Corran, watch you exposure to poison ivy. I used to be immune to poison oak but after one particular heavy exposure I lost my immunity.
Roger
Printable View
Corran, watch you exposure to poison ivy. I used to be immune to poison oak but after one particular heavy exposure I lost my immunity.
Roger
Good points! I will keep that in mind. I don't plan on using it like aloe, at least :).
Watch getting into situations where you damage the plants, such as tearing the leaves and vines or digging the roots. That how my immunity went away, a large enough dose of urishiol will do you in.
I'd say Virginia Creeper (5 leaves). Definitely not poison Ivy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CreationBear
Another PSA:): if you're regularly wading through the stuff, in the name of domestic harmony, think about segregating your wash away from your wife's clothes in case she's a little more sensitive to urishiol than you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Beasley
Don't ask me how I know this.:p
Brand new to LF, this is the fourth photograph I've made. Fujinon 150/5.6, Intrepid 4x5 mkIV, Ilford Hp5 at box speed developed in ID-11 and shoddily scanned and stitched together on my Epson V600. Would appreciate any criticism or advice that could help me in the future. Attachment 203788
One of the reasons I ended up doing the laundry instead of my wife...Quote:
Originally Posted by CreationBear
Nice image. As to advice, it's hard to tell anything technical from a web-size scan. Just off hand, it seems like your contrast could use some work, as well as your development - I read the sky as showing uneven development, most likely from insufficient agitation. Of course that could be the stitching you referred to. But I really do like the composition and the overall feel of the image.Quote:
Originally Posted by superman9
Thank you for the advice. I don't think the issue is with the development—my negative looks solid—i think you're correct it's an issue with the scanning but that's something I don't really know how to trouble shoot. My guess is it has to do with the negative sitting unevenly but i could be wrong. On the contrast front, what would you do differently? Do you have any resources you could point me to with info relating to my contrast issues?
I know the woes of trying to scan 4x5 on a V600. Other than that a very nice image, anything I could criticize would be nit picking. It very easy to miss things when you are out taking pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by superman9
Very nice start! I agree with the above that the sky appears to reveal some uneven development, but that could simply be scanning & stitching. Personally, I would like to see the foreground rocks (the ones sticking out of the lake) larger and of more dominance. Don't know if it would have even been possible--given available lenses--I would have eliminated the submerged rocks and used a little back tilt causing those foreground rocks to "loom" a bit. Placement of the focus plane would have been somewhat tricky, but I think it could work. All that said, it's one man's opinion and simply that...an opinion! I think it's a very nice image nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by superman9
Superman9, I like that image. Very well seen & executed. Some may not like the deep shadows of the foreground rocks, wanting to see detail there, but I have no issue with it. Well done, an excellent first effort.
I think you're off to a great start! Not sure what's up with the sky, the rest looks pretty good. It's your eye and your composition, although personally I agree with the other poster who would crop out the foreground submerged stones and use back tilt to make the foreground rocks a bit larger.Quote:
Originally Posted by superman9
Nitpicking aside, a great start!
I think this is a fine photograph for an early attempt. I find the rocks underwater pleasing and would not remove them. If anything they should be printed a little lighter (along with the above-water rocks). I think the back tilt would add some extra drama.
Nice shot superman. I've never stitched but I do have a V600. What settings do you use when you scan? It seems to me that both pictures should be scanned flat with no auto or manual adjustments at all, no black and white points, no levels,no ICE, no sharpening, etc. Then stitch the two pictures. Then do all the adjustments in post. Otherwise one scan is going to be slightly different than the other if done before stitching.
My comment was based on what I could see on my screen, from a stitched negative scan. The contrast seems a bit flat on my side, with the shadow sides of the rocks somewhat below the straight line of the film's characteristic curve. But again, there's nothing substantive I could tell you from what I can see over the interwebs. As I said, overall it's a fine image, especially for a first attempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by superman9
Thanks Dugan I appreciate it!
I make levels adjustments and then move the negative but dont change the settings so in theory it should be the same right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
Hey thanks! Do you have any tips for how to mount negatives for a V600?Quote:
Originally Posted by jtomasella
The second LF photos I ever took (last week):
Attachment 203936
Very nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova
Really nice colours and so not what I'm used to seeing this film used for. A little bit psychedelic even with that distorted perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Clip, a hill in the Rhinogs range, part of Snowdonia National Park, Wales, UK. Seen from the a path known as the Roman Steps on a wintery day in February 2020. A week before the UK went into lockdown. Damn lovely part of the world and can't wait to return.
Chamonix 045N-2, Rodenstock 135mm f5.6@f16 and 1/3, 1/2s, Kodak Ektar 100, 81A warm-up filter. Epson V700 scan, colourperfect and lightroom processing.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...2d403a0c_c.jpgClip by Graham Meek, on Flickr
Thanks Alex!
giganova, I like that second one. If you don't mind me saying so, it does seem heavily underexposed though.
A sheet from yesterday - at the base of Bearden Falls. This is a lesser-known waterfall that is somewhat difficult to get to. I'll have to return in the fall/winter when there's less growth to see the top better.
Intrepid 4x5, Nikkor 90mm f/8, T-Max 100, Pyrocat:
http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/pho...den-5401ss.jpg
Ha, definitely like a square crop from the top--Wehman ought to work just fine.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
LOL, well the last part of the trail up to the falls you can see in the trees is about an 80-90% grade, so not sure about that one.
Since I've been trying to make larger enlargements for festivals, 4x5 is my go-to format, since I can only do 8x10 contact prints until I finally get that enlarger built. But I don't have room for it at the moment.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...456e551d_b.jpgROC Improved Petzval Lake Tree by rrunnertexas, on Flickr
Rochester Improved model 5 x 8 camera with a Petzval lens, Arista EDU 100 - at the lake.
The negative is fine, it's my endless frustration with Photoshop: looks perfect in Photoshop (16-bit monochrome TIF file), but when I export it, it is 2-stops too dark. Exporting to web with embedded color profile doesn't help. Heck, even when I open the TIF file (which looks perfect in Photoshop) with the Finder, it looks way too dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Use sRGB and you'll be a lot less frustrated. Unless you have a meticulous understanding of your color workflow, any other color space is a waste of your time.
Two more from the same wintery trip to Snowdonia National Park, Wales, UK, this February.
1) Rhinog Fach from Foel Wen: a day that threatened snow all day but never actually delivered the white stuff, but only lovely winter light and snowy tops.
Chamonix 045N-2, Rodenstock 135mm f5.6@f32, 1/4s, Fuji Provia 100F, 1.5 stop hard ND graduated filter. Epson V700 scan, lightroom/capture nx processing.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5f921c6d_c.jpgRhinog Fach from Foel Wen by Graham Meek, on Flickr
2) Sunset detail, Llandanwg Beach: Taken just as the sun set out to sea on a lovely winter's day.
Chamonix 045N-2, Nikon 300mmf9@f16 and 1/3, 2s, Fuji Velvia 50, no filters. Epson V700 scan and lightroom/capture nx2 processing.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e183e917_c.jpgSunset, Llandanwg Beach by Graham Meek, on Flickr
I'm impressed how in focus those rocks are given the aperture and focal length.
Near Lincoln, MA
Chamonix 4x5
CM fujinon W 125mm f5.6
delta 100
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3d3dbdd7_b.jpgimg720 by Chris, on Flickr
I used movements and if you look at the face of the rock bottom RHS away from you, not very much in focus. Likewise it's neighbouring rock and closest face. I can see it an A3 print.
Pillar Mt., Kodiak, AK
pentac 8 inch f2.9
speed graphic
delta 100
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e5895a84_b.jpgimg332 by Chris, on Flickr
Like both of these Chris.
Chris Nice shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Kirsten
Thanks guys!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris7521
I love that.
Thank you Ben!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Calwell
https://www.marquetecken.be/wp-conte...1046885735.jpg
Portra 160 & Drumscan.
https://www.marquetecken.be/wp-conte...0-positive.jpg
Ektar 100 - somewhere in the German Eifel
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c9f48e3a_o.jpgKiev Rus, 2020 4x5 by Yuriy Sanin, on Flickr
Ukraine, Heliar 210/4.5@22
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d4da2bbb_o.jpgKiev Rus 2, 2020 4x5 by Yuriy Sanin, on Flickr
Ukraione. Congo 120/6.3@22
Great stuff Yuriy!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...35b88173_o.jpgKiev Rus 4, 2020 4x5 by Yuriy Sanin, on Flickr
Ukraine. Congo 120/6.3@22
Great work, Yuriy, love them all.
Patrick, that's lovely.
Chamonix 45N-1
Fujinon-W 125mm f/5.6
TMax 400
pyrocat-hd
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...fe15e7e9_h.jpg200606-2 by Michael Teresko, on Flickr
Looks like a friendly place. What is it? Great find!Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Teresko