Jump to content
Alan7140

Coffee shop film noir

Recommended Posts

Injecting invented drama into a normal day at Cheeky Little Place coffee & snack shop, Matt & Evie hamming it up.

 

4MVzEeT.jpg

 

 

 

Kiev-60, Zodiak-B 3,5/30 fisheye, T-Max 100.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect it’s what you were trying to achieve, but for my taste it’s a bit too black!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. Cries out for an apt caption.

Mike, we know that you are not a black and white kinda guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, Mike, it is deliberately dark and underexposed - otherwise it would just have been a pristine shot of the inside of a coffee shop.

 

Thanks, Viv - feel free to offer suggestions as to caption. It's 2:26 a.m. here and my brain is foggy from insomnia at the moment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breakfast on the Dark Side

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That hipster asked for some kind of special tea. We're going to have to put up another sign." 

 

I'm glad you've got the working Kiev working, Alan. :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just that it’s B/W, rather to me it seems a tad too gloomy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mike G said:

Its not just that it’s B/W, rather to me it seems a tad too gloomy!

 

It's a technique largely lost in the digital age, Mike - underexpose to lose darker detail in shadows and drop all but the strongest highlights back to mid-tones, and is what used to be properly termed as 'low key". With digital all you end up with is banding and noise when under-exposing, with B&W film just the grain gets accentuated, and being irregular it isn't so jarring.

 

You can use it to add a mood and atmosphere to a subject which wasn't the case in reality. As I'm again exploring the things film was good at, and knowing that this shot could be repeated at any time, I underexposed by two full stops, shooting 1/60@f/3.5, where 1/15@f/3.5 would have been more realistic given the low lighting towards the back of the shop. Doing this sort of thing also forces you to think ahead and commit to the likely outcome, without the ability to chimp. Also weighing into the 'think ahead' equation is that each frame costs around 50 cents to take.

 

I'm aware that the look is something of an acquired taste, however, and there's no rule that says everyone must like everything! :D 

Edited by Alan7140
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a powerful image, but I cannot help thinking that the grain will mainly be loved for reasons of nostalgia for film days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Anthony said:

It is a powerful image, but I cannot help thinking that the grain will mainly be loved for reasons of nostalgia for film days. 

 

Thanks, Anthony.

 

It's not so much about loving grain itself as its relatively inoffensive way of presenting itself, I guess. Just imagine what this would have looked like from a digital camera. :)

 

I will add that the grain was blurred and further accentuated in choppiness during the downsampling and jpeg-ing of the original sigma "true" 16MP copy file (cropped square from the 24MP sdQ-H Foveon sensor). At full size it's still certainly still evident but a good deal smoother in tonal transitions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the quote from Dallas  :rofl:

After the shot you scan the negative ? or a positive ? it called my attention that you mention the grain gets accentuated by the resizing leading me to think a very careful processing is needed from the scanning to resizing  to present the image as close to the real thing as possible 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, armando_m said:

... the quote from Dallas  :rofl:

After the shot you scan the negative ? or a positive ? it called my attention that you mention the grain gets accentuated by the resizing leading me to think a very careful processing is needed from the scanning to resizing  to present the image as close to the real thing as possible 

 

I gave up with actually scanning negatives - none of the affordable scanners seem to think that either holding the negative flat or having an accurate focusing system or DoF control through aperture is necessary, and always ended up with sub-standard images as a result.

 

Recently I bought an A4 'light pad' and use the Epson V700 neg holders laid on that under my copy stand with a Sigma sd Quattro-H camera and 70mm Sigma macro lens to both accurately focus and copy the neg, using aperture to keep everything sharp if the neg isn't perfectly flat, as described in a post I made here:

"I'll never scan another neg again.... ever"

 

As for resizing - using the Sigma camera in this way the actual film grain is pretty much perfectly resolved in the full-size file; however when downsizing something has got to give as reducing the resolution isn't just a matter of reducing the number of pixels through interpolation, but actually having some film grain detail disappearing from the image altogether, and other grain being retained - net result being that the grain is irregularly accentuated or simply appears larger than it really is - to which we have to add jpeg lossy compression, which further messes with the image, and further have to contend with the final being displayed on a variety of monitors at varying resolutions. There's no way around all of this, it's just physics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.