Large Format Landscapes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helcio J Tagliolatto

I am always in doubt when I see images captured on black and white film and scanned from the negative only.
It may be my prejudice, but to reveal how much a large format photographer knows about the process and the full (almost) depth of an image obtained from a large format camera, the posted image should always be scanned from the printed image, either it by traditional or digital processes.

---

I'm not sure I see the difference. Scanned is scanned, and while you can certainly get a reasonable (but not great) scan from a bad negative, there's no reason you can't manipulate a scan of a print, as well. As this is a digital forum, there is no process I'm aware of for directly uploading an analog print that doesn't involve converting to digital at some stage.

Corran and discussion of scans of negatives here in LFF: Well, of course the scan of the negative will look better here than the scan of a darkroom print. One messy and compromising step has been avoided. If what you're offering the public is a digital print, then that's the way to do it. Personally, I'm only offering darkroom prints in the gallery, so it's appropriate for me to only share scans of prints. For that reason, I appreciate it when folks here on the Forum specify whether they're sharing negative vs. prints scans.

Here's a print scan of a 500 sq ft treehouse that has recently been added to our nearby forest. It's on a very steep hillside over a state park lake. TriX with yellow filter, f22.3, 1/15s. I reduced agitation in the film processing and printed as grade 1 1/2 on Ilford MG paper.

[IMG]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...45112887_b.jpgTreeHouse flkr by John Olsen, on Flickr[/IMG]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Olsen

Personally, I'm only offering darkroom prints in the gallery,

---

Same here John, at the gallery and art fests...not sure what it has to do with sharing online as neither is "real life." My print scans don't look as good as the print. Generally the scan is closer in look w/o the intermediary. Sometimes I print radically different than the (initial) scan later, esp. if I reprint a neg, but that's a different topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/ima...rum/Road17.jpg
Massachusetts, October 2018
Sinar P, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 FP4+, D-23

---

Somehow, everything stuck together. Doesn't sound like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orgraph

Somehow, everything stuck together. Doesn't sound like you.

---

Privyet Yuri -

We get lucky sometimes :cool:

- Ken

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9db5baa6_h.jpgCoveys_Landing_1_2_2000pix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

Privyet Yuri -

We get lucky sometimes :cool:

- Ken

---

:-)

Well seen, giganova.

https://scatteredlightblog.files.wor.../sheet0186.jpg

The 1500 feet north-east face of Borka in northern Sweden

Chamonix 45H-1, Symmar 135mm, FomaPan 400

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lassethomas

https://scatteredlightblog.files.wor.../sheet0186.jpg

The 1500 feet north-east face of Borka in northern Sweden

Chamonix 45H-1, Symmar 135mm, FomaPan 400

---

Nice. I really liked your Kvarnforsen waterfall in the other thread too.