Looking for feedback on images...

[AdamD]

Hi.

If anyone is so inclined to do so, I’d appreciate some feedback on these images. I’ll give you a link at the bottom. Let me explain a bit of the process.

These shots are all on Delta 100, metered at 100 and developed normally per the Ilford 6 minute baseline using HC-110. I Stopped for 1 minute and Fixed for 5 minutes. They were either shot using at Fuji 150mm or a Rodenstock 90mm on an Arca-Swiss F-Line classic. All images used some degree of rise/fall and a bit of front tilt. All but one image used either a red or orange filter. One had nothing in front.

Once I was finished developing, I then DSLR scan them on a light board and shot using a Nikon D810 with a 55mm f/2.8 macro lens. I shot these at 100 ISO, 7460K WB and I target about 1/50s at f/5.6. I try to keep the histogram map centered.

Then I drop them into Photoshop. I find that I need to create A LOT of highlight luminosity masks to bring down the highlights and even bring down the shadows. I think that’s ok and what I want in a good image, but I don’t really know, hence this post....

What feedback can you offer? I’d be curious about any and all aspects of my process. Don’t worry about being nice, if something is crappy, please tell me!!!

Ok. Here is a link where you can download the jpeg negative scans. Also, you can see my photo editing results as well. It’s all in this one gallery.

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Random/

Thanks!
Adam

[paulbarden]

Adam,
Those are good landscape pieces, but sadly marred by the dust and hairs that cry out to be cleaned up. Is there a reason you didn't spot the images?

[AdamD]

Yeah no.

I didn’t do a lot of clean up because I just wanted to see if they were good enough to spent the time on. But let me answer your question in more detail...

All I do is make sure I blow them off real good, the light board is clean and shoot. Then I will zoom in and bust out the photoshop healing tool. That’s really all I know to do. Dust control is a a real PITA for me. Two wonderful dogs and I live in dusty Arizona. In addition, to keep my negatives flat I sandwich with between two pieces of high quality glass.

It’s definitely not the best setup, but it was cheap to GET setup. Now that I have proven I like this hobby, I might look to new, more expensive, methods to scan.

Thanks for looking and the feedback. That’s a good catch!

[mmerig]

The images are nice, especially the first one - I like the cropped version across the top better than the original. Something in-between would be even better. The composition on the other three is not very strong. Exposures look great, and the third one looks likes difficult lighting.

Any thoughts on optical enlargements instead of scanning? It could be a lot cheaper, but dust control will be more of a hassle.

[Vaughn]

Challenging lighting in most cases. The first and last are the most dramatic and are also well seen and composed. If is difficult to pull off an image with only half the sky in clouds, and you did it well in the last image. The clouds are well balanced by the shadows of the lower left (including your shadow?!) creating an over-all dynamic balance and a feeling of movement/future movement. It does not work as well in your second image, which seems to be a more stable, everything-centered image (including horizon), but why not the sky, sort of thing. The clouds and landscape fight each other without creating the tension/movement of the last image.

The lighting of the first image is wonderful. If scanning is the goal,yYou might consider a little more exposure over-all and less development to make the scanning easier and easier control of the contrast. If you will be wet printing, those negs might be challenging.

You did not mention using any filters on the lens. Yellow, orange or red will darken blue (cyan -- sky) relative to other colors in the scene and will allow you to expose more for the landscape while taming the sky some. They will also darken shadows (a lot of blue light in them), so bracket at first while learning them (if you have not already).

[AdamD]

Thank you all!!

The third image was annoying. The light was amazing, but by the time I got my act together, it went flat. I shot it because I could and the light wasn’t going to get better. I used an orange filter.

The first shot is a favorite. That’s Organ Pipe National Monument. Orange filter.

The other two shots are near my home. The one with the barbed wire fence is basically my backyard. Both used a red filter.

So I’ve got some composition issues to think about....interesting comment about scanning and adding more exposure and less development time. I follow you, but I don’t see how that will help the scanning process. Maybe the negative will be less dense and allow more light through and thus allow a lower ISO for better scan quality???

Again, thank you all for your time.

[Vaughn]

Oh -- that is just to make sure that your highlights do not get over-exposed/overdeveloped, blocked up, and difficult for the scanner to pick up the information. Shadows -- well, if you have too much info (over-exposed) it is easy to get rid of...but impossible to gain info that is not there.

On the first image and second image, a little more light (increasing the filter factor of the orange and red filters with this film) would have helped counter the loss of the blue light in the shadows. Both the first and second have lost detail in the catus in the lower right corners, if I read the negatives correctly. Due to the increase in exposure, a corresponding reduction in development would help keep the highlights under control.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Everyone has his own taste.

For my taste the sky in picture 4 is too dark. I don't understand why the clouds on the horizon are white, but at the top of the picture they are dark gray.

There is also too much in the pictures for my taste. I don't recognize anything. I have to look for things first. To find something, you have to know what you are looking for. To me, these are just more pictures that impress because of their resolution, but they don't show things. The fact that you're using a 90mm lens creates clutter.

In picture 1 it has 5 different large plants and two hills, plus soil and air. You could have gone to the 1st cactus on the left, there it has only 2 types of plants and 2 hills. One could have left out the right hill. Then one would have had a tension between the narrower form of the cactuses and the broader form of the mountain. This theme could then be varied.

On the right in picture 1 you see pointed bright cactus needles or flowers. Behind them is the large broad but dark hill. If one were to move closer, one could silhouette the light pointed shapes against the broad dark mountain shape. In image 1, this is disturbed by narrow cactus shapes behind it. Also, the light cactus shape protrudes above the mountain horizon.

There is an interesting crossing in the center of picture 1. One could exaggertate this with N+1.

The landscape there is far from finished ...

This sounds brutal, but I would do the following exercises:

1st day only shapes and their formal contrasts,
2nd day only brightness contrasts,
3rd day only singular compositions with emphasis on the center of the image,
4th day only structures within the form,
5th day only structures between different shapes,
6th day only panoramic compositions with elimination of too close image objects,
7th day only images with different perspectives such as the close view downwards, the distant view towards the center of the image, the side view, and so on.

But all of this involves using a long focal length lens to focus on the objects. At least 210mm for 4x5, better 300mm, or 150mm with a roll film holder with 6x7.

Also, in my humble opinion, it would be good to start with N+1 development to increase contrast. Then you have to commit to black and white and don't get stuck in gray. Let things become black or white, maybe they will create their own rhythm.

I don't want to lecture you, though. I have the same problem myself, and I think it's very brave of you to show your images. Somehow you are helping me to rethink my own images! That's great!

Anyway, you have inspired me a lot, and I think I will try what I wrote above myself.

Have fun!

[Corran]

I only have one suggestion: GET CLOSER!

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough” - Robert Capa

This is the single most important tip when shooting with a 90mm lens IMO.

[Michael R]

I like #3 the most.

[AdamD]

Everyone has his own taste.

For my taste the sky in picture 4 is too dark. I don't understand why the clouds on the horizon are white, but at the top of the picture they are dark gray.

There is also too much in the pictures for my taste. I don't recognize anything. I have to look for things first. To find something, you have to know what you are looking for. To me, these are just more pictures that impress because of their resolution, but they don't show things. The fact that you're using a 90mm lens creates clutter.

In picture 1 it has 5 different large plants and two hills, plus soil and air. You could have gone to the 1st cactus on the left, there it has only 2 types of plants and 2 hills. One could have left out the right hill. Then one would have had a tension between the narrower form of the cactuses and the broader form of the mountain. This theme could then be varied.

On the right in picture 1 you see pointed bright cactus needles or flowers. Behind them is the large broad but dark hill. If one were to move closer, one could silhouette the light pointed shapes against the broad dark mountain shape. In image 1, this is disturbed by narrow cactus shapes behind it. Also, the light cactus shape protrudes above the mountain horizon.

There is an interesting crossing in the center of picture 1. One could exaggertate this with N+1.

The landscape there is far from finished ...

This sounds brutal, but I would do the following exercises:

1st day only shapes and their formal contrasts,
2nd day only brightness contrasts,
3rd day only singular compositions with emphasis on the center of the image,
4th day only structures within the form,
5th day only structures between different shapes,
6th day only panoramic compositions with elimination of too close image objects,
7th day only images with different perspectives such as the close view downwards, the distant view towards the center of the image, the side view, and so on.

But all of this involves using a long focal length lens to focus on the objects. At least 210mm for 4x5, better 300mm, or 150mm with a roll film holder with 6x7.

Also, in my humble opinion, it would be good to start with N+1 development to increase contrast. Then you have to commit to black and white and don't get stuck in gray. Let things become black or white, maybe they will create their own rhythm.

I don't want to lecture you, though. I have the same problem myself, and I think it's very brave of you to show your images. Somehow you are helping me to rethink my own images! That's great!

Anyway, you have inspired me a lot, and I think I will try what I wrote above myself.

Have fun!


Daniel et al,

No lecture here! I ASKED for your options. I love this feedback. I can understand where you are all coming from. There are lots of interesting tidbits in here.

Just for clarification on a development note, N+1 means to increase the development time by one stop, correct? For Delta 100, 6 minutes is the baseline for HC-110 so a +1 from my understanding would be 7 minutes. The result would be to “over develop” which would increase the contrast and make blacks blacker and whites whiter. Is that correct?

I could do all that in post right....

Anyway, I like the 7-day project idea to help focus my skill, but the longest lens I have is a 150mm. I just need to give more thought to composing I can see....

Anyway, great stuff in here. Thank you!

[Chuck Pere]

Do you play with cropping your images? Best tool I have is my cropping L's. For me in #2 a right side vertical crop with those two vertical dark shapes is what I see.

[AdamD]

Funny you ask that. Short answer is, no. Up to the very last image I took. The last shot I made was taken with a 150mm but the only area I was interested in will be my cropped final.

I'm very curious about this. I have not developed it yet.

So, Ny suggestions on taking images with the intent to crop?

[j.e.simmons]

For the most part, increasing development time makes the whites whiter. The blacks are determined by exposure. That’s a general rule - there are a lot of subtle variations.

[AdamD]

Hey folks, I went back to these images and cleaned them up and spent a bit more time editing them. One image kinda sucked and now it looks pretty good. I didn’t keep the old versions so...I guess just look at them FWIW....

The feedback you gave was helpful, so if you like the images, it’s your doing!

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Random/

[Alan Klein]

I guess I didn't see the first set. The two sets match. In any case,
#1: Nice composition. crop out the bush at the bottom corner and the bright lighted thing in the middle. The pull the eye away from the main picture.
#2: A little too busy. Is it tilted to the left a little?
#3: Too busy.
#4: The right side is superfluous. Not needed as it adds nothing to the picture, just a lot of negative space. Go with a verticle picture, left side only. Or a horizontal picture of just the bottom left quadrant.

Nice shots overall. Tones look good.

[Peter Lewin]

I think my favorite is the one with the barbed wire, I guess like Robert Adams’s pictures I like evidence that humans have been there.

But my question goes in an entirely different direction: since your workflow is entirely digital once you have developed the film, why not go digital all the way? Using either HDR or tilt lenses you would be flexible with your foreground/background choices, and would eliminate your dust issues. Perhaps I am just being an old curmudgeon, but either LF film with optical printing, or digital capture with Photoshop and digital printing make more sense to me.

[AdamD]

I think my favorite is the one with the barbed wire, I guess like Robert Adams’s pictures I like evidence that humans have been there.

But my question goes in an entirely different direction: since your workflow is entirely digital once you have developed the film, why not go digital all the way? Using either HDR or tilt lenses you would be flexible with your foreground/background choices, and would eliminate your dust issues. Perhaps I am just being an old curmudgeon, but either LF film with optical printing, or digital capture with Photoshop and digital printing make more sense to me.

This is a great question.

I've always wanted to shoot large format, but I also need to make it accessable for what I have available to me. I just can't get into the printing side of the process now. Maybe some day and when that happens, at least I'll have the front end figured out.

But for sure, those tilt shift lenses seem cool. They are really expensive!!! But yeah I think about that all the time.

But then, why are there scanners and drum scanners?

[Michael R]

This hybrid workflow is what most film users (including LF) opt for. Very few darkroom printers left.


I think my favorite is the one with the barbed wire, I guess like Robert Adams’s pictures I like evidence that humans have been there.

But my question goes in an entirely different direction: since your workflow is entirely digital once you have developed the film, why not go digital all the way? Using either HDR or tilt lenses you would be flexible with your foreground/background choices, and would eliminate your dust issues. Perhaps I am just being an old curmudgeon, but either LF film with optical printing, or digital capture with Photoshop and digital printing make more sense to me.

[Dugan]

This hybrid workflow is what most film users (including LF) opt for. Very few darkroom printers left.

Yes, we darkroom printers dance the Masochism Tango.
( with apologies to Tom Lehrer).