Printable View
Lovely set from the smokies. I recently did the same in a local national park. I arrived at 0550 and headed down the trail. I hiked 16km before I saw another person. It was an incredibly peaceful and relaxing time. Just me, the 4x5 and hundreds of square kilometers of pristine rainforest.
Best day out I've had in quite a while.
This was with a Bender 8x10 camera -- that I built from a kit -- and a Turner Reich Triple Convertible lens, using the 12 inch element. I'm not too happy with it.
Attachment 114007
Wilson Peak, SW Colorado, two weeks ago.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...1%20825LFF.jpg
Deardorff 8x10, 450mm Nikkor, Artista 125.
Well done Alan!Quote:
Originally Posted by skiers4life
Superbe photograph!
Why not, finarphin? My modest opinion maybe is that scan could be better, only but I haven't from of me the sheet. I like very much this landscape.Quote:
Originally Posted by finarphin
Regards.
(Sorry for my poor English)
Awesome, David!Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lobato
Light, constrast, sharpeness and compo are perfect in my opinion.
Printing a contact with this sheet would be an honor for me.
Gracias, OCM, I'm glad you like it.
Tolerances. Everything in photography revolves around tolerances: lens design, shutter construction, everything. The photographer handles the tolerances in depth of field and range in tone. Here I didn't think I achieved a good result, especially if we want to hold to the tenets of the f64 group. Zone I and Zone II (the trees) have merged. There is blocking on the Porcelain Wall (below the Diving Board, to the right of the face). And there is an unsuccessful differentiation between the figure (Half Dome) and the ground (the sky). On top of that I find it to be soft. I forget where I focused, but it was somewhere in front of the face. Washington Column (on the left) is fairly sharp, and the buttress leading away from Half Dome on the right is likewise fairly sharp, but Half Dome itself is soft. It was either f45 or f64. I couldn't believe it.
The scan could be better, especially since this is a scan of a print, rather than a negative. I think if I worked with it in the darkroom for a couple of days I could improve it, but there's something wrong with it in the range of tone, something that I notice with almost all the prints from this camera and lens, which I don't find in prints done from negatives from my 4x5 and a Schneider Symmar. Of course this is a contact print rather than an enlargement, maybe that has something to do with it.
Thanks for your kind explanation finarphin. I agree with you.
When a negative gives me problems probably due to complex exposures, sometimes when I make a print, I use as chemistry with Amidol. I take a nice surprise, just sometimes ...
Regards.
Here is an image of the Arthur Ravenel bridge in Charleston, South Carolina that I recently made on Ektar with my Crown Graphic (4x5) and a Caltar 210mm f/6.1 lens:
http://karlabbott.smugmug.com/photos...23vRC6v-XL.jpg