Finally got another neg back after it seemingly getting lost in the post. This was taken prior to the image taken on the 5D that I posted a few weeks ago. The sky had not yet lit up as in that image and it was still pretty dark.
The focus isn't quite right - its only pin sharp until about half way down the wall. I'll have a proper loupe soon so that will hopefully fix this as I've been kind of guessing...
There seems to be a few areas with a bit of a colour cast - particularly on the upper left corner. Anyone know if that might be caused by vignetting from the 65mm lens or caused by the long exposure (15 or 30 seconds) or both? The neg also seems a little bit marked – blotches top right. It’s taken on Kodak Portra 160VC readyload which I was hoping would avoid marks from handling the film.
The detail on the original is amazing - I'm going to have to compare it to the 5D file but for a quick scan on an epson it certainly impressed me. I almost wish I'd used this camera when the light was at its best but I need to learn to use it properly first.
Thoughts/feedback appreciated,
Thanks
Tristan
Posted by Andy Shepherd on January 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Hi Tristan,
I don't shoot landscape images so maybe I'm not the best person to comment , but the way the wall leads the eye to the sunrise is very pleasing , a very very nice image.
I would suggest that the top corners are affected by light fall off. I find with this lens on the Technorama 612 (2:1) (the only lens it has) that I have to use the CF on transparency to stop it doing this. On B&W I wouldn't suggest it is a problem. You can always correct for it in PS.
The blotches are look like bad processing/washing.
The detail will be superb... in a way I already miss it.
The next time you are there get rid of the stick half way along the wall on the RHS
PS I will give you some film at the conference, Tom_P your will be in the post soonish - will let you know when.
Posted by Tom Perkins on January 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Hi Tristan,
Good to see you using the 4x5, Nice image, only thing is I think I would have made more use of your tilt and got down closer to the wall, making it larger in the foreground if possible.
One of the biggest problems I had starting out was colour issues, it might be worth calibrating your scanner at some point.
Where are you getting them developed? These blotches look like sloppy developing to me. I get mine done at Peak Imaging.
Also, make sure you are using prophoto at 16bit right through from the scanner to the printing stage for the best chances of avoiding banding and other artifacts during processing (though obviously convert to sRGB at 8bit of web).
Top corners do look to be affected by light fall off, as Tom W said.
How did you find the colour neg? I have done some shooting on some fuji 160s over the holidays, should get the film back soon.
Thanks,
Tom.
P.S. Tom, really appreciate the film, I wasn't certain if you had recieved my email.
Thanks Tom appreciated - any suggestions for good places to get the films processed? I've always cloned out the plant on the rhs of the wall but forgot with this one.
Tom_P - thnaks - the film was developed at http://www.digitalab.co.uk/ in Newcastle. I've currently some more at Peak Imaging so hopefully they will be better. Will reply in full later on after the little one is asleep. Tristan
Definately sloppy processing... I have only heard goo thigs about Peak... reciprocity failure wouldn't look like this, it just means you have to increase the exposure fo compensate...
Nice image, shame somebody else didn't seem to care...
Phil
Posted by Paul Ashton on January 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Lovely subdued colours. Nice detail in the foreground.
Digging out my old 35mm negs and scanning them showed loads of water marks etc. Easily removed with a little Isopropyl. Available from your local chemist and a £5 bottle will last you a life time. Hope this helps.
Funnily enough, the only time I've ever had sloppy processing, it was Peak Imaging. I used to use them a lot, then I started getting batch after batch that had drying marks along the edges. After numerous telephone calls to Wayne at Peak, he eventually agreed to do my next X number of films for free, and assured me there would be no problems. He was half true to his word - they did them for free, but a lot still had the water marks. :(
As for the photo, I like it. It's an interesting composition. I wouldn't lose the 'stick' half way up the wall - it looks more to me like a fencepost, and thus part of the scene. I would clone out the specs of light emerging through the trees on the LHS tho.
Posted by Edwin kats on January 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I'm with Andrew about commenting Landscapes. I've never taken one myself Hope to learn it one day. But I can say I like it a lot. I do agree about that stick but that's covered. I realy like this.
Well done.
I've just updated the image with a new scan that has hopefully better colour and a bit more cleaning up done. I had real problems with the colour of the first one due to operator error but now I'm getting a bit more familiar with the software I'm getting better results.
TomP: I've not got as far as even looking or reading up about movements yet. Would front tilt help get everything in focus? On the colour neg I'm a lot happier than my last try with Provia. I've a few more test shots waiting to be developed but so far I like the look of it. However I've learned quite a bit about scanning now so I might have another go and see if the Provia comes out better. I'm using Silverfast which seems to have millions of options to try. Please post a Fuji 160s shot when you get them back - would love to hear your opinion of it as I was thinking of giving it a try also.
Paul: I've never come across Isopropyl. If its a liquid does it not leave drying marks of its own? Not having a drying cabinet I often have problems with marks when developing b&w. Would be handy to be-able to clean them up.
TomW: The stick is actually a plant. I've been tempted to remove it for about a year now but for the sake of a minutes cloning I'd prefer not to kill it :-)
Posted by Tom Perkins on January 3, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Hi Tristan,
Our camera has only front movements, which makes it a bit simpler. Adjusting the front tilt basically changes the angle of the plane of focus (usually perpendicular to the landscape), allowing everything in the image (if the landscape was completely flat) to be in perfect focus. Of course, usually the landscape is not perfectly flat, so it is neccessary to judge what are the most important elements in the image, and try to make sure they are on the plane.
Take this image. I focused about a third of the way into the scene, then applied enough tilt to bring the mountains and the imidiate foreground into focus. This has meant that the middle of the image is not as sharp as the rest, but this is not very important as theres not a lot there.
Here I applied no movements, because I wanted to keep the whole of the tree in focus so a vertical plane is fine. Same in this image, there is some depth to the foreground, but it is to small in the frame and too far away to require any movements.
Shift basically allows you to do things like take a picture of a tall building without pointing the camera upwards, therefore avoiding the usual distortions. It is also useful for reframing your image without adjusting the position of the camera, but be careful that you dont reach the edge of the lens's image circle, otherwise you can get some serious vignetting.
For your image in this thread, I would have used the front tilt to bring all of the wall into focus (push the top of the front standard forward). Then I would have stopped down to about f22 to make sure everything else is sharp. It soon becomes quite fast with a bit of pratice and really is neccesary with a view camera as it is not possible to get the same depth of focus from stopping down as you can with a 35mm SLR.
Thanks Tom, very much appreciated. This is exactly what I needed explaining. Looking forward to giving this a try next time I get out. I think I'll do a bit of further reading too. Tristan
FWIW. LF has a rather steep learning curve, but nowhere near as steep and long as digital. My first LF shots have long since been binned and were nowhere near as good as this.
John
Posted by Paul Ashton on January 5, 2008 at 3:37 AM
Isopropyl is a liquid alcohol. I have applied it using cotton wool. Place the negative emulsion side down on some absorbent paper and wipe the back with the dampened cotton wool. Isopropyl will evaporate without trace very quickly.
I wish I'd discovered this when I was doing film processing.
Suggest you try it out on an unimportant negative first.
Discussion
15 repliesThe focus isn't quite right - its only pin sharp until about half way down the wall. I'll have a proper loupe soon so that will hopefully fix this as I've been kind of guessing...
There seems to be a few areas with a bit of a colour cast - particularly on the upper left corner. Anyone know if that might be caused by vignetting from the 65mm lens or caused by the long exposure (15 or 30 seconds) or both? The neg also seems a little bit marked – blotches top right. It’s taken on Kodak Portra 160VC readyload which I was hoping would avoid marks from handling the film.
The detail on the original is amazing - I'm going to have to compare it to the 5D file but for a quick scan on an epson it certainly impressed me. I almost wish I'd used this camera when the light was at its best but I need to learn to use it properly first.
Thoughts/feedback appreciated,
Thanks
Tristan
I don't shoot landscape images so maybe I'm not the best person to comment , but the way the wall leads the eye to the sunrise is very pleasing , a very very nice image.
Regards
Andy...
The blotches are look like bad processing/washing.
The detail will be superb... in a way I already miss it.
The next time you are there get rid of the stick half way along the wall on the RHS
PS I will give you some film at the conference, Tom_P your will be in the post soonish - will let you know when.
Good to see you using the 4x5, Nice image, only thing is I think I would have made more use of your tilt and got down closer to the wall, making it larger in the foreground if possible.
One of the biggest problems I had starting out was colour issues, it might be worth calibrating your scanner at some point.
Where are you getting them developed? These blotches look like sloppy developing to me. I get mine done at Peak Imaging.
Also, make sure you are using prophoto at 16bit right through from the scanner to the printing stage for the best chances of avoiding banding and other artifacts during processing (though obviously convert to sRGB at 8bit of web).
Top corners do look to be affected by light fall off, as Tom W said.
How did you find the colour neg? I have done some shooting on some fuji 160s over the holidays, should get the film back soon.
Thanks,
Tom.
P.S. Tom, really appreciate the film, I wasn't certain if you had recieved my email.
Nice image, shame somebody else didn't seem to care...
Phil
Digging out my old 35mm negs and scanning them showed loads of water marks etc. Easily removed with a little Isopropyl. Available from your local chemist and a £5 bottle will last you a life time. Hope this helps.
As for the photo, I like it. It's an interesting composition. I wouldn't lose the 'stick' half way up the wall - it looks more to me like a fencepost, and thus part of the scene. I would clone out the specs of light emerging through the trees on the LHS tho.
Well done.
Edwin
TomP: I've not got as far as even looking or reading up about movements yet. Would front tilt help get everything in focus? On the colour neg I'm a lot happier than my last try with Provia. I've a few more test shots waiting to be developed but so far I like the look of it. However I've learned quite a bit about scanning now so I might have another go and see if the Provia comes out better. I'm using Silverfast which seems to have millions of options to try. Please post a Fuji 160s shot when you get them back - would love to hear your opinion of it as I was thinking of giving it a try also.
Paul: I've never come across Isopropyl. If its a liquid does it not leave drying marks of its own? Not having a drying cabinet I often have problems with marks when developing b&w. Would be handy to be-able to clean them up.
TomW: The stick is actually a plant. I've been tempted to remove it for about a year now but for the sake of a minutes cloning I'd prefer not to kill it :-)
Our camera has only front movements, which makes it a bit simpler. Adjusting the front tilt basically changes the angle of the plane of focus (usually perpendicular to the landscape), allowing everything in the image (if the landscape was completely flat) to be in perfect focus. Of course, usually the landscape is not perfectly flat, so it is neccessary to judge what are the most important elements in the image, and try to make sure they are on the plane.
Take this image. I focused about a third of the way into the scene, then applied enough tilt to bring the mountains and the imidiate foreground into focus. This has meant that the middle of the image is not as sharp as the rest, but this is not very important as theres not a lot there.
Here I applied no movements, because I wanted to keep the whole of the tree in focus so a vertical plane is fine. Same in
this image, there is some depth to the foreground, but it is to small in the frame and too far away to require any movements.
Shift basically allows you to do things like take a picture of a tall building without pointing the camera upwards, therefore avoiding the usual distortions. It is also useful for reframing your image without adjusting the position of the camera, but be careful that you dont reach the edge of the lens's image circle, otherwise you can get some serious vignetting.
For your image in this thread, I would have used the front tilt to bring all of the wall into focus (push the top of the front standard forward). Then I would have stopped down to about f22 to make sure everything else is sharp. It soon becomes quite fast with a bit of pratice and really is neccesary with a view camera as it is not possible to get the same depth of focus from stopping down as you can with a 35mm SLR.
Hope that was of some use,
Tom.
You're getting some very good advice here, so I'll not add any.
There's a very good website that explains the basic principles and some of the pitfalls in LF
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html
FWIW. LF has a rather steep learning curve, but nowhere near as steep and long as digital. My first LF shots have long since been binned and were nowhere near as good as this.
John
I wish I'd discovered this when I was doing film processing.
Suggest you try it out on an unimportant negative first.
No smoking while you're doing this!