Strayhound
My wife spent a couple months in Bisbee, Arizona just after high school, and since we were going to Tucson, I thought I'd check out the area using Google Maps/Street View for something of interest to photograph. This Greyhound Scenicruiser is on Erie Street in Lowell, Arizona (Outside Bisbee).
I thought I'd have fun shooting with my first SLR and my latest mirrorless.
First photograph:
Canon R5 w/24-70mm L USM
f/11 ~ 1/320 ~ ISO 100 ~ 48mm (oops)
Second Photograph:
Minolta ST-T201 w/50mm f/1.7 with Panatomic-X (exp Jun 1978)
f/11 ~ SS (I forgot)~ ISO 32 ~ 50mm
4 Comments
This is neat, Dean. I like the darker second one (mysterious side of the building behind the bus), but I also like the cowboys in the first one.
Interesting comparison, Dean! As often, I agree with Photo Girl, although the nerd in me likes the shadow detail (e.g. in the tyres) in the digital one. Good work in both cases.
Looking at Nathan McCreery's recent view camera images, while I admire the dedication of people like him, I'm not convinced I could ever tell the difference between, say, a real selenium-toned traditional print and an appropriately processed digital image.
What do you think, having done this?
Somebody that is good in photo editing and pass any image as any style according to my 71yo eyes.
Panatonic X was always an exceedingly difficult film to deal with. I loved the very fine grain and image sharpness. I never liked processing it because it had no give either way in processing. I used to run it in D-76 which was, and still is, kind of the gold standard of film developers. But what I remember was that it was very difficult to hold shadow detail. So what you've done here is very good. Panatonic X and PlusX had so little latitude in processing that you couldn't use an N- or N+ developing. The digital one has cleaner highlights, and better shadow luminance. I am very surprised to see anyone that still has Panatonic film, so good for you.