Large Format Landscapes

[Ken Lee]

Massachusetts, October 2018
Sinar P, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 FP4+, D-23

[DaveF]

Nice work, Dave!
Good saturation and minimum loss of dynamic range of rock textures.
Is this scene before sunrise?
Swung focused on the plane parallel to the rocks?
It looks like no wind at the scene based on your shutter speed.

Many thanks for this. Here's a a repost (I made the mistake of inverting the neg without turning colour management off in the scanner - hence the wild colours). Bit frustrating: had to rescan and re-spot.
Much more muted, but consistent with the Portra look, and much truer to the conditions at just after sunrise. Yes, focus was on the plane from the left edge of the largest stone to about half way in to the distant fields from the edge of the frame. Lost a bit of sharpness on the foreground grass, but not a problem, and, as you say, zero wind.

[John Olsen]

West Kennett Barrow! Wow, that brings back memories. I shot inside at midnight back in '88. Stumbling around on the top of the hill I didn't realize I was so close to Silbury.

Here's something more recent, another try at my favorite trail in the Ft. Ebey State Park - Hokey Ka Do Do, it's called.

150 mm lens, TriX with yellow filter, f22, 2 s, N+1 dev and scanned from print.

[IMG]Hokey VII Flkr by John Olsen, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Attachment 205898

Sunset by the Bay, San Francisco, CA 1994

FP4+, Metol/Acetone, Print scan

Really fine image, Merg.

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.
Just saying...

[mhayashi]

Dave, that’s a different look indeed.
I only take pics by color transparencies so I really can’t tell in the case of negs, but
I probably use a reverse nd grad 0.9 after sunrise and at the sunrise or, nd grad 0.6 well before sunrise during dawn.

Sorry not LF pics, the following is a example by nikon D100 way back in 10 years ago or so.
Japan alps about 3000m in Nagano prefecture.

https://images.shopping-charm.jp/Use...allery_rs.html

[Merg Ross]

Really fine image, Merg.

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.
Just saying...

Thank you, Helcio.

I agree completely. Over the years that I have shared my photographs on this forum, they have been scanned gelatin silver prints. At best, they are not true representations of the original, and for that reason I do not offer works for sale from my website. When I published a monograph of my work in 2017, all of the scans were made by the publisher, who was himself on press with my original prints for comparison. The results, duotone with stochastic screening, were a very good representation of my photographs.

[Corran]

On a good screen and with proper calibrated process with regards to scanning / editing, when I send off for prints they come back looking exactly as I expect from my screen.

Silver prints scanned to me do not look as good as in-person. IMO, a scanned negative is better than a scanned print.

[grat]

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.

[John Olsen]

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]TreeHouse flkr by John Olsen, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Corran]

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.