Very nice!Originally Posted by pdmoylan
Very nice!
Nice work. It would be good to see it bigger.
Great set, but I'm going to vote this one "Best in Show"--I could really see a subtle, evocative print here, especially if you spent a bit more time in post guiding our eyes through the frame.
Michael and Gabe, thank you for your comments. Since I do not post to another website, I don't have a way to make the image larger, at least as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong). It is the maximum upload size allowed by this site.
I do have a 24"x30" print of this in my studio and I do enjoy viewing it up close. The Nikkor 90MM F8 is a real stunner for detail.
Creation Bear,
Thanks. I gather you mean to increase contrast a bit. Easily done and I will experiment.
Traversing a hillside of these diabase boulders was precarious, but worth the risk I think.
What is interesting to me is how Fuji Velvia 50 rendered in low light, retaining great color contrast and definition with a slight shift to blue in shadows. Note that there was zero wind in taking this image; hence retained sharpness even at 2 minutes.
Ha, you might have been able to haul out a big ball of sleepy timber rattlers as well...
At any rate, given the vagaries of the native photo hosting here, I'm having to interpolate a bit...not exactly the Apple Retina experience! It definitely might be worth pushing curves a bit, but you might also consider a few different kinds of dodging/burning to bring out the spatial relationships a bit more. For myself, this particular shot has me thinking about DOF as well--out-of-focus areas fore and aft in the frame might have distilled the essence of the late winter/early spring scene in a way the f/64 approach can't.
Otherwise, a beautiful part of the world that you're roaming...
For view camera work - unless depth of field is severely limited (8x10 with a long lens) it's always best to minimize the use of movements. It can get very confusing initially. Of course for architecture you (usually) need to lines to be straight. I know you know this (all of you do). Only weak pictures need perfection. Good ones can withstand plenty of flaws. Atget's work is riddled with flaws - so what? They're magnificent. And I can mention some photographers with flawless technique - and very dead looking prints, but I won't. Ja? If the camera points down, and the trees bow out a bit - so what if the picture is interesting? And not everything always needs to be "tack sharp" - sometimes that's very dull.
Go take pictures that are interesting. Avoid taking pictures that are "about photography" because you have a view camera.
Having said that, view cameras are marvelous to work with and you'll enjoy yourself immensely. (Make sure you have a good tripod!)
Well said!
Pliew Waterfall, Chantaburi
45F-2 150mm F5.6 Sinaron-S f22 15 Sec.
FP4+ 125 DDX 1:4 20c 10min.
Quote Originally Posted by Barrister View Post
For view camera work - unless depth of field is severely limited (8x10 with a long lens) it's always best to minimize the use of movements. It can get very confusing initially. Of course for architecture you (usually) need to lines to be straight. I know you know this (all of you do). Only weak pictures need perfection. Good ones can withstand plenty of flaws. Atget's work is riddled with flaws - so what? They're magnificent. And I can mention some photographers with flawless technique - and very dead looking prints, but I won't. Ja? If the camera points down, and the trees bow out a bit - so what if the picture is interesting? And not everything always needs to be "tack sharp" - sometimes that's very dull.
Go take pictures that are interesting. Avoid taking pictures that are "about photography" because you have a view camera.
Having said that, view cameras are marvelous to work with and you'll enjoy yourself immensely. (Make sure you have a good tripod!)
Barrister:
Respectfully dissent (but of course you do have standing to present (), focusing on this image Creation Bear has pointed out. To achieve max DOF, I used front tilt and aperture of F45. Though F64 would have been ideal, a 4 Minute + exposure was not feasible due to low and declining light and unfamiliarity with reciprocity beyond 2 minutes.
The front tilt was used to create a diagonal of sharpness which allowed complete DOF in the foreground and all salient points mid-depth (maximum visual impact), with some loss of DOF in boulders in the background, tree leaves in the background being mostly in focus, from the front tilt. My objective would been impossible at F64 sans movements, not achieving what I have with F 45 and front tilt. Would the image have improved at F64 and complete DOF? Probably not. Would not using front tilt and F32 created a better image, IMO, no.
There is a certain pleasure (and something special) in being able to "step into" an image with complete (or as close as possible) DOF, fine detail throughout. I see no reason to avoid using movements if they achieve this objective given my own vision.
For landscape work, I find front swing, tilt, rear rise and occasional shift necessary to avoid apertures of F64. Since I like images with close detail that recedes into infinity with touchpoints along the way, all in focus as possible, movements are pretty necessary. Am I emulating Porter, Hyde, Dykinga, Adams, O'Hara, Meunch? Yes. Am I at fault for a lacking a vision without movements, absolutely. I would like to think that I could break this mold and "see" without movements, but I have allowed historic inculcation. Sorry for being boring.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks