Large Format Landscapes

Like!

this color way better than the B&W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Portra 400 shot:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uYKuG4RgC...nizy-5865s.jpg

Next will be E-6 film, maybe.

---

Thanks! I want to try printing both.

Here's one more. I tried leaning in to a high-contrast, but low-key image. Thoughts?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-daTaJ6AVA...nizy-5864s.jpg

I'd say the previous one is better, or something in between if you want a more dramatic look. I think this is too dark and all the shadows lack any detail whatsoever.

As a fun point of discussion:

Sometimes I think we as LF photographers sometimes over-emphasize the importance of "shadow detail" to the detriment of the look and feel of an image (not saying that is the case for mine, just in general). I've been thinking lately about contrast and what really needs to be the "lowest tone with detail" (or, how one can use that data to make a more expressive image).

I just developed another sheet of color film that I will post tomorrow with more shadow detail.

The sea, the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea, as Stephen Dedalus had it.:)

Glad you threw this one open for discussion: as it stands right now, I think the shot is a horizontal 4x5 crop at the bottom of the frame. My reasoning is that crushed shadows lend themselves to graphic, abstract compositions, while their presence in "naturalistic" scenes (e.g. the middle to top of the frame here) simply frustrates our expectations of finding detail to linger on. I do think however you can find some tension between both graphic and "fractal," though: how about a horizontal 1:2.5 right across the top of the frame that picks up the green flame of the backlit foliage that's been caged by the cypress trunks in the foreground?

Corran,
Keep working in this direction. The images are very strong.
J.O.

Thanks for your thoughts, both of you! I will have to consider crops and shadows.

For reference, here is another negative with a full range of detail:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9mMPS0BsL...nizy-5840s.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Thanks for your thoughts, both of you! I will have to consider crops and shadows.

For reference, here is another negative with a full range of detail:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9mMPS0BsL...nizy-5840s.jpg

---

I like this better. If you want to preserve the sense of foreboding that you had in the first version, you could darken the top inch. That would help confine the eye to the swamp. Very good stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

As a fun point of discussion:

Sometimes I think we as LF photographers sometimes over-emphasize the importance of "shadow detail" to the detriment of the look and feel of an image (not saying that is the case for mine, just in general). I've been thinking lately about contrast and what really needs to be the "lowest tone with detail" (or, how one can use that data to make a more expressive image).

I just developed another sheet of color film that I will post tomorrow with more shadow detail.

---

Shadow detail is overrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Thanks for your thoughts, both of you! I will have to consider crops and shadows.

For reference, here is another negative with a full range of detail:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9mMPS0BsL...nizy-5840s.jpg

---

I think the problem is you have too many stops between the duckweed and the trees. It's like when you shoot a landscape where the sky is burning out vs. a darker ground. Of course, you can add a grad ND filter. But that filter won't work in your shot so you got an almost burned out duck weed "sky" against a darker tree "ground". I don't know pulling and pushing, but maybe one of those methods might help.