PDA

View Full Version : Fun with 8x10



Ken Lee
21-Apr-2014, 13:19
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/8x10Sample.jpg
Massachusetts, 2005
Shen Hao, 300mm Fujinon A
8x10 HP5+, Pyrocat HD

I came across this older 8x10 negative today and discovered there is not only a bird in the tree, but food in his mouth. :)

djdister
21-Apr-2014, 15:57
Massachusetts, 2005
Shen Hao, 300mm Fujinon A
8x10 HP5+, Pyrocat HD

I came across this older 8x10 negative today and discovered there is not only a bird in the tree, but food in his mouth. :)

Great detail Ken. Could you describe your scanning process, or point to the description of how this was scanned on your website?

Thanks!

Ken Lee
21-Apr-2014, 16:35
I scanned it with a Microtek 2500F. I no longer have that scanner because it started giving me problems.

I now use an Epson 700 which has better dynamic range with less digital noise in the low values.

David Lobato
21-Apr-2014, 17:57
That's impressive. It's nice to know that your techniques and methods return such fine results.

Michael Kadillak
21-Apr-2014, 18:45
When you are employing over 1,500 megapixels of digital capability in analog mode with an 8x10 camera you essentially qualifying what those us that have been shooting 8x10 for years already know. Attempting to scan such a robust entity is to ask simply why? As one moves upward in format size the differentiating components of the wet process separate the men from the boys. Just look at the tonal range and let your eye guide you.

jbenedict
21-Apr-2014, 22:18
When you are employing over 1,500 megapixels of digital capability in analog mode with an 8x10 camera you essentially qualifying what those us that have been shooting 8x10 for years already know. Attempting to scan such a robust entity is to ask simply why? As one moves upward in format size the differentiating components of the wet process separate the men from the boys. Just look at the tonal range and let your eye guide you.

One reason to scan would be to have a print larger than a contact. Not many people have an 8x10 enlarger and few professional laboratories will make an optical print with the 8x10 size negative/positive. Not sure how they do it but Kodak says their new Ektar 100 is designed to be scanned. The 8x10+ formats are rather expensive...

I have one of these miracle prints also. I was shooting EPN from near the top of a 3000' mountain on Hood Canal in Washington State. Down on the Canal was a fish boat and, after the 8x10 was processed and I examined it with a loupe I saw that there was a person on the afterdeck of the boat. The boat was about 40' long I had it made into a 16x20 at Ivey-Seright in Seattle in about 1996-7 when optical prints were available. It is pretty amazing. My 8x10 rig is kind of junk- funky B&J and a 375/6.8 Caltar, Tessar design and single coated but my tripod is a mutha and holds it pretty solid.

Jeff "but I will finish building my 8x10 enlarger soon" Benedict

Michael Kadillak
22-Apr-2014, 07:32
One reason to scan would be to have a print larger than a contact. Not many people have an 8x10 enlarger and few professional laboratories will make an optical print with the 8x10 size negative/positive. Not sure how they do it but Kodak says their new Ektar 100 is designed to be scanned. The 8x10+ formats are rather expensive...

I have one of these miracle prints also. I was shooting EPN from near the top of a 3000' mountain on Hood Canal in Washington State. Down on the Canal was a fish boat and, after the 8x10 was processed and I examined it with a loupe I saw that there was a person on the afterdeck of the boat. The boat was about 40' long I had it made into a 16x20 at Ivey-Seright in Seattle in about 1996-7 when optical prints were available. It is pretty amazing. My 8x10 rig is kind of junk- funky B&J and a 375/6.8 Caltar, Tessar design and single coated but my tripod is a mutha and holds it pretty solid.

Jeff "but I will finish building my 8x10 enlarger soon" Benedict

But a contact print is - va va voooooooom. I remember Ansel being asked what was the best view camera to use and he commented "the largest one I can carry". IMHO 11x14 contact prints are that much better and 12x20 better again. Personally I feel that I would rather be one of the few as opposed to one of the masses.

jbenedict
22-Apr-2014, 08:30
But a contact print is - va va voooooooom. I remember Ansel being asked what was the best view camera to use and he commented "the largest one I can carry". IMHO 11x14 contact prints are that much better and 12x20 better again. Personally I feel that I would rather be one of the few as opposed to one of the masses.

I wouldn't say 8x10 users are part of the 'masses'. The "less than masses" who choose LF photography use 4x5. 8x10 is a pretty large commitment. Choosing to have one's images reproduced digitally is not the action of an ignorant philistine. Sometimes it is just practical. If I could rent a 8x10+, I might give it a try and I'm sure I would be impressed. However, the costs involved with materials would take my photography funds for six months in one afternoon. I don't much care about what other people do and what formats they use.

Since you bring up the name of Saint Ansel, note how many of his landmark images are made with 8x10 or smaller cameras. The image which inspired developing the Zone System was made with a half-plate camera and the famous "Moon and Half Dome" was made with a Hassy. I've taken a lot from Ansel Adams in the technique realm but the one thing he did which I'm trying to build the guts to do is to put a platform on top of my car. That would really make a difference in what I do.

RHITMrB
22-Apr-2014, 13:15
Works pretty well with 4x5 too:

http://i.imgur.com/d9cJikF.jpg

swmcl
24-Apr-2014, 15:25
So often, the best images are those that exhibit simplicity. When I was younger I tried to take photos with everything in them. In fact, this was what drove me into LF in the first place. I scanned an image of a 35mm shot of a fort in Rahjahstan made with the best Nikon optics of the day (year 2000) only to see indistinct blobs instead of the details I knew were there. Since then I've come to understand that having everything in a photo is a never-ending upsizing silliness. Having said that, having a larger format allows a necessary greater amount of detail in photos. That fort would be much better on 4x5 or 5x7 but it would probably be a cluttered image!

goamules
24-Apr-2014, 16:46
Reminds me of the 1848 Daguerrotype of the Cincinnati waterfront they scanned.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14001132834_1ba45de3d9_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/13997522861_6cb68fddcb_b.jpg

http://1848.cincinnatilibrary.org/showPlate.php?id=2&category=