First LF Photo: Any suggestions how to improve future shots?

[jp]

I think that's a decent start. Some more experience with the film will probably help. I'd have done a little more exposure to better get the shadows. I don't judge that too much as my computer monitor at work here isn't calibrated and is probably a little too dark. Your scanner might be part of the problem too.

Reprinting with a little less contrast might make the water a little less blown out looking. As it appears to be a bright daylight scene, you might need a filter to reduce the negative's contrast a little.

You can expirement with your d700 photos a little in photoshop if you took them as color to learn some of the filtering. Tint photos blue/yellow/orange, either as separate images or in test strips on the image, then do a black and white conversion or color separation where you can get the green layer (for pan film).

[timberline12k]

Since I don't have a darkroom etc., the local camera shop developed the film and scanned the images to a CD. Thought I would just tackle one thing at a time and getting comfortable with the 4X5 is a big step for me.

The D700 shots were taken in color and I converted to B&W in LR2 to have something similar for comparison.

It will be a year before I am back in the mountains, so I will have to find another scene to experiment with.

The creek shots were midday with bright daylight. I will try taking future photos earlier or later in the day.

I could not figure out how to incorporate hyperlinks into the thumbnails so I added the links later.

I will try to read up on the links provided.

[Ken Lee]

Since I don't have a darkroom etc., the local camera shop developed the film and scanned the images to a CD. Thought I would just tackle one thing at a time and getting comfortable with the 4X5 is a big step for me.

In that case, you've done super !

Find some other scene and work it for a while, using only the view camera. My teacher taught me a nice approach: leave the camera alone, and just walk around to find the right spot. When you find it, drop a penny or other marker there. Then, go get the camera, set up, and go from there.

If you like, you can carry just the tripod instead, and place it down instead of the penny. (I find this method tends to rush me, so I just use a penny instead).

A great place to learn about view cameras and camera placement, is a cemetery. That's one of first places my teacher took me to shoot. As you move the camera around even a few inches, the whole scene changes. Late in the day, or early in the day (when the sun is angular) there will be shadows and textures to work with too.

I don't shoot in cemeteries any more, because I prefer other subjects - but they make a superb classroom for using a View Camera !

[jp]

Since I don't have a darkroom etc., the local camera shop developed the film and scanned the images to a CD. Thought I would just tackle one thing at a time and getting comfortable with the 4X5 is a big step for me.

OK, the shop probably processed and scanned them in a generic manner that is of reasonable quality for the skill and labor they can provide. You probably can't do much better tonewise till you start processing and printing/scanning yourself.

You've got a D700, raw images, and LR2 so you can control the photo variables yourself; otherwise, you'd shoot JPEGs and put the memory card in the machine at Walmart to get pictures. With film, you'll eventually need to process and scan or print on your own to control the variables.

[rdenney]

I agree with Donald that tilting the lens to tilt the focus plane in the first shot might have caused as many problems as it solved. But if you shot at f/22, try f/45. That might have expanded the depth of field usefully and brought the rocks at the lower left into acceptable apparent sharpness.

And it would have slowed down your shutter speed, too, which might have smoothed the water out a bit. I frequently find myself in the no-man's land between moving water rendered sharply and moving water allowed to blur out through movement. Usually, going to the latter ends up being the only solution because of the aperture needed for depth of field.

Here's an example of the slower shutter speed at f/45 for a similar sort of scene:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/bri...92-8_lores.jpg

I would also have adjusted the camera position and made the back vertical to make sure those tree trunks are straight up and down throughout the picture. Sometimes I want the convergence and sometimes I don't, but either way it's a decision not an accident (at least when I'm paying proper attention).

Playing with the movements on the camera produces much of the enjoyment and much of the benefit of using a view camera. I suggest The Camera by Ansel Adams.

Get a flatbed scanner. Even if you have a lab do the processing, I think you'll be happier with your own scans (unless the labs is doing high-end drum scans, but that would have been expensive and you'd have maintained the shadow detail).

If the negatives are clear in those shadows, then it's time to brush up a bit on exposure technique. With negative film, you have to make sure that you provide enough exposure to provide texture in the shadows where you want texture. You can't do a think with a clear sheet of plastic except print it black. The old rule of thumb is "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". The Zone System is a careful expansion of that concept. If you meter on those textured shadows, don't use an exposure more than about two stops darker (that will render them as shadows, but still with texture). If you meter the whole scene, such as with your D700, you might drop the shadows off the end of the usable scale. Digital cameras are more like color slides, and there one reduces exposure enough to make sure the textured highlight areas don't blow out. Those negatives require opposite thinking. If you are ready to explore further, I suggest The Negative and The Print by Ansel Adams. These are the seminal works, and they are wholly useful for view cameras, but certainly not without application to digital cameras as well.

If the negatives have that texture, then scanning them yourself will let you keep trying until the texture is visible in the scan file.

You asked for suggestions and I've provided a couple that came to mind. But don't be put off at all--I wish my first large-format images had been so good.

Rick "the best tool is a critical eye" Denney

[timberline12k]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

I tried to bracket the photos, but could not figure out which photo had what f/stop. The sun was also ducking behind the clouds. Here are links to all four photos from the original shoot taken with the 90mm if that helps with any of the feedback.

A http://www.diddephoto.com/photos/603785051_CmL59-X3.jpg

B http://www.diddephoto.com/photos/604763107_UDNtn-X3.jpg

C http://www.diddephoto.com/photos/604766253_hTLtJ-X3.jpg

D http://www.diddephoto.com/photos/604769748_HZg7S-X3.jpg

[rdenney]

I tried to bracket the photos, but could not figure out which photo had what f/stop.

One of the hard lessons I fortunately learned early on was that for large format, a notebook is essential. I keep fairly detailed notes on each image--how I metered it, where I measured and placed exposure zones, the lens, the selected exposure, and any notes about my visualization and intention. It's one reason I can go back and scan negatives from 16 years ago, as I have been doing for these last few weeks, and know what I had in mind at the time. I use a record book with a hard binding, and on each page spread I put the field information on the left of the spine and the printing information on the right of the spine. I number the exposures using numbering that I put on my film holders, which I transferred to the negative file holder when I processed them.

For rollfilm, though, I haven't been as careful and I miss the data. I need to adopt my large-format practice even when using my Pentax 6x7.

I can't really tell that these have a different f-stop. Are you sure you didn't bracket with shutter speed? The out-of-focus vegetation in the lower left seems equally so for all four images, but then the water seems to have about the smear on all four, too.

Sun going in and out of clouds requires a lot of patience. I have been known to set there with a 1-degree meter pointed to a key tone in the scene, waiting for changing light to reach the point I originally measured, before making the exposure.

Rick "thinking those burned out highlights are there for the taking (with your own scanner) on on the negatives" Denney