Run to the Hollywood Sign

Hollywood Sign

Sunday morning, 6:30 am, a small bunch of us gathered at A Runner’s Circle for the monthly run to the Hollywood Sign. I was running on tired legs – this was my third hill run in as many days – so I happily volunteered to sweep. A few of our small crew are great road runners, but not so experienced at trails or hills, and the 13-mile-run kinda kicked their asses. For me, it was 26 miles and 4,300 feet up hill in 3 days; my legs were missing a bit of zip when we were done. After the run, pancakes at EAT.

Summer came late this year, only lasted 2 weeks, and by the end of August it was already Fall. Odd. Usually these are summer’s hottest days. The foggy, cool, humid autumn morning was perfect for a beautiful run with friends.

4 replies
  1. elodie
    elodie says:

    The texture of the fog in these views is amazing — actually raises goosebumps as if the air were cold and damp. The mood isn’t the same, but they reminded me of the Salton Sea photos. I love the use of the grain in the film.
    What film do you use? And what’s your workflow like once you take the pictures?

  2. geoff
    geoff says:

    Ilford FP4, developed in D-76 1:1 My workflow: develop film, but beyond that, no wet darkroom anymore. I scan the negs using a 35mm Canon film scanner. Aside from the same sorts of adjustments I’d make in a darkroom – contrast, tonality (curves), minimal dodging and burning – and touching up dust – there’s no photoshop. I’m not a fan of digital manipulation, but I’m not into the hipster lo-fi Holga expired film drugstore development approach either. I’m just into old school film, same as I’ve been shooting forever.

    The Salton Sea shots were Ilford HP5, also D76 1:1

  3. elodie
    elodie says:

    It’s interesting you don’t print any more. I look at some of your pictures and wish I could see a print — like the panoramas from the sign. The way the land melts into the fog is utterly graceful, but I’m left with the feeling that I’m missing some richness of texture that’s on the film, but not on my display. Could be I have a crappy display of course, or maybe a limitation of web resolution. Are you generally satisfied with on-screen images vs prints?

  4. geoff
    geoff says:

    I didn’t say no prints. I said no wet darkroom prints. Digital darkroom, digital printer. You can also get great digital prints on traditional silver gelatin fiber paper at some pro labs. But the old school darkroom is pretty much a thing of the past, I’m sorry to say. The papers I used to love are no longer made, not sure what’s available in terms of chemicals…hell, even neg scanners (a recent enough invention) are already obsolete.

    Analog photography is by no means a natural process, and the results are very different from what the eye sees, but it has textures, and flaws, and artifacts that make it resemble eyesight, even when it’s in black-and-white. Digital looks artificial, to me. It’s like hi-def video, a sort of hyper non-reality that makes the real look like cgi.

    The screen you’re viewing these on is, at least, a mac, which means it has a better tonal range. But it’s like looking at photos on TV. Not really a substitute, is it?


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply to geoff Cancel reply