One of my favorite shooting setups is a 4x5 speed graphic with a 7.25" verito attached and calibrated to the rangefinger. I scan the negatives and print them on an inkjet, on matte papers. The effect is very nice, even at 16x20, the largest I've printed. 11x14s are very smooth.
Someday I'll get a plate burner and learn gum and tricolor gum.
Peter Y.
Jim,
I'd like to see a carbon print, soft focus on matte paper. I'm having trouble imagining what that'd look like. Would it be obvious on the computer screen how the paper base affects the image or is it one of those "must hold it in your hands" things? If you think it would be obvious, could you post one, maybe with a comparison image done on glossy photo paper? Thanks!
Just about the only way I can imagine affording getting into 14x17 for contact prints is if I "make" a lens similar to what's at reinvented equipment's site. I think I could start with a 1 and 2 diopter close up lens (1000 and 500 mm f.l.) and with a small f stop and a strong orange filter I might approach good, sharp detail. Or the same lens supposedly is soft focus wider open.
Probably I will jury rig one of these lenses to a lens board and see what it does on 5x7 or 8x10 and a cyanotype on matte paper.
Thanks!
Don't forget that many nearly worthless single anastigmats from old Turner Reich combinations can easily cover 14X17 and be surprisingly sharp. A 25" TR single and 14X17 Xray film can be a force to be reckoned with.Originally Posted by Fr. Mark
other jim
Fr. Mark, a soft focus carbon print has the look of a charcoal etching/drawing in my opinion. When you look at a print in the angled light it looks like charcoal. Very subtle relief. The relief is different than that of a glossy print. With any carbon print it is really a "must hold in your hands" thing. I'll post two images one soft and one sharp. The same spot but different focal length lenses. It is hard to tell I feel on the web .
There are lenses as Jim suggests for 14 x 17 and one has to be creative. Now for me I like my soft focus work in 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 but in 14 x 17 I only like some of my still life set ups in soft focus. Maybe I just have not found the right subject. Printing 14 x 17 carbon is another subject all together.
So back to the prints. The sharp one is shot with a Swift and Perkins 10 x 12 Rapid Rectilinear lens and the soft with my Kodak 305 Portrait lens. Hope this helps.
Thanks for the post of the pictures. I'm afraid it doesn't clear up much.
A very kind member of this forum (who might rather be anonymous) sent me a high sharpness/focus high relief Carbon print by US mail so I'd know what the fuss is about. Thanks again!
The sharp picture on the screen barely resembles the print in my hands even though the subject matter is similar. The unsharp/soft focus on matte paper must be even more different.
What I think I should do is jury rig the close-up lens (positive meniscus with waterhouse stop) to a Sinar board and see what I get on 5x7 printed as a cyanotype on un-coated paper.
That way, I don't need to buy anything right away or make anything overly complex to see what it looks like in real life.
Then, if the sharpness or the look of the meniscus lens is acceptable, consider making a "hack-to-graphic" camera/camera obscura to see what the meniscus lens can do on ULF in terms of coverage and look.
I think I tend to like sharper in general: I've never been 100% happy with pinhole cameras regardless of size of film (I've never used them smaller than 4x5" nor bigger than 8x10").
But, the kind of unsharp here is different from pinhole cameras.
It's good to know that anastigmat cells are around at reasonable prices that might cover 14x17. I tend to like to have normal or longer lenses, though moderate wides have their place for architectural subjects.
Another part of me says "enlarged negatives." I've got a 4x5 enlarger that needs a fair amount of work or they could enlarged digitally, too (if I had a lot of expensive gear I don't currently have). Do I really want to squire around these giant cameras? I thought I wanted something LIGHTER than the Sinar kit...but at least whole plate sized...but Ektascan is made in 14x17...I've been happy with a few pictures contact printed at 4x5 and 5x7 but sometimes even 8x10 is too small...except when you have to move it...but to build a 14x17 I'd have to build everything to be able to afford it.. See, you don't need to get a petzval lens to go around in swirly circles...
I am becoming more and more convinced that the subject determines what lens and which printing process to use to bring it out. For example, the image below was shot with a soft focus lens and processed as a silver gelatin on Oriental cold tone glossy paper:
In this image the soft focus imparts the feeling of looking into the distant and “fuzzy” past - which is indeed the subject – and printing it in one of the “alternative” processes may not materially enhance it. Writing this, however, makes me question if printing it as a salt print would further enhance that feeling. Incidentally, if you googled Sgt Taylor and followed the links you will be transported back to that time in the history of the nation and perhaps have a different take on the Jay Silverheels characters name.
However I have the strong suspicion that this image, also shot with a soft focus lens and processed as a silver gelatin on Bergger warm tone glossy paper, that printing it as a Van Dyke Brownprint would be an enhancement simply because of the subjects colors.
in any event i am convinced that it is the subject that is the primary determining factor of which lens and process to use.
Thomas
No, it's always the photographer who makes the choices. We may allow the subject to influence our decisions, but they're our decisions. No fair blaming the subject!
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Hi TG,
I am pecking at this idea as well. It definitely depends on your ascetic. Still being newish to soft focus I personally respond to image with less inherent detail with more focus paid to shape, form and contrast. That was the driver for posting this thread. Many high contrast alt process renditions of the pictorialist era removed the desire for inherent detail. They felt painterly. In the end it comes down to experimentation and finding our voice. Sometimes it's nice to get a little head start.
After the discussion surrounding this thread. My next forays in soft focus will be exercises in shape, form and high contrast printed on mat,warm toned textured paper. I look forward to sharing.
Lee
Lee, a pursuit of shape and form is truthful to pictorialism! Go for it. That's how Arthur Wesley Dow taught and he worked closely with Clarence White, Coburn, and I think Kasabier.
Approaching digital "pictorialism" ... not quite there yet, but still trying.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks