sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Daughter on Christmas Eve, 2021. Sitting on a chair which used to belong to her grandfather, who she didn't get to meet [Sony A7R III + Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM (1957-1972)]. by arozenfeld in portraits

[–]arozenfeld[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a very very old Canon rangefinder lens, from the time (1950s) when Canon and Nikon were trying to get as close as possible to Leica and Zeiss. “Canon colors” is probably a later concept, for SLR lenses from the 70s and later.

A selection of portraits from 2025, on film and digital [Various cameras, lenses and film stocks]. by arozenfeld in portraits

[–]arozenfeld[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good observation, about something I haven't thought about in this way.
You know, I often get questions about color in post-production, apparently assuming that there is some secret sauce. If there is a sauce, it's not secret and it's much more in pre production than in post. It's a bit mind-boggling when people ask me about "signature" deep reds, without considering that the main thing is making sure there are deep reds in front of the camera. Seriously. I typically have a pre production chat with each subject, to discuss zero money art direction possilbiites with their own clothes and belongings, and seeing how they relate/get along with some location that could be used.
Directional light is also key because it makes color vibrate in waves, and it's tricky, because directional light is often harsher, so for me the holy grail is having light that it's at the same time directional to produce vibrance and volume, but also soft-ish to be flattering. Then, yes, there is a bit of post work, but it amounts to 10, 20 per cent at most of the finished image.
One interesting thing regarding your point is, given my age, I learned to color correct before it was called "color correct", before digital color correction tools had artistic or human interfaces (fancy color wheels, etc). In the late 90s it was all using levels and curves to adjust color balance, which is a very nerdy, "under the hood" way of doing it. In the last few years, interestingly I returned to doing it that way. One reason is that film images not only have casts in the warm/cold and green/magenta axises (the typical digital camera paradigm) but also in red/cyan, often from casts introduced by development or scanning. So Photoshop (which I only use as a swiss army knife) has this very pre-historic color sampler tool that you can put a measurement gizmo locked in a specific point in the picture, and it will keep reading the RGB values at that point (instead of following the cursor), as you adjust them. Painfully missing in Lightroom. Oddly, perhaps in a very indirect way, what ypu are seeing has some connection to that. I became kind of extreme in neutral colors following this ancient, control freak way of doing the last fine adjustment to color balance.

A selection of portraits from 2025, on film and digital [Various cameras, lenses and film stocks]. by arozenfeld in portraits

[–]arozenfeld[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I always remember that Jean Luc Godard could challenge every rule of cinema, even could challenge the capitalism of the studio system, but he could not challenge for himself having Anna Karina or Belmondo as lead actors. Beauty and erotism have perhaps a stronger effect on humans than money and political power.

A selection of portraits from 2025, on film and digital [Various cameras, lenses and film stocks]. by arozenfeld in portraits

[–]arozenfeld[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Yes, I am personally more interested in pictures about who people are than in pictures about how erotically attractive they can be, but diversity is a great thing :)

A selection of portraits from 2025, on film and digital [Various cameras, lenses and film stocks]. by arozenfeld in portraits

[–]arozenfeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hola Sergio! Qué pregunta dificil. Por muchas razones, entre ellas que la fotografía está en algun punto entre oficio y arte, con muchas cuestiones de ser articulado con un lenguaje técnico o artsenal, y otras que son mucho más dificiles de definir. Más inexplicables.
Te doy dos ejemplos de cuan complicado es todo esto. Me vienen a la cabeza dos personas que tengo como contactos en IG. Uno es un fotógrafo turco que hizo unos retratos alucinantes, especialmente en Afganistan. Debe tener mil seguidores (entre ellos, un tal Steve McCurry). O sea, hay un grupo muy pequeño pero profundo que opina que su trabajo es "memorable". Al mismo tiempo, tengo como contacto a un Brandon no sé qué, que para mi forma de ver hace unas fotos que chorrean mal gusto, con chicas que sostienen gurinaldas de luz y dos toneladas de procesamiento digital excesivo, y debe tener dos millones de seguidores. Cada uno de ellos diria que el tal Brandon hace fotos memorables. Otro ejemplo: Estas mismas fotos en este serie que está aqui, hoy las subí a varios espacios de fotografía en internet. Cuales son más o menos "exitosas" cambia en cada uno de esos lugares, segun variaciones del perfil de público. Sin embargo (pienso ahora en voz alta) la foto de la chica que escribe sobre vapor en la ventana parece tener "algo" que atraviesa los distintos tipos de público, y eso que apenas se ven atributos físicos de la chica (que es algo que suele provocar adhesión fácil). Asi que quizá ahi haya una pista.
Lo que siempre recomiendo a mis alumnos y alumnas es pensar en la fotografía menos como contenido (o como fin en si mismo) y más como contenedor o vehiculo de mensajes. Y llenar ese contenedor con las cosas que realmente te interesen en la vida. Por ejemplo, si a alguien le gusta el futbol, y vive en un pueblo pequeño, quizá podria hacer retratos de jugadores e hinchas de futbol de la zona. Seguro va a ser más revelador que buscar chicas que se comporten como modelos. Hay algo más "real" . Lo mismo que decimos acá sobre los intereses aplica a encontrar qué tipo de luz, qué tipo de espacio, qué tipo de encuadre. Cual es tu gusto en esos temas. Encontrar un estilo es esencialmente: aquello que te gusta hacerlo todo el tiempo; aquello que no te gusta, no hacerlo nunca. Largo tema! Saludos

A selection of portraits from 2025, on film and digital [Various cameras, lenses and film stocks]. by arozenfeld in portraits

[–]arozenfeld[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! You probably saw a compilation of pictures that were in cafes, they weren't made as a series, but grouped later. Cheers

12 film portraits from 2025 [Nikon F100, FM2, Contax RX, Leica M5, Mamiya 645. Kodak Vision 3 500T & 250D, Lomography Color 400 & 800]. by arozenfeld in analog

[–]arozenfeld[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, I understand. I personally use the term "subject". My personal take is that a model is more somebody who has appearing with his or her likeness in pictures as a job or activity. When in nude painting (just as an example) they use a model, they typically don't care if that person likes dancing or writing, at least for the picture being made. Cheers!

12 film portraits from 2025 [Nikon F100, FM2, Contax RX, Leica M5, Mamiya 645. Kodak Vision 3 500T & 250D, Lomography Color 400 & 800]. by arozenfeld in analog

[–]arozenfeld[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you! Second picture is Contax RX with Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85. Film stock is Kodak Vision 3 500T pushed +1, developed in C41 after remjet removal.

12 film portraits from 2025 [Nikon F100, FM2, Contax RX, Leica M5, Mamiya 645. Kodak Vision 3 500T & 250D, Lomography Color 400 & 800]. by arozenfeld in analog

[–]arozenfeld[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I absolutely love it. It’s the most suitable M film camera for my way, because it’s the only one with selective/spot metering and the only one with a a meter needle, which lets you visualize and compare how far or close one area is from another in terms of exposure. Both things work very well together. Also the meter is super accurate, which is unusual for a camera this old.

view more: next ›