In Chartres at Night

[Brian Moore]

Canon F1 and Kodak Tri-X 400 film. Can't remember what, if anything I used as a tripod. It wasn't a tripod, though, I know that much.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Spooky!! I like it!

 

[Ahmad Bhai]

Luuv it maaan. Couple inthe light just ... yeah. & the way it fades into the distance & the ghostly shadowy figures & the bicycles.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Not the usual Chartres shots, and all the better for it!

 

[Pete Askew]

I like this very much Brian, with the pools of light and the slightly blurred figures. Are the dark bands at the bottom extensions of the shadows?

 

[Brian Moore]

Spooky!! I like it!

Thank you, Dan.

- - - Updated - - -

Luuv it maaan. Couple inthe light just ... yeah. & the way it fades into the distance & the ghostly shadowy figures & the bicycles.

Much appreciate, Ahmad.

- - - Updated - - -

Not the usual Chartres shots, and all the better for it!

Thank you, Rob.

- - - Updated - - -

I like this very much Brian, with the pools of light and the slightly blurred figures. Are the dark bands at the bottom extensions of the shadows?

Thank you, Pete. Not sure what you're referring to when you mention the dark bands. On closer inspection (of the posted image) with my glasses off and my face 5 inches from the screen, I see vertical bands that look like some kind of effect from the processing--Rodinal 1:100 "stand"--but these are lighter to me. I keep looking at it Pete but I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Pete Askew]

Actually you are right, they are light bands and extend to the top of the frame. How odd. Too many to be from X-ray machines I would have thought. Maybe it has come from the development. But why so many? Or is it the scan?