Large Format Landscapes

Ok then. Im waiting for the arrival of my first large format camera. Really looking forward to getting it, and then getting out into the landscape with it. But in the meantime I was just wandering if people could post up some of there favorite landscape shot on LF. Be it a large sweeping vista, or intimate details. Just really as a source of inspiration to myself when i get my camera and others like me, who cant wait to get out there with there new kit and shoot the land around them.

Thanks in advance, Edd

You lucky so and so - starting out on a very long new journey.

great shot there. Yeh im really looking forward to the challenge!! Some of my friends think im nuts, moving in the wrong direction, but i want to push myself further with my photography. i feel Large format is the way to achieve this, hopefully resulting in flawless technique in the end!

My LF working is in this web gallery: http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Cheers..._County.html#0

For me, landscape is until now, the most difficult subject to do...

Give me naked girls any day......:o

However, I certainly would like to do more landscapes, as the challenge appeals to me.

I have only a few images to show, due to my lack of success :cool: , but here they are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddo123

... I was just wandering if people could post up some of there favorite landscape shot on LF. Be it a large sweeping vista, or intimate details. Just really as a source of inspiration to myself when i get my camera and others like me, who cant wait to get out there with there new kit and shoot the land around them.

---

Check out my site: www.grandes-images.com

Life's a journey not a destination... I think? Enjoy the ride and hold on tight, it might be bumpy!

Cheers Kev. I cant wait to begin on my LF journey. Though there is a few more things i need to get before i can get going. It would be silly to go out with a light meter now wouldnt it!!

I fail to see any difference between landscapes taken with Large Format equipment, and anything else. It's just a lot more work with the camera, and somewhat less in the darkroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_1856

I fail to see any difference between landscapes taken with Large Format equipment, and anything else. It's just a lot more work with the camera, and somewhat less in the darkroom.

---

You cant be serious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddo123

Cheers Kev. I cant wait to begin on my LF journey. Though there is a few more things i need to get before i can get going. It would be silly to go out with a light meter now wouldnt it!!

---

Not silly at all, in fact I've picked up a very productive habit from advice given here on the forum... that is, guessing the exposure of the scene I'm about to photograph before triggering the light meter... you become pretty perceptive pretty quickly at judging the exposure of a scene, someone somewhere suggested going around without a camera, light meter in hand doing just that as an exercise in reading light and evaluating exposure... probably best to stay around the house or enclosed garden for this exercise just in case someone tries to have you locked away for an indeterminate period;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_1856

I fail to see any difference between landscapes taken with Large Format equipment, and anything else. It's just a lot more work with the camera, and somewhat less in the darkroom.

---

I think you may need to explain this one :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_1856

I fail to see any difference between landscapes taken with Large Format equipment, and anything else. It's just a lot more work with the camera, and somewhat less in the darkroom.

---

I can see a difference in my own work. Thirteen of the images in Portfolio Three were taken with either an 8x10 or 4x5. The remaining three were taken with 120 cameras.

http://mergross.com

Visit the LF Gallery to see members work that have participated in past print exchanges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Calahan

My LF working is in this web gallery: http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Cheers..._County.html#0

---

Great gallery... The Five Guys made me remember I haven't had breakfast yet. I'm going now, to feed myself and will look in again when I get back. I see some images there that make me want to spend some time.

Nice!

OOOh Bill... what have you done:)

Walter has some great stuff on his website! I hope he is getting recognition and exposure in museums and galleries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joanna Carter

Check out my site: www.grandes-images.com

---

Joanna, Those are some great exposures - Do you use Color Negative Film?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddo123

Cheers Kev. I cant wait to begin on my LF journey. Though there is a few more things i need to get before i can get going. It would be silly to go out with a light meter now wouldnt it!!

---

A good friend of mine who is a professional landscape photographer often goes out for days exploring light at different times on one subject before he ever takes the camera out of his car. It's not uncommon for him to check the light on one subject a few times during the day over a few days. Dragging the camera out is a distraction on the process of finding the right light. (Yes, I know you all are wondering what he does if the light magically appears just one time in that process. The camera is never far away if that happens. Do you all set up the camera and wait for the light?)

I sent him this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev curry

You cant be serious?

---

Absolutely serious as a heart attack. Do you know something that I don't?

Dear Eddo,

You will probably enjoy the change...

I captured these images in 2007.

jim k


http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkit...s/07081805.jpg
Willow Valley, Alberta, Canada

http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkit...s/07042108.jpg
Jumping Pound Road, Alberta, Canada

I've seen plenty of work made with LF cameras that didn't look like it was made with them. Poor vision, focus, and technique are usually the culprits.

I have quite a few photos in different threads here, and you might also find them at my homepage www.vasina.net, especially in the "Serene Landscape portfolio". If you have a look, I hope you'll enjoy it.

And I can also clearly see the difference between 35mm shots, MF shots and LF shots. The ones from LF that fail to be clearly better do fail because of my poor execution, or wind or something alike. And even my wife is able to see the difference (and she is not a photographer at all, after several years of explaining, she still has difficulty understanding the meaning and importance of bull's eye's centered composition, ISO, aperture, handholdability and time - she understands them separately, but can't cope with them all at once).

I've shown this one before, but sometimes it is fun to photograph naked girls and landscape at the same time!

Bill...If you can't see the difference, then there is no difference for you. Those who are color blind may not see any difference between red and green...but others can easily see the difference. Cameras are tools, and the tools shape the image.

Fallen Redwood, Nude
Prairie Creek Redwood State Park
4x5 negative, scanned silver gelatin print

Edited in Nov 2020 to say ouch...what did I write?!

Bill, hard as I've tried I've never quite managed to achieve satisfying quality landscape images from pro Nikon 35mm gear... well 'unless' the degree of enlargement was kept very modest ie around 8x10'' max... 35mm just wasn't happening for me. Dont get me wrong I've had a few 12x16 prints from 35mm that are note worthy but for me they are the exception. That changed however with my first print from a 5x4 negative, to my eyes the difference is unavoidable. I'm really moved by well composed images that contain incredible sharpness and a crispness of detail... but I have to confess that I'm one of those sad guys that cant resist taking a loupe to his prints. I am however seriously considering picking up a 6x6, a Blad's looking like the main contender, I suspect then that the difference between 6x6 and 5x4 will prove to be very narrow at least up to something like 16x12''.
Recently I was thumbing my way through Galen Rowel's book 'Mountain Light In Search of the Dynamic Landscape' a book full of both fantastic images and enlightening words. For me the book is a perfect example of both the strengths and limitations of using 35mm gear... I know its probably a daft thing to say because the guy's format of choice was a small camera, but I couldn't help thinking...''man if only these images could have been captured on a large sheet of film''!

"I fail to see any difference between landscapes taken with Large Format equipment, and anything else. It's just a lot more work with the camera, and somewhat less in the darkroom".

Such a wise guy. Posting that, on the Large Format Forum ! Why not post something similar, on the Leica Forum ? Just substitute the words Large Format, with Leica.

Better yet, you could post something like this, which comes from Ken Rockwell...

"A $50 used Yashica-MAT 124G (a medium format camera) is sharper than any Nikon, Leica or Canon, and a $200, 50 year old 4 x 5" Crown Graphic (large format) is sharper than any Hasselblad".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

"I fail to see any difference between landscapes taken with Large Format equipment, and anything else. It's just a lot more work with the camera, and somewhat less in the darkroom".

Such a wise guy. Posting that, on the Large Format Forum ! Why not post something similar, on the Leica Forum ? Just substitute the words Large Format, with Leica.

Better yet, you could post something like this, which comes from Ken Rockwell...

"A $50 used Yashica-MAT 124G (a medium format camera) is sharper than any Nikon, Leica or Canon, and a $200, 50 year old 4 x 5" Crown Graphic (large format) is sharper than any Hasselblad".

---

There is a great more to the quality and effectiveness of a final print than just the micro-sharpness under a loupe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kev curry

Not silly at all, in fact I've picked up a very productive habit from advice given here on the forum... that is, guessing the exposure of the scene I'm about to photograph before triggering the light meter... you become pretty perceptive pretty quickly at judging the exposure of a scene, someone somewhere suggested going around without a camera, light meter in hand doing just that as an exercise in reading light and evaluating exposure... probably best to stay around the house or enclosed garden for this exercise just in case someone tries to have you locked away for an indeterminate period;)

---

B'lieve that advice came from Richard Ritter and me. We find the abovementioned exercise enormously useful to helping develop one's eye. Judging exposure is a by-product. It, and variations, are in my book.

My 35mm stuff is printed no larger than 5x7. 35mm can be incredibly useful to develop one's eye, too. And, homage to friend Bill, it can also be FUN!

Landscape examples are at the Circle of the Sun web site, link below. Dial-up internet here in the jungles of New Hampshire preclude me from posting to the forum. Dial-up is NOT fun...

While there may be some excessive fetishism among some of us who use large format (the magic of film developed in leprechaun sweat, and prints made on manna with the tears of fairies) I am constantly amazed by how much more there is in a lf negative and print than one from mf. I've been printing a lot for a show in April from both mf and lf negs, and the latter are a real treat. No difference? There is for me!

weeds

Camping is fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_1856

There is a great more to the quality and effectiveness of a final print than just the micro-sharpness under a loupe.

---

Yes, you're certainly right. I think we'd all agree on that.

Sorry, I thought your posting was tongue-in-cheek, and responded accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

Yes, you're certainly right. I think we'd all agree on that.

Sorry, I thought your posting was tongue-in-cheek, and responded accordingly.

---

No Ken, I have to admit that it was more like a semi-troll.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnanian

weeds

---

John, you have inspired me.

flatrock river in winter 8x10 chrome 480mm very cold morning I think tungsten film

Eh why not…

Panther Meadows at Mount Shasta, California in October of 2002.


http://www.samreevesphoto.com/posts/...1028_4post.jpg

two fresh ones.

57 tmx, fuji lense.


Burlington, Ontario.
http://www.andrewren.com/Images_for_...n,-Ontario.jpg

=====

Webster, New York.
http://www.andrewren.com/Images_for_...,-New-York.jpg

4 snowy ones to share

Perhaps he was talking about when scanned and displayed on the forum? But I agree, the final print is where you really see the difference. Compare an 8x10 contact print to a 35mm or medium format enlargement and tell me there is no difference!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_1856

John, you have inspired me.

---

hi bill,

im glad i could help!

john

My couch-friendliest landscape print so far, coming in at 2x4 feet. Six-pass dry mounted to a sheet of MDF. See if you can spot the small boo boo. I hope it isn't distracting. Actually I shouldn't even bring it up, and just see if anyone notices. Yep, that's the best plan.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/...fb12befa_o.jpg

nathanm, I'm looking for a tripod foot, camerabag handle, end of a persons foot, darkcloth in frame, or distracting stick. Can't find a one of these but I do see a level something up in right on hill in background..

Nice shot by the way,, what did ya shoot it with..?
regards

No, it's nothing with the photo itself.

Shot with a 90mm Schneider and a red filter, I think. (I should probably use filters more often, I think it made some of those dark rocks even darker.) Shen-Hao 4x5, two left\right rear shift exposures stitched together. Stitched the hard way too, before I bought Photoshop CS3 which makes that part too easy! Probably Delta-100 with perceptol. Or might've been Efke. Can't remember exactly.

Nathan,
That looks impressive, I can't notice any obvious mistakes, but I do see a line in the mat. I am curious, did you print two prints separately and then mount them flush? Or is it two negatives printed on the same print? I am not "old school" enough to have tried such procedures, I'm afraid.

Nice stitching ! Is it that you didn't have oversize matboard (40x60) that you pieced together some smaller ones?

is it along the top on the backing board about 1/3 in from the right? doesn't seem an issue if that is what you are referencing as a booboo

Yep, the mat is in two pieces. I suppose I should've done the seam with a 45˚ cut instead of 90˚. Oh well, it looks okay. It wasn't supposed to have a mat at all, but there was a wee bit of white paper edge showing and I had to cover it up.

Argos33 - The two negatives were scanned independently, combined in Photoshop and printed on the same sheet of paper.

A nice 4x10 camera, or better yet an 8x10 with a 4x10 back would be super sweet, but the rear shift trick is a cheaper alternative. I don't usually care for the wider aspect ratio, but with this lens I move the back around and see all the nice image circle I'm missing out on. It took me awhile to appreciate lens atttributes, but I've discovered just how sharp this one is. All the tree bark is nice and crisp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanm

Yep, the mat is in two pieces. I suppose I should've done the seam with a 45˚ cut instead of 90˚. Oh well, it looks okay. It wasn't supposed to have a mat at all, but there was a wee bit of white paper edge showing and I had to cover it up.

Argos33 - The two negatives were scanned independently, combined in Photoshop and printed on the same sheet of paper.

A nice 4x10 camera, or better yet an 8x10 with a 4x10 back would be super sweet, but the rear shift trick is a cheaper alternative. I don't usually care for the wider aspect ratio, but with this lens I move the back around and see all the nice image circle I'm missing out on. It took me awhile to appreciate lens atttributes, but I've discovered just how sharp this one is. All the tree bark is nice and crisp.

---

Nathan,

How did you scan your images?

I use left-right shift on the front standard. Is there optically any difference when no tilt or swing is involved? I avoid wide angle lenses though when using this technique since I will often need to use front rise and it's very easy to get distortion of vertical lines near the edge of the frames. I'll see if I can post an example of what I'm talking of if I can find the negative scan, though it's not a landscape.

Don Bryant

PS How did you print that?

Moving the back of the camera doesn't change the image at all, you're just shifting around the film within the fixed image circle, as if you were cropping the image. I think if you moved the lens it would shift optically. There's no geometric correction required when the two images are combined in Photoshop. The only issues might be a mismatch of exposure or movement of objects within the scene, but Photoshop stitches pretty darn good and usually without noticeable artifact. The seam can be touched up here and there if necessary.

You might run into lens abberations when you are using the far edges of the image circle. I try not to use too much vertical shift or lens tilt so you're taking a more ideal piece right out of the center.

Scanned on Epson V750, printed on Epson 7880 on Red River UltraPro Gloss paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanm

Moving the back of the camera doesn't change the image at all, you're just shifting around the film within the fixed image circle, as if you were cropping the image. I think if you moved the lens it would shift optically. There's no geometric correction required when the two images are combined in Photoshop. The only issues might be a mismatch of exposure or movement of objects within the scene, but Photoshop stitches pretty darn good and usually without noticeable artifact. The seam can be touched up here and there if necessary.

You might run into lens abberations when you are using the far edges of the image circle. I try not to use too much vertical shift or lens tilt so you're taking a more ideal piece right out of the center.

Scanned on Epson V750, printed on Epson 7880 on Red River UltraPro Gloss paper.

---

Okay thanks for the low down on your technique. Have you drum scanned and of your negs for stitching. Big difference in the level of detail for very large prints though I've not printed as large as you have.

What is the RR UltraPro Gloss like? Is that a baryta coated paper? I guess I could browse the RR site for the info.

Don Bryant