PDA

View Full Version : HELP + REFERENCE Using soft focus lenses and the world of "...ism"s.



ScottPhotoCo
9-Jan-2014, 16:25
Good afternoon all! Happy 2014!

Over the past few years I have been experimenting with different processes (medium format film, large format film, wet-plate) and medias (traditional films, expired films, xray film, direct positive paper, aluminum, etc.) and am enjoing the learning process immensely. As I have been learning processes and experimenting I have been spending a lot of time looking at works by photographers and painters both current and historic trying to learn to "see" light, form and composition from a variety of different perspectives. It is now time for me to explore a new ideas in the art world of "...ism"s.

The things I am going to be exploring and researching will be in the realms of pictorialism, tonalism, luminism and impressionism. Perhaps focusing more on the emotion than the object in an image. To actually begin my explorations I have purchased a 16" Kodak Portrait lens to experiment with.

I have never made an image with a soft-focus lens so I would love any direction, technical or experience based that may help me skip some of the beginner mistakes that I'm sure to come upon.

In my ideal world I would love this thread to be a place of conversation about the technical approaches and results of LFF member efforts as well as a place to discuss concepts, ideas and theory of the "...ism"s and how they may add to the efforts of making a successful contemporary image.

Please don't jump in and talk about how much you may hate/dislike or oppose these images. There are tens of thousands of other threads that will be more up your alley. Let's make this thread a place of conversation, learning, good natured discussion of this particular topic.

THANK YOU in advance!

As I await my lens to arrive and am able to share images, here are some images that inspire me...

107984
107985
107986
107987

jcoldslabs
9-Jan-2014, 19:41
Tim,

After pouring over many Pictorialist tomes in recent years, one thing I have concluded is that the printing processes mattered as much as, if not more than, the lenses that were used. This is one of the reasons why most contemporary uses of soft focus lenses tend to look nothing like the images you posted. (Of course, styles have changed, too.) This isn't to say we shouldn't be inspired by these past works, but trying to emulate them with "straight" modern printing or scanning techniques can be a frustrating exercise.

Take the Karl Stuss image of the bridge (third from the top in your post). I'm pretty sure that if you stood in the same spot, at the same time of day, with the same camera and lens but shot it on T-Max and scanned the result you wouldn't come close to the look of the original. Conversely, if you took one of your own modern photographs and made a photogravure or gum-over-platinum print of it you would come closer to that look whether the lens used was soft focus or not.

Anyway, just my two cents. I'm not an expert by any means, although I've developed a keen interest in this period of photography over the past few years after having been weaned on the Group f/64 ethos for far too long.

Jonathan

jcoldslabs
9-Jan-2014, 20:05
To add a personal example to the mix, below is what I consider to be my most Pictorialist-ish image to date, and it was taken with a medium format plastic Diana camera on Plus-X that expired in 1978. Toning added in PS. I realize this contradicts what I said above about process vs. lenses, but in this case the combination of plastic camera and old film seems to have done the trick.

(I realize this is no help at all in regard to your pending Kodak Portrait lens, but it adds to the discussion overall I hope).


http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/Tru-View---Mult-Falls-02.jpg

J.

Jon Shiu
9-Jan-2014, 20:05
Very true that the printing/technique used is important. For example many times a paper negative was used and pencil used to enhance the image. See Creative Camera Art by Dr. Max Thorek.

Jon

ScottPhotoCo
9-Jan-2014, 20:12
Thanks Gents! I appreciate the thoughts and feedback. Two approaches that I thought may assist in this exploration is utilization of the Harman Direct Positive Paper as well as wet-plate collodion. As I don't have a wet darkroom I will have to work with the tools that I have, and I will not resort to Photoshop as I take this journey...

Also, film with sensitivity only to blue spectrum of light seems to more closely come to the feel of what I get when I look at photos such as these. X-ray film may come in handy. :)

ScottPhotoCo
9-Jan-2014, 20:26
108000
108001
108002
108003

A few more that make we want to explore...

jp
9-Jan-2014, 20:51
I love this topic.

For practical advice I've written about my reinhold wollaston meniscus which you could probably find in a couple minutes of searching. It's a heck of a challenge and requires you to actually burn some film, lots of film.

You can make images exactly like the dead pictorialists did. It's about seeing light and dark and knowing how your lens will respond to your adjustments and scene.

My eyes devour pictorialism books. It's closely related to impressionism as that was a popular art style in the late 1800's, and was often traditionally themed or allegorically themed. The themes went out the window after they became cliche'd and in the 20's we had sort of a pictorialism & modernism mashup which I love. Pictorialism is the style that brought allegory, emotions, abstraction, notan, and other great interesting things into photography. If you can visualize the shapes and tones in pictorialism camera-work, straight photography is a walk in the park. Common photo history from the perspective of Newhall seems to regard pictorialism as a fad. It was an epic transformation and teaching tool that informed/skilled the f64 crowd (which then took things in the other direction.)

Read:
Pictorialism into Modernism
After the photo secession
truth beauty
aperture book about Clarence H White
books on kasebier, Kuenh, mortensen, day, coburn, edward s curtis.

ScottPhotoCo
11-Jan-2014, 14:19
I am enjoying this process of learning immensely! jp498 (sorry, I don't know your real name), can you share a link where I might find your writings on your reinhold wollaston meniscus?

I am fortunate to live in SoCal and have access to so much art first-hand. I am also a "reader" at The Huntington Library so I can see original photographs up close by many of the photographers you mentioned. I also have books by Kasebier, Mortensen and Cameron (C. H. White on the way) and have access to original prints by Mortensen and Curtis at the Huntington. Super amazing.

Thanks!


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

ScottPhotoCo
11-Jan-2014, 14:40
Well, my first hurdle in mounting my 16" Portrait lens. May have to trim the top of the flange to fit the DD. Bummer.

108084

Roger Thoms
11-Jan-2014, 15:15
I had a similar problem when I mounted a Pinkham Bi-Quality for a friend and rather than trim the mounting flange I was able to add a wood spacer underneath the flange. From the screw spacing on your flang it looks like it might work on your flange. I might have pictures, and will look to night when I get home. I would seriously avoid trimming the flange, but that's just me.

Roger

Mark Sawyer
11-Jan-2014, 16:36
Thanks Gents! I appreciate the thoughts and feedback. Two approaches that I thought may assist in this exploration is utilization of the Harman Direct Positive Paper as well as wet-plate collodion. As I don't have a wet darkroom I will have to work with the tools that I have, and I will not resort to Photoshop as I take this journey...

Also, film with sensitivity only to blue spectrum of light seems to more closely come to the feel of what I get when I look at photos such as these. X-ray film may come in handy. :)

Consider a simple light blue filter to mimic the spectrum sensitivity of films from 1900 to 1920.

My experience is that wet plate and soft focus lenses don't play well together. Each has it's own signature, and the heavy, sharp artifacts and somber mood of collodion don't compliment the airiness and glow from a soft lens.

For reference, Ernest Purdum's article on the forum's home page is a good start:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html

If you haven't found it yet, Russ Young (a member here) did a wonderful doctoral thesis on soft lenses:

http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505

Jim Galli's website features many examples, comparisons, and insights on classic soft lenses:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/

...and there must be hundreds of threads on soft lenses here on the forum. Plenty to keep you busy!

tgtaylor
12-Jan-2014, 10:14
After pouring over many Pictorialist tomes in recent years, one thing I have concluded is that the printing processes mattered as much as, if not more than, the lenses that were used.

I agree with Jonathon's statement. As a matter of fact that is exactly how I got into Pictoralism: I printed as a Van Dyke an image that was ok as a silver gelatin only to discover that the VD printing process gave it an atmosphere that was lacking as a straight silver print and turned an "ok" image into a much more interesting print. That was a turning point for me and I now give serious consideration to the printing process (and lens) that matches the subject before I set-up and shoot it. Pictoralism is more than using a soft focus lens.

Thomas

Jim Fitzgerald
12-Jan-2014, 10:49
Tim, I agree with everyone here. I find that my soft focus work lends itself well to my carbon transfer printing. I have so much control over the image tone and texture that I find myself doing more and more Pictoralist type work. It is about a mood or feeling I feel. For me it is always about the final print. BTW, when using the Kodak portrait lens remember that nothing is in focus in front of the focus point. That is if you focus on the eyes the nose will be out of focus. I focus on the nose and then I know I have eyes that will be good. A lot depends on the F- stop etc. Just some simple guidelines.

Printing your vision is where it all happens. Sop much fun to do!!

ScottPhotoCo
12-Jan-2014, 19:16
Thank you everyone! This thread has been extremely helpful already. It took ma about 4 1/2 hours but I finally got the lens mounted to the 6x6 board. I ended up cutting a 1/8" thick piece of hard rubber as a spacer/gasket to give me the space I needed so that I didn't need to modify anything. Made a few shots on 8x10 direct positive paper just because. I'll process those as soon as I have a chance.

108163

108164

Roger Thoms
12-Jan-2014, 19:20
Scott, looks great, nice to see you didn't have to cut the flange. Sorry I never found the pictures but obviously you didn't need them.

Roger

ScottPhotoCo
13-Jan-2014, 05:27
I appreciate it Roger! It was your comments that helped me come up with this solution. :)

ScottPhotoCo
13-Jan-2014, 11:35
Ok, the experimentation begins...


First the basics:
Deardorff 8x10
16" Kodak Portrait Lens
Harman Direct Positive Paper

Image 1: f5.6
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2868/11933355374_bbe2ddd4b0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11933355374/)
KPL_011014_03_5.6001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11933355374/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Image 2: f8
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7454/11933749406_8113717dd0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11933749406/)
KPL_011014_06_f8001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11933749406/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

This was a test for me to see how depth of field was affected as the aperture was almost wide open and then progressively smaller. 2 more image made at f11 and f22 to come once I have a chance to scan.

I purposely shot these underexposed so that I could see detail in the white petals to get a better sense of how tones are resolved.

A HUGE nod to Mr. Tri Tran as his beautiful work was quite obviously an inspiration for this test subject. Actually, it's all that I had sitting there as light was fading Sunday afternoon. :)

Jim Noel
13-Jan-2014, 13:08
Thanks Gents! I appreciate the thoughts and feedback. Two approaches that I thought may assist in this exploration is utilization of the Harman Direct Positive Paper as well as wet-plate collodion. As I don't have a wet darkroom I will have to work with the tools that I have, and I will not resort to Photoshop as I take this journey...

Also, film with sensitivity only to blue spectrum of light seems to more closely come to the feel of what I get when I look at photos such as these. X-ray film may come in handy. :)
You are correct that a blue sensitive film will help in your project. The most common emulsions until about the middle of the 20th century were orthochromatic. X-ray film is an approach, but Ilford still makes Ilford Ortho in sheet film and it is much easier to handle. These coupled with any one of several alternative printing processes will produce very nice images.
Don't neglect the fact that a good number of pictorialist images were printed utilizing the qualities of cyanotype which requires no darkroom. Van Dyke Brown can also be handled in low quantity of incandescent light.
Jim

Jim Noel
13-Jan-2014, 13:12
I agree. Don't trim the flange.

I had a similar problem when I mounted a Pinkham Bi-Quality for a friend and rather than trim the mounting flange I was able to add a wood spacer underneath the flange. From the screw spacing on your flang it looks like it might work on your flange. I might have pictures, and will look to night when I get home. I would seriously avoid trimming the flange, but that's just me.

Roger

Jim Noel
13-Jan-2014, 13:18
Consider a simple light blue filter to mimic the spectrum sensitivity of films from 1900 to 1920.

My experience is that wet plate and soft focus lenses don't play well together. Each has it's own signature, and the heavy, sharp artifacts and somber mood of collodion don't compliment the airiness and glow from a soft lens.

For reference, Ernest Purdum's article on the forum's home page is a good start:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html

If you haven't found it yet, Russ Young (a member here) did a wonderful doctoral thesis on soft lenses:

http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505

Jim Galli's website features many examples, comparisons, and insights on classic soft lenses:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/

...and there must be hundreds of threads on soft lenses here on the forum. Plenty to keep you busy!

I agree with all but the first statement. A blue filter doesn't really mimic an ortho emulsion. There are emulsions available. Use them.

jp
13-Jan-2014, 13:52
I personally don't think a blue filter or particular emulsion is needed.

I like the feeling and mood of pictorialism which is largely a combination of
1. Focusing on shapes and tones at the expense of detail (Using a film you are not familiar with the spectral sensitivity of is only going to hamper your creativity at recording tones).
2. Using a soft lens to eliminate the detail so the impression remains.
3. An output method which shows the feeling and mood you want, and pictorialism has plenty of these.

ScottPhotoCo
13-Jan-2014, 20:24
Ok, here are the last 2.

Shot at f11
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7371/11940104945_211e5a70c6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11940104945/)
KPL_011014_1.3_f11001_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11940104945/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Shot at f22
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3802/11940105405_49a7595fe8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11940105405/)
KPL_011014_10_f22001_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11940105405/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Petzval Paul
13-Jan-2014, 20:35
Using some fb paper instead of film could be useful. It's slow and ortho, like films of old, and can be penciled on the back for more pictorial-like effects. You could get away with not having a dedicated dark room more easily, too. I agree with the comments about collodion not being compatible with soft focus lenses ONLY if we are talking about positives. Collodion negatives are really wonderful as they exhibit great tonal range and are easily intensified for hand coated printing processes. Positives, on the other hand, block up highlights easily and have a shorter tonal range which seems to get I in the way of an sf lens's work. I have been playing with dry plates recently but am not fully sold on them yet as collodion negatives are so easily adjustable to suit any desired printing process, to name just one advantage among many, inho.

For your situation, however, I think that paper negatives would be the way to go. Wet plate is much more demanding and, although I've done it without a dedicated dark room, it can be tricky.

ScottPhotoCo
13-Jan-2014, 20:51
Using some fb paper instead of film could be useful. It's slow and ortho, like films of old, and can be penciled on the back for more pictorial-like effects. You could get away with not having a dedicated dark room more easily, too. I agree with the comments about collodion not being compatible with soft focus lenses ONLY if we are talking about positives. Collodion negatives are really wonderful as they exhibit great tonal range and are easily intensified for hand coated printing processes. Positives, on the other hand, block up highlights easily and have a shorter tonal range which seems to get I in the way of an sf lens's work. I have been playing with dry plates recently but am not fully sold on them yet as collodion negatives are so easily adjustable to suit any desired printing process, to name just one advantage among many, inho.

For your situation, however, I think that paper negatives would be the way to go. Wet plate is much more demanding and, although I've done it without a dedicated dark room, it can be tricky.

Thanks Paul. It will be an interesting process to explore options. The test images I posted were shot on Harman Direct Positive Paper. I've done quite a bit of collodion work on aluminum (not with a soft focus lens though) so I think that the experiment will be interesting. I have the full WP set-up including the tent so a darkroom for that won't be a problem. :)

Now this paper negative idea I should explore...

Mark Barendt
13-Jan-2014, 21:04
Here's a paper with some interesting info and history.

http://hdl.handle.net/10023/505

ScottPhotoCo
14-Jan-2014, 10:11
Here is a much easier way to view this for comparison. I found this quite informative from a technical standpoint.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3691/11950460186_fe8dc0a3f4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11950460186/)
KPL_DOF_ScottPhotoCo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/11950460186/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Tim Meisburger
14-Jan-2014, 18:07
5.6!

billie williams
15-Jan-2014, 11:11
I'm with Tim, I think the 5.6 image works the best. It helps the overall moodiness if only the petals are in focus. The additional detail in the closed-down shots is distracting to me. Nice image, btw! :)

Petzval Paul
16-Jan-2014, 02:59
5.6!!!

analoguey
16-Jan-2014, 05:21
I prefer the f8 version 5.6 seems to have next to no detail. Ymmv.

Btw great topic, I was looking to get a similar 'look'. Lot of reading material here!

Jim Galli
16-Jan-2014, 07:06
F4.5 It's there for a reason.

ScottPhotoCo
16-Jan-2014, 11:53
Thanks everyone for the comments and observations. I certainly should have tried one at f4.5. I will rectify this shortly.

Now that I have a general idea of what to expect it is time to explore more. I'm hoping in the next couple of weeks I'll have a chance to experiment a bit more. Updates soon.

In the meantime I have to make a lens cap for this lens. It's approx 5" across the front element. That's a lot of real estate to protect. Here is my custom lens cap in progress:
108401

Colin D
19-Jan-2014, 03:52
108001


This shot is my favourite out of the stellar bunch you selected, I'm intrigued by it, do you have any details on what equipment was used, who it was taken by? Cheers

Andrew Plume
19-Jan-2014, 04:41
Karl Struss Portrait

andrew

asuilin
19-Jan-2014, 07:01
BTW, one of most pictorial modern printing techniques is a Lith printing. Combined with a soft focus lenses it gives striking results, atmosheric and ethereal, sometimes reminescent bromoil. There are some examples of this style, pictures taken with meniscus lens (120 format, not LF):
108752 108753 108754

gbogatko
19-Jan-2014, 21:02
There's another wonderful book about pictorialism -- "Impressionist Camera -- Pictorial Photography in Europe, 1888-1918."
One chapter that is especially enlightening is a chapter on Eugene Carriere, an impressionist painter around 1900. His work looks to have influenced a lot of the pictorialists.

George

gbogatko
19-Jan-2014, 22:54
Kodak 305. f/5.8 Arista.EDU 100, 8x10.
d23
P.S. trickery to get an 'alternate' look.

108827

I Love pictorialism.

George

ScottPhotoCo
21-Jan-2014, 12:04
Good afternoon everyone. Hoping you had a great weekend and made some photographs!

I had a chance to explore further and actually used the Kodak Portrait Lens to make a **GASP** portrait.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3720/12072403065_39acfd6530_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12072403065/)
KPL_HDPP_Ray_f4.5_012014_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12072403065/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Deardorff V8 + 16" Kodak Portrait Lens + Harman Direct Positive paper. Wide open at f4.5.

One more image from this weekend:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3735/12072817154_50193469df_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12072817154/)
KPL_HDPP_Flower_f11_012014_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12072817154/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Deardorff V8 + 16" Kodak Portrait Lens + Harman Direct Positive paper. F11.

No post work done on these at all. I like where this is going. :)


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

billie williams
21-Jan-2014, 12:07
Nice images, Tim!

ScottPhotoCo
21-Jan-2014, 13:15
Nice images, Tim!

Thank you Billie. :)

ScottPhotoCo
22-Jan-2014, 14:38
I found this an interesting comparison so I thought you all might as well.

Here is the same shot using a 12" Goerz Dagor at f6.8:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5480/12092553506_ba9ab3c143_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12092553506/)
12Dagor_HDPP_Flower_f6.8_012014_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12092553506/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Same Dagor at f11:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2821/12092554446_ac6b9a69d1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12092554446/)
12Dagor_HDPP_Flower_f11_012014_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12092554446/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Hmmmmmmmm...

Colin D
23-Jan-2014, 19:18
Ok, I have just acquired a Dagor that is away being cleaned and lubed and would like to do something in similar style to these two Scott. Approximately what distance is the lens from the subject if you don't mind me asking.

ScottPhotoCo
23-Jan-2014, 20:57
This was a 12" Dagor and I believe I was about 3 feet away if I remember correctly.

Dan Dozer
25-Jan-2014, 09:15
Hi Tim,

Here's another concept you might want to consider regarding different soft focus looks and techniquest. Don't assume that the look you get from your lenses on your cameras/negs have to be the final soft focus look of your prints. I have a couple of old petzval projection lenses that I use only one of the glass elements on and get very different/desireable results. With the attached images, they were both shot with a normal lens, but there were a couple of focal plane problems with each. I used one of these projection petzval lenses on the enlarger to produce a similar, but a little different look to the final print.

Dan

ScottPhotoCo
29-Jan-2014, 12:47
Hi Tim,

Here's another concept you might want to consider regarding different soft focus looks and techniquest. Don't assume that the look you get from your lenses on your cameras/negs have to be the final soft focus look of your prints. I have a couple of old petzval projection lenses that I use only one of the glass elements on and get very different/desireable results. With the attached images, they were both shot with a normal lens, but there were a couple of focal plane problems with each. I used one of these projection petzval lenses on the enlarger to produce a similar, but a little different look to the final print.

Dan

Great ideas Dan! I love this stuff. :)

ScottPhotoCo
14-May-2014, 14:57
Well, it is time for me to revive this thread as I am beginning a long-term project that will be based in pictorialism. I am at the very beginning phase starting with determining what film and lens to capture the original negative with and then I need to determine what printing process to use to bring my vision to life. Actually, I'll need to determine what printing process will work best before I can determine how to create the base negative to work from. So here are my beginning thoughts:

1. I want to create as a finished body of work a series of images based around a subject (that I can't discuss yet) that are pictorial in nature. I am looking for the emotion of the subject(s) and not necessarily a direct representation.
2. If possible, I would like to produce finished prints at least 16" on the short side. Depending on the printing process this may require doing digital negatives from which to print from as I am planning to shoot either 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 or a combination of all them. This would be dependent on subject and finished size of print I hope to create from it.
3. I am not constrained by 100% "traditional" or "historical" processes although I want the final products to be created using a traditional printing method. Digital output doesn't interest me at this point.

The processes I'm researching at this point are Bromoil, Lith, Platinum, Carbon, Platinum and VanDyke. I am researching historical pictorialists like Struss, White, Coburn, Cameron and others to build ideas about visualization, process and the technicality of achieving the work I hope to.

As I am researching print processes I also have begun testing a few lenses with the film I'm considering using (Kodak Ektascan X-ray Film). I chose the film as it is orthochromatic, inexpensive and easy to work with as I experiment.

The lenses I've begun testing are:
1. 1920's 12" Goerz Dagor
2. 16" Kodak Portrait Lens
3. Wollensak 8x10 Portrait Lens (Petzval design)
4. Some form of Heliar (still looking for this one)

To this end I have begun a few tests. I will share them here as I move forward.

Test 1: 12" Dagor + Kodak Ektascan. Details follow each image.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2936/14000749819_02b7ba3042_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nkcv9g)Test1-1 (https://flic.kr/p/nkcv9g) by ScottPhoto.co (https://www.flickr.com/people/12411796@N00/), on Flickr
Image made using Dagor. Direct sunlight.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7366/14000771860_ed52a7d3bb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nkcBGh)Test1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/nkcBGh) by ScottPhoto.co (https://www.flickr.com/people/12411796@N00/), on Flickr
Image made using Dagor. Direct sunlight. Harrison D2 diffusion filter.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/14164266316_388d60afaf_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nzDyUd)Test1-4 (https://flic.kr/p/nzDyUd) by ScottPhoto.co (https://www.flickr.com/people/12411796@N00/), on Flickr
Image made using Dagor. Direct sunlight. Harrison D4 diffusion filter.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5236/14000750539_0153bdb212_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nkcvmF)Test1-3 (https://flic.kr/p/nkcvmF) by ScottPhoto.co (https://www.flickr.com/people/12411796@N00/), on Flickr
Image made using Dagor. Direct sunlight. No filter. Front tilt.

So, this is where I am at the moment. Much to do. Much to learn...

ScottPhotoCo
14-May-2014, 15:10
Here are a couple more tests using the Dagor and Ilford HP4+.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2929/14001030630_0626e8362d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nkdWBQ)Flower_test-2_WM (https://flic.kr/p/nkdWBQ) by ScottPhoto.co (https://www.flickr.com/people/12411796@N00/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7456/14001030480_1b9bb4f8b3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nkdWzf)Flower_test-1_WM (https://flic.kr/p/nkdWzf) by ScottPhoto.co (https://www.flickr.com/people/12411796@N00/), on Flickr

I think these could be quite beautiful using the right print process. But, not sure yet...