Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alexn
I've been obsessing for a year or two, searching for a jetty with a strong underside... Clean, bold, symmetrical.
On a family holiday during the week I found exactly what I had been hoping for.
For this image, knowing exactly what I wanted to achieve, I was relentless under the dark cloth, I moved the tripod time and time again to get everything lined up just as I wanted it. I spent more time looking at the ground glass for this particular image than I ever have on any other image I've made with large format. Once I had my symmetry and focus nailed I metered a couple of times to be sure I'd get what I wanted and once I was finally happy, after implementing two grad filters to bring the tones down to where I wanted them. I exposed my sheet of Fomapan 100. This was the last sheet of 6 that I took on my trip... I had one shot to get it right. One shot to make the image I had been hoping to make for nearly a year... I am very happy to say I think I pulled it off...
Really interested on hearing some constructive criticisms on this please everyone. I am very happy with this, and consider it perhaps my best B/W neg to date.
"Strength"
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...92289632_n.jpg
Fomapan 100 @ 100
Chamonix 045N-2
210mm f/5.6
40sec @ f/32
Dev: Rodinal 1:100, 50min, No Agitation, 20°C
Ooh, I really like that. I am a sucker for long exposure photography though. Very well done!
Re: Large Format Landscapes
This was the first photo taken with my new (to me) Zone VI 4x5 camera. I rushed out to a local lake after unpacking it, anxious to try it out "in the field".
This is somewhat of a hybrid photo as it was scanned into the computer and worked on in photoshop a little. I think, with some practice, and a little luck I could achieve something similar in the darkroom, using toners and some burning/dodging and contrast papers.
Shot using a Nikkor SW 180mm F5.6 lens on Fomapan 200 at ISO 160 through a red filter. Processed in Rodinal at 50:1 for 8 minutes.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3867/...485ef906_o.jpgAn-Evening-by-the-Lake by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alexn
I've been obsessing for a year or two, searching for a jetty with a strong underside... Clean, bold, symmetrical.
On a family holiday during the week I found exactly what I had been hoping for.
For this image, knowing exactly what I wanted to achieve, I was relentless under the dark cloth, I moved the tripod time and time again to get everything lined up just as I wanted it. I spent more time looking at the ground glass for this particular image than I ever have on any other image I've made with large format. Once I had my symmetry and focus nailed I metered a couple of times to be sure I'd get what I wanted and once I was finally happy, after implementing two grad filters to bring the tones down to where I wanted them. I exposed my sheet of Fomapan 100. This was the last sheet of 6 that I took on my trip... I had one shot to get it right. One shot to make the image I had been hoping to make for nearly a year... I am very happy to say I think I pulled it off...
Really interested on hearing some constructive criticisms on this please everyone. I am very happy with this, and consider it perhaps my best B/W neg to date.
"Strength"
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...92289632_n.jpg
Fomapan 100 @ 100
Chamonix 045N-2
210mm f/5.6
40sec @ f/32
Dev: Rodinal 1:100, 50min, No Agitation, 20°C
The edge effects of the Rodinal stand development are conspicuous here, sucj as around the pillars. It is a bold image so it works ok here.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Yeah, that's some fine Velvia colors.
Personally, I feel like maybe the scanner was challenged because it seems underexposed? Of course I can't see the original transparency but that's just my feeling from looking at this.
That's what I was thinking, slight under exposure by 1/2 stop maybe even a full stop?
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StoneNYC
That's what I was thinking, slight under exposure by 1/2 stop maybe even a full stop?
I'd say at least a full stop but of course we are not looking at the original transparency.
Pretty shot if it can be brought out.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
I've found that Velvia NEEDS to be exposed EXACTLY for optimum results. I usually rate it @ ASA40(so a 1/3 overexposure from box speed), as I've found that for me and the lab that I use for my E6 processing, ASA40 provides an easier-to-scan, slightly lighter(but still has good, easily "recovered" highlight detail as long as I've exposed it correctly from the start.
I also get my spot meter calibrated on a yearly basis. I don't photograph much these days, due to time constraints, but when I go out, I don't want to bring home film that'll just end up in the trash can. Call me persnickety, but I don't want to waste my time on ho-hum shots. When shooting Velvia 50, I carry a "correction card" that shows corrections for color and/or density based on testing a sheet or two when I buy a batch(last time was a few years ago, and will probably be the last couple boxes I'll use, as Ektar 100 scans beautifully, and allows me to shoot w/o ND grads most of the time(one less thing to worry about in the field!)
Scanning CAN allow one to have some control over density in post-production, but Velvia 50 is harder(IMO) to correct if not exposed within 1/2 stop of a "perfect" exposure +/-. Blocked-up shadows that cannot be fully recovered without going to sh** is a very real possibility, so testing of shadow clipping points(basically where I know shadows will block up without any discernible detail)
A harder film to truly master, but once you're dialed in, you're dialed in. Technical proficiency is key with Velveeta 50, but then again, if you can master shooting transparency film, color neg will be a piece of cake; b/w too!
-Dan
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Hey everyone! Very interesting discussion.
The slide looks exactly like that on a very bright lighttable with masking the areas arround it. The scanner brought out everything thats in there.
But Im not shure if we can rate it undeexposed. You havent been there. This is nearly a night shot. It was taken about 30 minutes after sunset, and it was really dark. The thin clouds brought out the last gloom of light, so in my feeling the slide matches the scene. The exposure time was around 4 minutes. I'm not shure if more exposure would have killed this mood but probably you are right and 1/2 a stop more would have been better.
Very interesting to hear, how someone sees a picture like this, who was not there. Seems a significant difference, because I like it and think about printing.
I appreciate your opinion very much because its absolutely important to see the own pictures through the eyes of an uninvolved person. Thank you all for your comments!
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sdzsdz
Hey everyone! Very interesting discussion.
The slide looks exactly like that on a very bright lighttable with masking the areas arround it. The scanner brought out everything thats in there.
But Im not shure if we can rate it undeexposed. You havent been there. This is nearly a night shot. It was taken about 30 minutes after sunset, and it was really dark. The thin clouds brought out the last gloom of light, so in my feeling the slide matches the scene. The exposure time was around 4 minutes. I'm not shure if more exposure would have killed this mood but probably you are right and 1/2 a stop more would have been better.
Very interesting to hear, how someone sees a picture like this, who was not there. Seems a significant difference, because I like it and think about printing.
I appreciate your opinion very much because its absolutely important to see the own pictures through the eyes of an uninvolved person. Thank you all for your comments!
It's a nice shot. What you are saying makes perfect sense. If it was me I would reshoot it a little bit earlier in the day to avoid the shadows blocking out.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daniel Stone
I've found that Velvia NEEDS to be exposed EXACTLY for optimum results. I usually rate it @ ASA40(so a 1/3 overexposure from box speed), as I've found that for me and the lab that I use for my E6 processing, ASA40 provides an easier-to-scan, slightly lighter(but still has good, easily "recovered" highlight detail as long as I've exposed it correctly from the start.
I also get my spot meter calibrated on a yearly basis. I don't photograph much these days, due to time constraints, but when I go out, I don't want to bring home film that'll just end up in the trash can. Call me persnickety, but I don't want to waste my time on ho-hum shots. When shooting Velvia 50, I carry a "correction card" that shows corrections for color and/or density based on testing a sheet or two when I buy a batch(last time was a few years ago, and will probably be the last couple boxes I'll use, as Ektar 100 scans beautifully, and allows me to shoot w/o ND grads most of the time(one less thing to worry about in the field!)
Scanning CAN allow one to have some control over density in post-production, but Velvia 50 is harder(IMO) to correct if not exposed within 1/2 stop of a "perfect" exposure +/-. Blocked-up shadows that cannot be fully recovered without going to sh** is a very real possibility, so testing of shadow clipping points(basically where I know shadows will block up without any discernible detail)
A harder film to truly master, but once you're dialed in, you're dialed in. Technical proficiency is key with Velveeta 50, but then again, if you can master shooting transparency film, color neg will be a piece of cake; b/w too!
-Dan
I don't shoot much Velvia but what you are saying reminds me of when I used to shoot Kodachrome and print Cibachrome. Sometimes it was a bitch but when you got it right it was beautiful.
Re: Large Format Landscapes
Noting that something may be underexposed doesn't have anything to do with liking it or not.
My feeling is that "real life" and the photograph of it are two very different things, especially with regard to long-exposures / night shooting. For an extreme example, think about long-exposures with star trails. Nothing looks like that in real life but it's a different experience photographically to do 2-4 hour exposures or whatever to get the image. Just because it was after sunset, for me personally, doesn't mean the slide should be dark, but that's my aesthetic and you obviously differ in opinion, which is fine.
And here we are only discussing exposure...not composition, subject matter, etc.
