Three lenses...

[Mark Sawyer]

Maybe eventually I'll figure out what I'm doing...

1.) 8 3/4" Verito wide open (f/4)
2.) 8" IWSWG stopped down to f/16
3.) 8 1/2" Acuton, f/45 (and an hourlong exposure in the fading light)

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like the Acuton shot. The scene has enough interesting light and textures of its own that it works well sharp.

Maybe the Verito at a different f:stop could have added just a little glow on the highlights while keeping everything fairly sharp. I usually find that I'm using the Verito around f:6--I set it while looking at the groundglass, but it almost always ends up in the same place when I look at the dial--but for this, I suspect I'd go smaller.

[nelsonfotodotcom]

Mark, I enjoy the Acuton shot. What film/dev on that one, or all of them I suppose?

[Eric Rose]

Mark they are all excellent shots in their own right. What were you trying to accomplish? Since you went from wide open to a small aperture I suppose you were studying the DOF effects. Certainly you nailed the long exposure.

[Darryl Baird]

Looks to my eyes that each works in their own right, so perhaps my question would be to the choice of compositions, vertical or horizontal, tight or loose. Since you've twisted the traditional still life to a mix of gravitas (with really impressive canine teeth!), onions (rather than fruit), and sheet music.... what your driving at with the content would tend to direct my choice of lens' effects. I love the bones, skulls and transience you're exploring. I revisited the Paris catacombs recently... squeezing off a few in the low-light, "NO-Flash allowed" underground. I use this as my facebook icon.


Maybe eventually I'll figure out what I'm doing...

1.) 8 3/4" Verito wide open (f/4)
2.) 8" IWSWG stopped down to f/16
3.) 8 1/2" Acuton, f/45 (and an hourlong exposure in the fading light)

[Ernest Purdum]

Oh! the benefits of fading light.

[Jim Galli]

OK, I gave this big licks to the point of transferring all three to a single palette in photoshop so my eye could travel between the 3 without interruption. I do like the Verito one best I think. I love the little play of light on the song sheet, and the glow on the skins. The IWSWG might have been just as successful wide open but it doesn't seem to have enough of either at it's f16 throttle. Still, on it's own it is a fine image. The Acuton shot has done some great stuff with the light and contrast and is pleasing in a standard normal sort of way. I agree any could work well on it's own but I would chose the Verito shot. Also, the Verito needs to come up in all it's values to get nearer to where the Acuton image was for a better comparison. And to my eye all three improve with some slight desaturation but now we're getting into esthetic decisions best left to the artists eye.

I'll post all three on a single background if you like.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thank you, everyone. The funny thing is, after trying to choose between them, I think I could be okay with any of them...


I like the Acuton shot. The scene has enough interesting light and textures of its own that it works well sharp.

Maybe the Verito at a different f:stop could have added just a little glow on the highlights while keeping everything fairly sharp. I usually find that I'm using the Verito around f:6--I set it while looking at the groundglass, but it almost always ends up in the same place when I look at the dial--but for this, I suspect I'd go smaller.

I've tried using the Verito that way, going for the subtle, but I usually end up wide if I think I can get away with it. It's definitely pushing it here, but anything worth doing is worth doing to excess! But if I were doing it over, yes, I might try f/6 or so. Even f/8-ish might be nice at these closer distances, where the uncorrected aberrations really stand out. But that was what I was exploring with the IWSWG. (It's a new one that's <i>really</i> bad, even showing its problems at f/16. I don't know that this one will be kept together or cannibalized/reincarnated...)

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, I enjoy the Acuton shot. What film/dev on that one, or all of them I suppose?

All were done in a stand development of HC110b on HP5+ for times ranging from 12 to 18 minutes. It's a nice combination, especially with uncoated optics, (the Acuton is coated, so it got the shortest time with corresponding exposure increase...) The grain gets a bit large, but I just contact print, so it's not an issue. (All are from 8x10 on my old 2D, btw.)

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark they are all excellent shots in their own right. What were you trying to accomplish? Since you went from wide open to a small aperture I suppose you were studying the DOF effects. Certainly you nailed the long exposure.

This was an image that's been in my head in rough form for a while. I kept shifting whether I wanted it soft or crisp or inbetween. It has a different feeling each way, different connotations and suggestions, but all seem to fit in their own way. Nothing resolved, I suppose...

Not so much a study of depth of field, though it was definitely on my mind. When one is using a soft lens so wide, limited depth of field is a standard working condition, and camera movements only do so much. (The IWSWG image was an attempt to get a lens with the aberrations still around at a small stop for more depth, but it wasn't quite the effect I hoped for. But maybe I just screwed up and half-an-f/stop either way would have been better.)

It does take some time to figure out lenses that change so much with slight changes in aperture, and I can't say that I'm there yet. But there's a certain joy in the exploration, and I'm learning. I'm finding myself doing several versions of images at times, out of a combination of curiousity and maybe insecurity. I thought this was a nice spread of three interpretations.

The long exposure is a fun thing, last image of the day in the fading light, and just let it go til it's not doing anything anymore. It's something I find myself doing often, as I like the late light. There's a soft quality to the illumination that goes well with the sharper lenses...

[scott_6029]

i prefer the acuton shot as it gives more edge with the teeth better defined. nice tonality too.

[Mark Sawyer]

Looks to my eyes that each works in their own right, so perhaps my question would be to the choice of compositions, vertical or horizontal, tight or loose. Since you've twisted the traditional still life to a mix of gravitas (with really impressive canine teeth!), onions (rather than fruit), and sheet music.... what your driving at with the content would tend to direct my choice of lens' effects. I love the bones, skulls and transience you're exploring. I revisited the Paris catacombs recently... squeezing off a few in the low-light, "NO-Flash allowed" underground. I use this as my facebook icon.

Darryl, I was really impressed by your work with your own lenses over in the "mudsuckers" thread. Very lovely work, where the effect of the lens matched magically well with the images. I'm sort of exploring that, how much of a difference it makes, and the answer seems to be "a lot and not much..."

I'd love to visit Paris and the catacombs. Maybe someday...

[Mark Sawyer]

Oh! the benefits of fading light.

There's a soft transience as it travels across the surfaces...

[Mark Sawyer]

OK, I gave this big licks to the point of transferring all three to a single palette in photoshop so my eye could travel between the 3 without interruption. I do like the Verito one best I think. I love the little play of light on the song sheet, and the glow on the skins. The IWSWG might have been just as successful wide open but it doesn't seem to have enough of either at it's f16 throttle. Still, on it's own it is a fine image. The Acuton shot has done some great stuff with the light and contrast and is pleasing in a standard normal sort of way. I agree any could work well on it's own but I would chose the Verito shot. Also, the Verito needs to come up in all it's values to get nearer to where the Acuton image was for a better comparison. And to my eye all three improve with some slight desaturation but now we're getting into esthetic decisions best left to the artists eye.

I'll post all three on a single background if you like.

I'd love to see it that way, Jim! Post it! I'm usually pretty happy with my prints, but almost always dissapointed by my scans. The blacks go very deep in all of these, but look so wimpy in the scans. I'm a bit of a luddite in digital processing, I suppose...

But with "decisions best left to the artist's eye", I'd probably decide never to let them turn digital, and only show the prints. But then no one would ever see them, or any of our work. The irony of the resurgence in large format today is that so much of it is owed to the internet, which shows the work with such compromise...

I keep going back to the Verito, too... but then the Acuton... the IWSWG suffers from being too much between the two, I think... but you should see its onions in person...

I'm sooooo confused...

[Jim Galli]

I'd love to see it that way, Jim! Post it! I'm usually pretty happy with my prints, but almost always dissapointed by my scans. The blacks go very deep in all of these, but look so wimpy in the scans. I'm a bit of a luddite in digital processing, I suppose...

But with "decisions best left to the artist's eye", I'd probably decide never to let them turn digital, and only show the prints. But then no one would ever see them, or any of our work. The irony of the resurgence in large format today is that so much of it is owed to the internet, which shows the work with such compromise...

I keep going back to the Verito, too... but then the Acuton... the IWSWG suffers from being too much between the two, I think... but you should see its onions in person...

I'm sooooo confused...

So much for empty offers. My fabulous web site server is down cold so I couldn't load the image there. When I made an attachment out of it here it turned into 17kb!!! Less than helpful, so I will quit while I'm still ahead. If my site comes back up I'll send you a link of the upload at full size for approval.

[Mark Sawyer]

So much for empty offers. My fabulous web site server is down cold so I couldn't load the image there. When I made an attachment out of it here it turned into 17kb!!! Less than helpful, so I will quit while I'm still ahead. If my site comes back up I'll send you a link of the upload at full size for approval.

I knew it!!! The internet gods don't like my photographs... :o

I feel bad about your putting all your time in on my work. Much appreciated!

[Jim Galli]

LOL, the gods had a change of heart perhaps although seemingly still in "limp mode"

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/MarkSawyer.jpg

if you dis-approve I can easily remove.

[Mark Sawyer]

LOL, the gods had a change of heart perhaps although seemingly still in "limp mode"

if you dis-approve I can easily remove.

The only thing I disapprove of is that your version is better than mine! By all means, leave it up, at least til you need the space. (I'll try copying it and loading it here to see if it magically takes less space when uploading...) It does make for a much improved comparison of the different versions. I need to learn how to do such things...

Thanks again for your work; we're spending too much on three goofy little prints, but I'm enjoying it...

(Edited in note: I tried copying and uploading, but it loaded as a much smaller version. Guess you're stuck with me for a little while, Jim...)

[C. D. Keth]

I greatly prefer the middle one. It's very painterly. The left one is too soft for my taste and the right just isn't as nice as the middle to my eye.

[Mark Sawyer]

I would chose the Verito shot.


i prefer the acuton shot...


I greatly prefer the middle one. It's very painterly. The left one is too soft for my taste and the right just isn't as nice as the middle to my eye.

Fat lotta help you guys are... grrrrrr... :)

[C. D. Keth]

Fat lotta help you guys are... grrrrrr... :)

Way to be greatful. We just confirmed that you have not one but three cool lenses :P

[Darryl Baird]

I think you're obsessing too much about matching the idea to the medium. The ideas you're trying to lift out of that still life are accessible in each image. Each works to express the idea, but with a difference, a nuance of information in the details. I think getting an idea across is much harder than getting a nice effect and (ultimately) a pretty picture. In a sense I got exactly what I was after -- an effect/look/visual style that I can continue to use in other ways with a certain confidence. But in the end, to me, it's a "purty" picture and not a lot more... I'm very happy with that, but it is what it is. [...maybe I'm the obsessive one ;-) ]

There must be one that tickles you a bit more or satisfies the gut a bit more than the others. Maybe you need a little "distance" (time usually works for me) to reflect fully on the results. Let it sit a while, or move onto another (different) image and do the same thing over and see if you end up at the same point of indecision.


Darryl, I was really impressed by your work with your own lenses over in the "mudsuckers" thread. Very lovely work, where the effect of the lens matched magically well with the images. I'm sort of exploring that, how much of a difference it makes, and the answer seems to be "a lot and not much..."

I'd love to visit Paris and the catacombs. Maybe someday...

[Mark Sawyer]

Way to be greatful. We just confirmed that you have not one but three cool lenses :P

Apologies; a bad joke on my part, (hence the smiley...)


I think you're obsessing too much about matching the idea to the medium. The ideas you're trying to lift out of that still life are accessible in each image. Each works to express the idea, but with a difference, a nuance of information in the details. I think getting an idea across is much harder than getting a nice effect and (ultimately) a pretty picture. In a sense I got exactly what I was after -- an effect/look/visual style that I can continue to use in other ways with a certain confidence. But in the end, to me, it's a "purty" picture and not a lot more... I'm very happy with that, but it is what it is. [...maybe I'm the obsessive one ;-) ]

There must be one that tickles you a bit more or satisfies the gut a bit more than the others. Maybe you need a little "distance" (time usually works for me) to reflect fully on the results. Let it sit a while, or move onto another (different) image and do the same thing over and see if you end up at the same point of indecision.


Agreed, but it's a fun little obsession, or maybe just a strong curiousity on how and whether such different surface differences really affect what's underneath. And just a general love of what the lenses can do.

There's something in the image that means something to me beyond the "pretty picture." But it's important to me that the suface and effect of the image not just carry the idea or feeling, but give it strength. I think such surface appearances are important to us; it's why we spend so much time on our prints, why we use platinum and collodian and such large cameras and negatives...