Nana, you do exquisite work
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nana Sousa Dias
Printable View
Nana, you do exquisite work
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nana Sousa Dias
I am a musician, too. What instrument do you play?Quote:
Originally Posted by mandoman7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
Thank You, Kirk.
A couple fresh from the developer. I've finally set down to start developing the negatives that have piled up. The first is aspens from this fall with a red filter on Ilford Delta 100. The second is from last May in the Maze District of Canyonlands on TMX.
I had to dig rather deep in the history to bring this thread back on. And it has taken me even longer to produce a hopefully decent shot to add... I hope the dry spell is over.
Chamonix 5×8", 5×8" Adox CHS 25, Schneider Xenar 210mm, Rodinal.
Quarry, Dorset, VT. (The oldest marble quarry in North America, now the swimming hole for the Town of Dorset.)
Dear Jiri,
Well young man, you certainly did dig deep, and you certainly found a beauty too... :)
Time from your craft, whether it is forced, or whether it is unerring, has a way of making you review your images, your purpose and your artistic intent, so much so, that a pause can enrich every intriguing aspect of your work. Your image is very evident of that effective pause. I do like the way you balance your images, and I do like your image's softer approach, which is reminiscent of another fine image maker within this forum, such as Ken Lee. I do believe that many folks within this forum enjoy your work, such as I do.
My hat is off to you, for bringing your fine work back to the forum...
jim k
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina
Jim,
thanks a lot. I appreciate your comments very much...
Jiri
I won't tell you there's NO difference, that's a little extreme. If I examined an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 from a 6x7 negative (forget 35mm) with a loupe I'd see a difference. But just normal viewing? No, I don't think there's necessarily a meaningful difference between the two at 8x10 print size. However, I think a lot depends on the person making the prints. In my fairly extensive experience with both, it's much easier to make a good 8x10 contact print if you start with a good negative than it is to make a comparably good 8x10 print from a 6x7 negative. But if someone is a good enough printer I think they can make 8x10 prints from the two sources that are basically indistinguishable.Quote:
Originally Posted by argos33
In fact I think one reason why some people think contact prints are so great is because they weren't very good printers when they were enlarging so their contact prints, being easier to do well, look dramatically better to them than their enlargements did. I came up with that thought after seeing an exhibit of Paul Stand's work, some of which was contact printed and some enlarged. The only way I could tell which prints were made which way was by reading the catalog. Which caused me to question the idea that a contact print is inherently and automatically better than an enlargement. Of course I could be entirely wrong too, it's just a thought.
Brian, you bring up some good points. I think there are many variables in both formats (such as film speed/type, sharpness of taking and enlarging lenses, etc) that might make one noticeably better than the other. A 6x7 negative enlarged from 400 speed film might be noticeably more grainy than the contact print as opposed to the same situation with 100 speed film used in both formats. I recently made some 8x8 inch prints from 6x6 negatives shot on a Hasselblad, and upon showing them to my brother the first thing he asked was "So is this a contact print?"
So overall I agree with you, but I still think there is some textural quality to the contact prints I've made that I can distinguish without a lupe. As far as how much that effects the overall experience of viewing the print, probably not much for most people, but if you have the money for the film and enjoy doing it for yourself why not.
Evan
There are no much differences between these two photos. The Large format equipment is not giving any changes.
Wow! What great photographs. Here's one from Hyder, AK. Salmon glacier. 5x7, Ilford fp4+, 210mm Apo Symmar, polarizer. Diafine. microtek 1800f.
Regards, Richard
MPP MicroTechnical Mk.VII, Schneider Xenar 135mm, 9×12cm Fomapan 100, Rodinal.
Sometimes it's easier to go lightweight, especially if with the family... Just one lens, small format ( :) )...
This thread is another great introduction to this forum, and I'm a bit overwhelmed by it.
But it also explains why I'm coming back to larger formats. I don't know about Bill, but I can see the tonality of the format even in small prints and web displays. These have what my work with digital and up through medium format for the last 15 years or so have lacked.
And I greatly appreciate Jim Kitchen's words to Jiri, which describes the review I've been engaged in for the last little while.
Thank you all for the great clarity of vision.
Rick "with no LF work currently in the digital domain to show, but hoping to correct that soon" Denney
Welcome! I know you will like this forum.
Mariposa Grove, Yosemite Park, CA
http://machinearts.com/fredphotos/bigtrees1.jpg
Hot damn Jeffrey,,, always a pleasure to see your fine work..!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Sipress
Crestone after a spring blizzard. E100G, 300/9M f32, 1/30.
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/19...090430_002.jpg
My backyard during a spring squall. Taken April 25. Spring is slow to arrive here. The photo above was taken just a week before.
Portra 400NC, 300/9M, f45, 8 seconds
http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/1989-1...090430_001.jpg
Spring Cottonwoods, Garden of the Gods.
NPS 160, 300/9M, f32, 1
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/19...430_003_SL.jpg
Hi Edd,
Here is my contribution to this post. THis was shot with high speed infrared film with 25a red filter Sinar 4X5 with 210 Schneider lens. In the hills around Santa Barbara. Back then I was really into the zone system.:)
Just out of curiosity, how on earth would you apply visualization and zone techniques to wavelengths you can't see?
I've never shot any IR films, so I'm just curious about them. Not trying to be critical.
I may have already tried to pass this one off on a sunset thread, but I can't find it, so forgive me if it's a repeat. Canham 5x7, Provia 100F, 150mm SSXL. I like the glow, but I'm probably too easily pleased.
LJS
LJS,
Speaking as a seasoned cloud chaser, I have to say that your sunset image is one of the nicest cloud formations I've seen in a good long while.
Great work here! Silo, Sinar P 480mm 8.4 Symmar on 8x10" Tmax400 in D-76 scan neg
in northwest Indiana
Thanks Phil, that formation certainly caught my eye (and several sheets of film).
Attached here, no clouds, but running water (comes from clouds, I guess), Wehman 8x10, Astia (when will more 8x10 become available again???), Fuji A 240mm.
LJS
Hey mrladewig, We used the zone system for exposing and developing infrared film. Even though incident and incandescent light meters are barely sensitive to infrared wave lengths we used spot meters and had calibrated them to give us the dynamic range needed to plot optimal exposure for HSIR. I was attending a technical photography school back then and everything we did was buttoned up almost to the point of lunacy. Reflecting back its no wonder I've been anal my whole life. - We checked and double-triple checked our metering and the exposure of our film and took crazy ass notes on everything. To this day I remember cursing the incoming cloud formations in front of my trusty Cambo clamped to that flimsy Husky! And film handling ... we even monitored the temperature of the coolers that were stashed in the interior of our cars under the hot Californian sun. Film processing ... making sure temperatures were always accurate, agitation was as consistent as possible and chemistry was accurate and replenished religiously in excruciatingly accurate amounts with no contamination!!. We were graded not only on the subject matter we chose to shoot but on the density in ten areas of the negative. They used a densitometer. Grueling wonderful days but days I cherish and hold dear! I learned allot!Quote:
Originally Posted by mrladewig
I hope you'll like this one:
Chamonix 5×8", Meyer Aristostigmat 160mm, Adox CHS 25 in 5×8", Rodinal.
Jiri, That is just lovely..
Regards, Richard
Thanks Richard
Jiri
Hi,
these are my first moderately successful attempts in the realm of LF. A rather poor yield out of two boxes but I hope on getting better :)
Ulrich
http://www.ulrich-drolshagen.de/imag...bill_zweig.jpg
http://www.ulrich-drolshagen.de/tmp/...ape2_klein.jpg
Chamonix 4x5, Symmar f5.6/150mm, HP5+ and D100, the second one is a crop as I had issues with the lower edge.
Lower Antelope Canyon
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/...93278a0c_b.jpg
Toyo metal field (4x5), Fujinon 90mm, Acros / Rodinal
f/11, 1s
Dear Ulrich,
Well done...
Your good yield will make me a jealous person. :)
jim k
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen
Dear David,
You obviously know about this fabulous place, and you obviously created a fabulous image... :)
Damn, I must get back to your part of the world.
jim k
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hedley
Picture of the village where I live.
Speed Graphic, Ektar 127mm with red filter, fomapan 200 film.http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9109355-lg.jpg
Matt,
I like that - A good shot.
I do like this one! The tones, the light, the shadows. It's exactly where I'd like to spend a quiet afternoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina
Just one little thing I would do, along the right edge, about 60% up there is a small bright hole in the sky, and another a little to the left. Personally I'd remove them just because my eye is drawn to them, and I'm weird that way.
Ted, thanks for the suggestion. There were breaks in the clouds with brightly lit cumulus mountains, and that is the nature of the light patches. But I understand they might be distracting. I'll try the modification, look at both versions for some time (have them work their own), and then maybe, your version would be better ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tmastran
Jiri
And here is a new one from me:
Chamonix 5×8", Schneider Xenar 210mm, Adox CHS 25 in 5×8", Rodinal.
Jiri
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_1856
If you think working with a Large Format camera is such a waste of time, why are you posting on this Large Format Photography Forum?
Dear Jiri,
Well done, young man... :)
Excellent balance.
jim k
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina
Fjordnibba at Tempelfjorden on Svalbard. Midnight sun (shot at 1 am)
4x5" Fomapan 200 with deep red filter. Maybe a little over the top regarding filter. :)
Sandstone in Willis Creek slot (outside Cannonville, UT). TMAX 400 in Prescysol EF.
http://ronmiller.smugmug.com/photos/...38_TnCCn-S.jpg
The Columbia River from the Washington side.
Camera:Linhof Technica
Lens: Linhof 135mm
Film: Fuji NPS 160
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/...880bd072b5.jpg
Juri,
Beautiful picture!
As much as I like the 5x7, there is something special about the 5x8 format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina
Not sure where to post this one - it's in England, so no mountains or canyons.
My first LF attempt.
Busch Pressman D
Kodak Ektar 127mm/f4.7
Provia 100F
1s@f22
Wild Garlic in Woodland
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/...1ef627.jpg?v=0
[EDIT]Dunno why it won't show in line with IMG tags ...
Patrick, very nice.
The more photos that I see made with that lens, I am glad that I own one.
Patrick, place [IMG] and [/IMG] around the link to the picture - without any spaces in between.
Jiri, beautiful shot! I really love the tonality in your shots - very subtle balance. And I agree with Allen, there is something very special about 5x8…
Eirik, very nice shot - when was it taken?
It was taken one of the last days in April 2007. The midnight sun is just above the horizon coming in from the right.
And yes, it was very far down two steps to the right… :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by csant
Are urban landscapes okay?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/...4b2c19de06.jpg
8"x10" delta 100. 240mm f/9 Fujinon
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/...05f6ff5aee.jpg
8"x10" delta 100. 360mm f/6.3 Fujinon.