Very nice indeed Preston. It was totally my pleasure to be out there with you at this site. I can see where your 300 lens took this site in real nice. The small bend in the creek with water ripples has a nice FG spot to view the trees from.
Just trying to figure out what you are focus on!Photo looks like it was a in accidental press of the button or are you trying to make a point here of some kind?
I find your comment curious. This was a very carefully considered photograph. I can assure you that this was not an 'accidental click of the shutter button': I don't do that with my 4x5! I was very interested in the interplay between the water, the various layers of the vegetation, the subtle color and the fine detail in the bare trees and the grass. Does this photograph have a 'point'. No.
Paul: Yes, the 300mm was well suited for this image. I just wish that this jpeg could show the incredible detail that is present on the transparency! I am sure your 4x5 from this location is similar in its level of detail.
Preston, I had to really work on mine to get the Velvia magenta cast out of the thing. Also, as I did not have the reach your lens did I had to crop mine too. As these shots cost about $5 each, I try not to take too many photos by/or of accidents.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 28, 2006 at 3:48 PM
Definetely no accidents on either shot. I like Preston's better though as the whitish pinkish color throughout is pretty cool. I didn't realize 4x5 cost $5. I think I'll stick with having zero sheets in my collection in that case. I coudln't afford it even if I wanted to.
Well I tried to write something to clear this up about my fillings on this photo ,but I can't find anything to say. Maybe i should stick to just saying nice photo
If you want to e-mail me off-forum and give me thoughts, I would appreciate it. I was merely curious about your comment and explained a bit about what motivated me to make the photograph. If there is something that doesn't work for you, I would like to know what it is.
Thanks for your comments.
-PB
Posted by Reno DiTullio on October 28, 2006 at 9:21 PM
Preston, I like the subject matter and I know the tranny is probably super, but it's either too sharpened or...? It looks like a pen & ink drawing, with a touch of color, on my monitor
Posted by John W. Wall on October 29, 2006 at 12:05 PM
Well I really like the shot, and the contrast with Paul's is remarkable. I like that the unusual aspect of the water flowing away from the viewer and around a corner. I can imagine the detail in the original and am one of those people of the opinion that sometimes a primary subject of a 4x5 shot is the detail itself. I've stared at similar scenes with my 35mm and thought it would make a good shot -- with a 4x5.
Posted by David Senesac on October 29, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Hi Preston and happy birthday (a day or two ago?). I'll be joining you tomorrow.
I'll speculate part of the problem here is the enormous compression from a 4x5 transparency down to a 720 pixel web display. I tried to make some points about how certain types of mainly fine detailed LF landscape images posted on NPN at ESS just lose so much in the downsizing that they lose an important facet of what makes them so striking versus when a large print is displayed. Unfortuantely I presented the information a bit awakwardly mainly due to the limitations of not being able to post more than just a single overall picture as a non site member. I quickly realized that just debating the issues without more images was rather futile. That the only practical way one could really change opinions on the matter would probably be for it to be done at a meeting where a group of photographers showed a number of various large prints and then related the relative aesthetic value of the prints to the best efforts at downsizing those same print files for web image files for display on monitors. I speculated that one would find most prints that look great as large prints also look great as small web images while some few other equally impressive prints with less a bold graphic and or subtle ranges of hue tones, shades, and detail might simply end up looking rather boring when small. ...David
Discussion
10 repliesTachihara 4x5
Velvia 100
Nikor 300mm
Your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.
-PB
I find your comment curious. This was a very carefully considered photograph. I can assure you that this was not an 'accidental click of the shutter button': I don't do that with my 4x5! I was very interested in the interplay between the water, the various layers of the vegetation, the subtle color and the fine detail in the bare trees and the grass. Does this photograph have a 'point'. No.
Paul: Yes, the 300mm was well suited for this image. I just wish that this jpeg could show the incredible detail that is present on the transparency! I am sure your 4x5 from this location is similar in its level of detail.
-PB
If you want to e-mail me off-forum and give me thoughts, I would appreciate it. I was merely curious about your comment and explained a bit about what motivated me to make the photograph. If there is something that doesn't work for you, I would like to know what it is.
Thanks for your comments.
-PB
I'll speculate part of the problem here is the enormous compression from a 4x5 transparency down to a 720 pixel web display. I tried to make some points about how certain types of mainly fine detailed LF landscape images posted on NPN at ESS just lose so much in the downsizing that they lose an important facet of what makes them so striking versus when a large print is displayed. Unfortuantely I presented the information a bit awakwardly mainly due to the limitations of not being able to post more than just a single overall picture as a non site member. I quickly realized that just debating the issues without more images was rather futile. That the only practical way one could really change opinions on the matter would probably be for it to be done at a meeting where a group of photographers showed a number of various large prints and then related the relative aesthetic value of the prints to the best efforts at downsizing those same print files for web image files for display on monitors. I speculated that one would find most prints that look great as large prints also look great as small web images while some few other equally impressive prints with less a bold graphic and or subtle ranges of hue tones, shades, and detail might simply end up looking rather boring when small. ...David