Technical Critique requested

[doogie]

Up for your consideration is a 4x5 format photographic image being considered for Graduation Portfolio.

Technical Critiques are appreciated. Thank you for your consideration.

Steptoe
1452hrs. Sun positioned behind w. 3/4 cloud coverage.
Shadows: EV13
Highlights EV15
SBR 5
No Bellows Ext. factor.
No Filter factor.
Film: HP5 400 4x5 Sheet.
Camera: Linhof ST V
Lens: Technika Symmar 1:5,6/150~ 1:12/265
F~32 1/50th
Processed: D76 1:1 68 Deg. F. @11:30min.

128434

[Regular Rod]

Is it in focus on the original?

RR

[Jim Jones]

Was the Symmar used at 150 or 265mm? I've never used one at 265mm, but have heard it isn't perfectly sharp. Also, stopping down to f/32 is on the verge of diffraction, but we shouldn't see that in a small digital copy. There appears to be a slight tilt to the left. It's difficult to be sure with such an irregular skyline. I would burn in the left and very top slightly. Aside from these minor points, it is a pleasing photograph.

[Peter Lewin]

I'm not sure if the issue is technical or aesthetic. By that I mean that the image looks technically correct, assuming that the issues of focus and possible slight tilt raised by RR and JJ are covered. My immediate reaction was the question of how you print the image, which is entirely personal. On my monitor it looks a bit low on contrast, and therefore a bit low on "drama." I might try to make the separation between land and sky a bit more apparent, since in the distance they have almost identical tones in the version you posted, and the sky looks quite flat.

[Ken Lee]

Technical Critiques are appreciated.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/uneven.jpg

Was development uneven ? Note the appearance of vertical bands throughout the image.

How did you develop/agitate the film ?

[Kirk Gittings]

Ditto with Ken and Peter above. Scan from the print or negative. I think the image has a lot of potential (barring the uneven development and sharpness issues) but needs more punch and drama which can be accomplished with more burning and dodging on the file or in the print. Its worth pursuing further IMHO.

[RSalles]

Hi,

Is it my impression, or the copy is a bit darker then the scene itself? I'm observing the highlights on the clouds and it seems to me "here in my monitor" that the whites doesn't translate even to Zone IX - taking the white backroung as a base for Zone X. Another thing to mention is the ground with maybe areas with some solarization. But please take my opinion with a "tone" of salt,

Cheers,

Renato

[doogie]

I do believe that the development was a bit uneven. I'm still attempting to figure out how it happened. I processed this photograph on film hangers in a dip tank at the school lab by hand. My agitations were x1 for 10-15 seconds once every 30 seconds as per the directions given. I'm thinking that I should have rapped the film hangers at the end of each agitation.

The Symmar was used at the 150. I have not used it at the 265 setting as of yet.

As for the exposure. When I made the exposure I metered first the shadows then the highlights (very muted overcast lighting at the top of the Butte). After this I shifted the shutter speed only. I'm still getting the hang of the Zone system, however, my intent was to shift what limited shadows existed from Zone V (off of the pentax spot meter) down into zone III.

As for the original. Yes, it appears to be in focus (after zooming in to 200% on the screen to verify). The exposure was made at infinity due to the steep drop off of the cliff. I had about 5 minutes to set up and make the exposure due to the high winds and frigid temperatures. Made the decision of f32 right before I got out of the car. LOL I've never had the tripod try to jump and leap like a bucking bronco before. Thank heavens for a dear friend who held onto it for dear life as I was composing the scene and making the exposure.

After making contact prints I opted to scan the negative directly to verify my suspicions of something being off. Wasn't quite sure what it was until you guys were able to nail it on the head. (the uneven development)

[djdister]

The Symmar was used at the 150. I have not used it at the 265 setting as of yet.


The convertible Symmars are often not quite as sharp at the converted (longer) focal length, so you may notice some loss of sharpness at 265mm.

[Regular Rod]

Using tray(s) it is very unusual to get uneven development...

RR

[djdister]

Using tray(s) it is very unusual to get uneven development...

RR

He used a hanger in a dip tank...

[Ken Lee]

I do believe that the development was a bit uneven. I'm still attempting to figure out how it happened. I processed this photograph on film hangers in a dip tank at the school lab by hand. My agitations were x1 for 10-15 seconds once every 30 seconds as per the directions given. I'm thinking that I should have rapped the film hangers at the end of each agitation.

Infrequent agitation is all right, but there has to be a source of fresh developer. If the hangers are too close together and/or the overall volume of developer is low, there won't be adequate fresh developer reaching the film and/or it will not be uniformly distributed. The same will be true of stop bath, fixer, etc.

The tank needs to be larger and/or the hangers need to be further apart and/or agitation needs to be more frequent.