Triathlete on film. A second version.

I posted an image of Amy on the blog yesterday that I'd done with the Sony a77 but I promised you I would post an image from the two rolls of film I shot, as well. This is a pretty straightforward version of a frame from my twelve chances on Fuji Acros 100 black and white film. It's been scanned on a flatbed scanner and sharpened a bit. This will sound very quaint but I also spent some time eliminating dust spots. We used to call this, "spotting." It was necessary in the days when everything was film.  It's much easier to do now with PhotoShop...

This is as close as my 150mm Zeiss lens will focus on the Hasselblad without extension tubes.
The film was developed, with no special instructions, by Holland Photo Imaging, here in Austin, Tx.

I know what it is I like about the film version but I'll let you draw your own conclusions...

I want to thank Amy for being patient with me while I sprayed here in the face with (hopefully) warm water in order to get the water drops (click on the image to see them clearly).  I hope she doesn't return the favor by smacking me with a kick board at practice tomorrow.

I am happy with the image. I love the tonality.


  1. digital certainly is -can be- great, and it has taken over, for obvious reasons.
    however, film does have 'something' that is hard to clearly define and point out ... it is excellent to see similar (and very good) images side by side, taken with both media, it does help get the point across.

    i am soon heading back to japan and india on a trip, this time i will bring both the M8 and the M4, take some of the shots with both, and see how they compare ... i cannot wait :-)

  2. Ok on the technical end the highlights on the eyelids are more pleasing and gradual. more detail around the eyes as well.

  3. To me, Amy's eyes are sharper with the focus dropping off by the time it reaches her ears and hair. The image simply looks "clearer" to me. SHe also looks more at ease in this photograph.

  4. I like this one most. It shows more gray and isn't that harsh like the sony file.

  5. haha i'll remember i'm supposed to smack you next time i get to masters. however, this photo is pretty awesome! daresay, maybe better than the one yesterday?

  6. Two thumbs up for film over digital. Sharper with smoother gradation in tones, especially noticeable in the background.

  7. I do love your portraits, and find them inspiring. I admire also your skill with bending artificial light to your will, a skill I've never acquired. Possibly because my photographic life has barely risen above the amateur level, I have not had the need. I can enjoy capturing a lovely ambiance when it exists, and when it takes a day off, so can I. But when ambiance smiles, so do I: http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/07/ambiance-and-blue-refrigerator.html

  8. Lovely portraits. i prefer the film image as Amy looks alive! On your larger magnification, the drops of water, the hair all look sort of fake! They are not exactly cropped.Maybe my monitor.
    Digital is quicker but at what price? TY Kirk for this lesson.
    In an age where digital is "so much better than ....." i go out with my old film cameras and have a ball. i also don't have to edit hundreds of shots..Of course occasionally i goof up! If i'd taken one more shot.. That is also part of the joy.


Comments. If you disagree do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog!