Submitter's name:	Andy Radcliffe
Title:	Ruined Farm, Tholt-y-will.
Gear used:	M-1, 24/2.8 with 25A filter, Manfrotto 190 tripod, Gosen Multisix meter.
Aperture:	f 11
Shutter speed:	1/30th
Film:	Ilford Delta 400
Technical information:	I rated the Delta 400 at 320 and developed in Paterson FX39. Scanned with Acer Scanwit 2720 at 2,700 ppi.(Re-sized for submission of course)
Subject information:	100 years ago around here there were dozens of hill farms like this one, all probably inhabited by a family of four or six. Now, almost without exception, they lie in ruins, and every year that passes sees them absorbed more and more into the landscape of the moorland that surrounds them.I took this on a bright but bitterly cold day and it's easy to see why the occupants left for a less harsh existence.........
Here you can leave some comments about this picture. Please fill out all the fields before submitting the form. Once you're done filling out the form, click the "Leave comments" button, after which you can see your comments down below.
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Comments:

Comment left by: Wayne Harridge (no e-mail specified)

Great composition with the rubble leading in from the bottom.

Comment left by: Chris (ftog@threeshoes.co.uk)

I might describe the contrast as too high, but that is what makes it look so harsh. Nicely spotted.

Comment left by: Jodi Jakeway (jjakeway@chartermi.net)

I like this composition...the bare limbs sprawling about really lend to the 'abandoned' feeling of this shot...the high contrast really gives it a look of harshness...great job.

Comment left by: John Lind (no e-mail specified)

My initial thought was "too harsh" and the the contrast should be reduced. However, it reminds me of outdoor scenes from very old silent movies . . . also high contrast from the orthochromatic film . . . albeit the 25A lops off the other end of the spectrum compared to the orthochromatics. Base and trunk of tree well positioned in the composition.

Comment left by: Ken N (no e-mail specified)

Delta 400 has an interesting characteristic in that it has a slightly extended near-IR sensitivity as compared to other ISO 400 films. Combine that with the 25A filter and you can see hints of IR coming out. I'm sure the negative contains additional detail and texture in the shadows which kinda disapper in this screen presentation. A very fine picture, indeed. One that must be gorgeous on a chemical print. This is a picture that draws and holds my interest. A photo that would be fresh and appealing years later--a picture that can be "studied".

Comment left by: Boris Grigorov (no e-mail specified)

I really like it

Comment left by: Joel Wilcox (no e-mail specified)

Has a cold, moonscape feel to it. It took me several viewings to get hooked into it. I think that's the web (or my monitor), which favors bouyant images. I'd enjoy seeing a print of this.

Comment left by: Anonymous (no e-mail specified)

Sincere thanks for all your comments -although I agree that the contrast does seem excessive when viewed on screen,when seen as a silver or even an inkjet print there is , as Ken suggested, considerable visible detail in most shadow areas. Even a little for example in the small bush just to the right of centre, and certainly in the foreground shadows. Mind you, I rarely produce what could be termed a "soft" print anyway -a press guy I worked for years ago used to describe me as "one of those soot-and-whitewash merchants".

Comment left by: Charlie Geilfuss (cgeilfuss@dycon.com)

Excellent composition and contrast. I gotta get some of that Agfa B&W.

Comment left by: Damon Wood (no e-mail specified)

Nice composition and location. A little too much shadow I think, but whites and darks in B&W is difficult to control.

Comment left by: Peter Collins (pjc1652@aol.com)

Beautifully composed. The chemical print must be a gem. I like the degree of contrast - happy to join the 'soot-and-whitewash brigade!

[Previous]

[Return to index]

[Next]