Amazing
and that tree is wonderful
Like!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg
Printable View
Amazing
and that tree is wonderful
Like!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg
Nice shot Steve. Nice and clear and sharp. Howtek?
Yes, this was Howtek. Another image from this shoot was scanned on Epson.
Thank you. It fits the mood I was in when I took that image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
Ohhh, I've been dreaming of AZ lately. I need to go on a road trip. This stay-at-home for 2020 is killing me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShugPug
Stunning!! But you can't fool me! It's says "portra" right on it! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg
Good... what format ? 8x10 or ? What focal lens ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg
Regards.
Attachment 210583 Nikkor 90MM F8. Velvia 50 Epson 700 Epson Scan SW
Black Eyed Susan in Fallow Field @ Sunset, Mercer County Park, Central NJ
Attachment 210584 Nikkor 150MM F5.6W Ektachrome 100
Tickseed Sunflowers in Foggy Field
Sorry for Scan artifacts and miscolored highlights. But the image conveys adequately otherwise.
Attachment 210585 Nikkor 90Mm F8, Velvia 50
False Foxglove at Sunset (Fallow Field), Mercer County Park West, Central NJ
Attachment 210586 Nikkor 90MM f8, Velvia 50, 60 second exposure
Black River, Hacklebarney State Park, NJ.
Attachment 210587 Nikkor 90MM f8 Ekatchrome
A simple field image of Milkweed and Broomsedge
Attachment 210588 Nikkor 150MM f5.6W Velvia 50 - 2 Minute Exposure
Sourland Mountain, Central NJ "Devil's Half Acre"
Alder Catkins and Maple Flowers at Sunset.
Comments welcome!
Thank you. PDM
Very nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
Nice work. It would be good to see it bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
Great set, but I'm going to vote this one "Best in Show"--I could really see a subtle, evocative print here, especially if you spent a bit more time in post guiding our eyes through the frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
Michael and Gabe, thank you for your comments. Since I do not post to another website, I don't have a way to make the image larger, at least as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong). It is the maximum upload size allowed by this site.
I do have a 24"x30" print of this in my studio and I do enjoy viewing it up close. The Nikkor 90MM F8 is a real stunner for detail.
Creation Bear,
Thanks. I gather you mean to increase contrast a bit. Easily done and I will experiment.
Traversing a hillside of these diabase boulders was precarious, but worth the risk I think.
What is interesting to me is how Fuji Velvia 50 rendered in low light, retaining great color contrast and definition with a slight shift to blue in shadows. Note that there was zero wind in taking this image; hence retained sharpness even at 2 minutes.
Ha, you might have been able to haul out a big ball of sleepy timber rattlers as well...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
At any rate, given the vagaries of the native photo hosting here, I'm having to interpolate a bit...not exactly the Apple Retina experience! It definitely might be worth pushing curves a bit, but you might also consider a few different kinds of dodging/burning to bring out the spatial relationships a bit more. For myself, this particular shot has me thinking about DOF as well--out-of-focus areas fore and aft in the frame might have distilled the essence of the late winter/early spring scene in a way the f/64 approach can't.
Otherwise, a beautiful part of the world that you're roaming...
For view camera work - unless depth of field is severely limited (8x10 with a long lens) it's always best to minimize the use of movements. It can get very confusing initially. Of course for architecture you (usually) need to lines to be straight. I know you know this (all of you do). Only weak pictures need perfection. Good ones can withstand plenty of flaws. Atget's work is riddled with flaws - so what? They're magnificent. And I can mention some photographers with flawless technique - and very dead looking prints, but I won't. Ja? If the camera points down, and the trees bow out a bit - so what if the picture is interesting? And not everything always needs to be "tack sharp" - sometimes that's very dull.
Go take pictures that are interesting. Avoid taking pictures that are "about photography" because you have a view camera.
Having said that, view cameras are marvelous to work with and you'll enjoy yourself immensely. (Make sure you have a good tripod!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrister
Well said!
Pliew Waterfall, Chantaburi
45F-2 150mm F5.6 Sinaron-S f22 15 Sec.
FP4+ 125 DDX 1:4 20c 10min.
Quote Originally Posted by Barrister View Post
For view camera work - unless depth of field is severely limited (8x10 with a long lens) it's always best to minimize the use of movements. It can get very confusing initially. Of course for architecture you (usually) need to lines to be straight. I know you know this (all of you do). Only weak pictures need perfection. Good ones can withstand plenty of flaws. Atget's work is riddled with flaws - so what? They're magnificent. And I can mention some photographers with flawless technique - and very dead looking prints, but I won't. Ja? If the camera points down, and the trees bow out a bit - so what if the picture is interesting? And not everything always needs to be "tack sharp" - sometimes that's very dull.
Go take pictures that are interesting. Avoid taking pictures that are "about photography" because you have a view camera.
Having said that, view cameras are marvelous to work with and you'll enjoy yourself immensely. (Make sure you have a good tripod!)
Barrister:
Respectfully dissent (but of course you do have standing to present (:)), focusing on this image Creation Bear has pointed out. To achieve max DOF, I used front tilt and aperture of F45. Though F64 would have been ideal, a 4 Minute + exposure was not feasible due to low and declining light and unfamiliarity with reciprocity beyond 2 minutes.
The front tilt was used to create a diagonal of sharpness which allowed complete DOF in the foreground and all salient points mid-depth (maximum visual impact), with some loss of DOF in boulders in the background, tree leaves in the background being mostly in focus, from the front tilt. My objective would been impossible at F64 sans movements, not achieving what I have with F 45 and front tilt. Would the image have improved at F64 and complete DOF? Probably not. Would not using front tilt and F32 created a better image, IMO, no.
There is a certain pleasure (and something special) in being able to "step into" an image with complete (or as close as possible) DOF, fine detail throughout. I see no reason to avoid using movements if they achieve this objective given my own vision.
For landscape work, I find front swing, tilt, rear rise and occasional shift necessary to avoid apertures of F64. Since I like images with close detail that recedes into infinity with touchpoints along the way, all in focus as possible, movements are pretty necessary. Am I emulating Porter, Hyde, Dykinga, Adams, O'Hara, Meunch? Yes. Am I at fault for a lacking a vision without movements, absolutely. I would like to think that I could break this mold and "see" without movements, but I have allowed historic inculcation. Sorry for being boring.
Lake Attilan and Volcano Guatemala
Very sweet, Bill!
Quote:
Originally Posted by viboons
Lovely!
Nice discussion (I'm going to say I have "standing" since I roam about in the Appalachias, albeit a few hundred miles south of you.):)Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
I'm glad you mentioned Porter. A couple of things I picked up on in his compositions (e.g. in In the Realm of Nature was 1.) just how tightly he frames his "lithic" subjects, and 2.) how his arborscapes float patches of color against a backlit, almost monochrome background. Along those lines, I think the Porter-esque action is happening in the upper right quarter of the frame...I could imagine you taking a few steps to your right and shooting "through" the catkins and flowers at what ever aperture seemed reasonable. You very well might have use movements and lots of 'em, but the framing that works for the other, more pastoral, images you shared might need to give way to a more aggressive approach the further you get from civilization.
pdmoylan - -
Look man, if you use film and a view camera and concentrate happily in lovely spaces, God bless you. However you wish to work is fine - and none of my business. There aren't any rules for creative thinking, or working methods. Like David Vestal said, anything goes if the picture works.
The fellow starting the post was just beginning to use a view camera, and it's just been my experience that movements should be minimized initially - for beginners - to avoid confusion. Initially . . . not permanently. He'll get the hang of it, and probably become an expert pretty quickly - like you are. And for me - I've never really used a great deal of camera movements for some reason. A "realistic rendering" can be awfully dull - for me. But that's just me. I'm only an expert in my own opinion. I firmly believe that someone like Fred Picker did a great deal of damage trying to formulate rules for how people should "see" and work creatively. I'd never want to do that. It's one thing to have rules for getting dust out of holders before you load them - it's quite another to dictate rules for where to stand and how to organize a photograph - very dangerous.
If I see something a certain way, that's up to me. If you see something differently, that's your business. And you wouldn't have to agree with me at all. Years ago I knew photographers whose working methods astounded me - they seemed so haphazard and random. But they made beautiful pictures. One fellow hand-held a Bronica 6x6, sometimes he'd take a picture with one hand! - while I assiduously set up my 4x5, leveled and squared it, following classic "rules." And his pictures were much better than mine. They had life and energy - mine were dead looking.
I'll bet your pictures are nice too, eh?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the person starting the post did so in 2008, and hasn't posted here since 2012. (You can see this by clicking his/her username and then looking at "View Forum Posts.") The thread is now up to 1531 pages, and it's just about posting landscape images now, not how to use the view camera. Your suggestions might be better posted in the Style & Technique forum.
Note also (everyone) that "Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster." In my mind "I would have done this or that" is a critique.
With regard to all this, I find I keep myself fresh by changing my vision every few years. Sometimes I use small apertures and movements to get everything more or less in focus. At other times, I use larger apertures and get out of focus backgrounds. One thing I like about large format is the number of options.
Just wondering if you also happened to shoot this in horizontal orientation? If so, please post it also!Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
I think the size is fine for viewing once I click on the image. Great job, especially given the low light and long exposure!
Michael,
To incorporate a fair portion of the yellow foliage in an horizontal, I would have to moved back considerably, perhaps losing the salient aspects of this view, or change to a 75/65MM lens. I already was carrying 3 lenses but not a 75mm or wider, so did not consider a horizontal. Remember that I am already risking neck and limb by climbing on damp rocks, meaning sometimes images are a function of safe traverse and limitations in focal length. My arthritic shoulder prove out that 3 lenses was my limit when hiking.
Best,
H20 - No dog or fight for me, no offense from the "critique" by Barrister and Creation Bear - in fact quite the contrary. Sharing of ideas and approaches should be embraced, no? Obtaining good LF images requires significant seasoned craft, opportunity, decent vision and good composition, and above all, a body that can withstand carrying 25-35 pounds of equipment (plus tripod) on a regular basis. Scars from dislocated and arthritic shoulders from 20+ years of this passion are worth the effort, IMO. Pardon my didactic approach, but 12 years of teaching outdoor photography comes to the surface every so often.Quote:
Originally Posted by h2oman
Attachment 210654 Nikkor 150MM F5.6W Velvia 50
Attachment 210655 ditto
Adirondacks images, ala Porter. Both along Route 73 NYS
Creation Bear, agree that Porter sought tight comps - something to learn from. His use of Kodachrome and early Ektachrome and Dye Transfer printing techniques can't be matched today. DR was much lower with those early films than today's Portia/Provia. Thanks for your input!
Ha, my treads are showing a little wear as well--though mostly from a few decades of backcountry fly fishing.:) Speaking of Porter and printing, here's an interesting video if you've not seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CslJoMRd1es. I've only encountered his work in books (though I understand the fidelity of those were pretty good)--rummaging around that era's C-prints must be a treat indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
Otherwise, I very much appreciate you sharing what you've brought back from your encounters--I've done only the most rudimentary color work, but the color palette of the "graybacks" with Velvia has me thinking...
Listen - is this worth calling me out? Are you the police of this forum, is this the biggest problem you have to solve in your life: what category I'm writing under? For God's sake, I'm disgusted with that kind of pettiness. How about if I don't post anymore, and cancel my subscription? Then you can be sure I don't break any more of your important rules. Good?
An example of an image (Dunes, Stovepipe Wells) where, for me..."extreme" back movements were crucial for my interpretation of this scene:
Attachment 210656
Another example (Yucca Pods, White Sands), but this time...absolutely no movements were used:
Attachment 210657
Love the dunes image, John! And, yes, a perfect example of where extreme back movements really helps image presentation, IMO (and yours, too, apparently.)
The dunes image is wonderful, but since I don't know the scene, what movement did you use and for what effect? Who knows, maybe I'll learn something.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Layton
Cool your jets. It was a gentle reminder to a new member and while true, it was not a 'calling out'. To keep the LFPF a well-oiled machine, there are rules and procedures that help to keep it so. Thank you for your participation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrister
Ditto. I'm guessing forward tilt on the back? That's just a guess, I'd like to know to to be sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Olsen
...backward base tilt on the back (similar to forward front tilt, except for little field displacement vs. front tilt) - pretty much essential as I was using a 90mm lens which is marginal for 5x7 with movements, and needed to preserve what coverage I had available (front tilts move available field relative to film, rear tilts not so much) . The price of course (for this back tilt) is a bit more perspective distortion, but not overtly distracting in this case. Other data...orange filter, PMK Pyro. Light was fading so fast that I was only able to obtain one image...glad it worked! Actually, there is a bit of blur in the extreme upper left (had to work quickly, also exhausted from having sprinted two miles with gear to get here in time)...unfortunate as this has, so far, limited me to printing this to 30x40 - whereas if it were sharp overall, I'd love to go to 40x60! Will likely do this (40x60) anyway...just because!
Gotta admit that my previous post was a bit political...in defense of staying true to ourselves and not ascribing to others generalizations. Just sayin! :)
Thanks for sharing your thought process. Every bit helps me get my best results out in the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Layton
"...backward base tilt on the back (similar to forward front tilt, except for little field displacement vs. front tilt)"
Nice dune image John Layton. Just curious if you would have preferred the benefit of front tilt vs rear backward tilt for this image? I ask because the backward rear tilt as you say distorts the image as if you were using a wider lens than 90MM. Moving the film plane away from the field of view would "elongate" the image away. In other words, did you view the image in advance with the "elongation" effect? I say that as for some, having the film plane perpendicular to the ground (assuming flat ground) is necessary to retain WYSWYG. Of course for base architecture imaging, this used to be the "standard" approach for many pros. (The didactic in me comes out again). I appreciate your insight.
PDM
I don't want to get into an argument over this again, but...
Rear movements along with a subsequent tilting of the whole camera forward are identical to front movements, in terms of "distortion." There is nothing about rear movements that inherently creates distortion, only the tilting of the image plane, which is just as possible with front movements along with tilting the whole camera backwards. Compositions will vary but some rise/fall of one of the standards corrects this (but it sounds like there was a lack of available image circle).
Corran,
I don't believe I asked you for your input on this, nor am I aware of any prior "argument". Obviously if the rear backward tilt brings the film plane perpendicular to the ground, than it's the same as front tilt. If the rear tilt goes beyond that, then distortion does come into play. So your comment is a "half truth" as such. Let's not put your popularity and number of images posted as the basis for elbowing others who have knowledge of this. Ok?
Excuse me pdm but I'll put some input in if I feel like it. No need to be a jerk. Ok?
It's simply a common misconception that rear movements inherently cause perspective distortion. Which is, as you say, a "half-truth" and a more refined understanding could help others who happen to be reading.
Call me what you want, but there is an intrinsic need for some subscribers to learn and I am simply trying to keep the dialogue clear, accurate and open minded. There is inherent distortion in rear tilt other than when the film plane is perpendicular, whether fore or aft. Go back to Adam's The Lens and his discussion points on the subject. If your and H20s attempts to dismiss dialogue of these basis skills in this thread smacks of a private club. I know of nothing that should limit discussion in this or any other forum. If there are new limitations that have been set forth, please advise.
I personally enjoy these discussions as I enjoy learning something new. OK?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing I said limited discussion. In case you are unaware, more than one person can reply and I am sure Mr. Layton will give his personal input. I brought up an additional point to consider which in a different thread some time ago was contentious, for one member, as he seemed to believe that rear tilt = distortion, always. I think it's important to point out that this is not exactly true, it is instead the relative angle of the film plane after movements are applied. I have noted that some newer LF users do not quite realize that both rear and front movements can be applied equally in this manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
I haven't the slightest idea why you suddenly snapped back with such vitriol, but if you need it, feel free to judiciously use this tool: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...?do=ignorelist
So why does a building change shape as I tilt the back relative to side of a building (no matter what I do with the front lens)? Changing shape of an object is a 'distortion', unless there is some photo-related use of the word that is different.
Edit: re-read the prior posts. Semantics again...damn.
Changing the position of the film plane (same as the plane of the back) relative to the scene will reshape the image of the scene on the GG. This power to change the shape of the image is sometimes called a distortion, but should have no negative connotations. We are manipulating the shape (the geometric properties?) of the scene, not 'distorting' it.
But I have been wrong before.