.blansky said:It must be the light there, but I find it fascinating the lack of contrast between the highlights and the shadows.
It's almost a 3:1 ratio in broad daylight, with the pattern of the trees creating shadows on the ground. In most places I've been the ration is far far higher.
They must have a very subdued partial cloudy/sunlight there.
Michael
Dave Wooten said:John,
Thanks for posting this![/QUOTE
It,s a pleasure. A few more technical details on Ravilious, technique; He favoured Tri-X pull processed in D76 @ 250 iso as far as I recall. He printed all his own, until a skin condition prevented this in latter years.
Regards, John.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it looks like two of these picutures were taken either into the sun or with a very strong side light. (I'm juding by the shadows.) With an uncoated lens and even an impovised hood, would this tend to cause the very soft feeling and lack of harsh contrast? Either way, I really like these a lot, thanks for posting.
unless its the scan or my monitor the lead cow has lost all detail in its face
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?