I found this narrow, eroded sandstone passageway about a year ago, and managed to finally create the image I wanted, early this summer. Ironically, I had walked by this place many times over the course of the past couple years; it's amazing what we can oftentimes pass by in oblivion! Various colored lichens and mosses cover most of the walls. The space is reminiscent of a slot canyon, though the passage only lasts 15 feet or so before it dead ends. It's quite narrow (you can touch each side by stretching out your arms), which presented some photographic challenges. In order to gain enough depth of field, I had to create two exposures at different focus points and then combine them in post - a pain in the rear with film scans. But, I felt the subject was worth it, as it's quite unusual for the midwest area. Finding little treasures, such as this, really excites me.
In anticipation of any critiques, there is plenty of shadow detail on the left hand wall, but it comes across as to dark with the white web background. I don't know if it'd be possible to implement the background color choice option (like on ES&S) onto the MWNP forum, but it would help a great deal at times. Hmmm.
Technicals: Tachihara 4x5, Fujinon 90mm, Kodak Portra 160nc, Polarizer, 4 min @ f45 - 2 exposures blended for depth of field.
Posted by scott lanz on October 1, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Joel, well done. This is the first midwestern slot canyon image I can ever recall seeing. Kudos to you for your work and skill in putting this image together. It really paid off.
Nice shot Joel - I like this. Interesting that you used the Portra film.....
I've seen a few spots somewhat similar to this, but I really like the interesting shapes and curves here. Did you get the obligatory "slot canyon with light beam" yet??
CJ - Portra was used simply because the deep shadows would have registered as pure blacks on slide film. The dynamic range was simply to great. I've recently switched from Fuji 160s to Portra 160nc, because I found I like it a little bit better. It scans a bit easier for me (the orange mask is less intense, which may help), and most consumer scanning software seems to have better profiles for it than the fuji film. No light beams I'm afraid, I've yet to witness any grand light shows here. I don't believe it's deep enough, or light enough rock to get much of the reflected light that makes slots so popular.
Joel - I don't want to see the light beam shot anyway - have seen to many already! This is much closer to my heart....as you might guess!
How is the grain on scanning the Portra - I've heard anecdotes of increased grain with neg film versus slide? Any difference in sharpness between the 2 neg films? Inquiring minds want to know....or in my case, obnoxious minds!
Excellent captures and processing! I feel that you've done a wonderful job in terms of combining these two images to create a very nice depth to the various zones.
I, too, enjoy shooting Portra, but I mostly use it for portraits and weddings. I'll have to consider using it more for my outdoor shooting. I detect more grain in my Portra scans, but by the time that I print anything, I don't feel that the grain shows up any more or less than when I shoot Velvia...
Tim!
Posted by Chuck Beatty on October 1, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Beautiful, Joel. My first thought was "temperate slot canyon." Very nice job combining the two images. Is this scouring the result of glacial meltwater?
Chuck - I'm unsure as to the geological origins of this particular section. The river this is next to has many kettles and such, and it's possible that the river was once up at the level this was taken. It could very well be the result of glacial erosion, that would probably be my first guess given how much elevation change there is between this point and the nearby river.
CJ - As Tim mentioned, it's a bit grainier than slide film. That said, I don't find it objectionable, especially considering how much film area you have to work with in a 4x5 neg. For area's of smooth tonality (such as sky's), you can also run NoiseNinja or NeatImage on, and then combine on a separate layer during the final sharpening process. In other words, it's completely work-able. The film is much softer in appearance than slide film, so I will generally only use it if the light requires it. Color neg. has a permanant place in my film loadout though. Compared to Fuji 160s, the grain is easily as good - to my eyes, it's maybe even slightly better. Portra has recently been reformulated for scanning performance - and it's pretty darn good! I hope that helps.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on October 3, 2008 at 9:30 AM
The dark area doesn't bother me, Joel..in fact, I think it adds a bit of mystery to the image. Good exposure all the way around.
The last few years before I went digital, Portra was easily my favorite when I needed print film!
Discussion
8 repliesIn anticipation of any critiques, there is plenty of shadow detail on the left hand wall, but it comes across as to dark with the white web background. I don't know if it'd be possible to implement the background color choice option (like on ES&S) onto the MWNP forum, but it would help a great deal at times. Hmmm.
Technicals: Tachihara 4x5, Fujinon 90mm, Kodak Portra 160nc, Polarizer, 4 min @ f45 - 2 exposures blended for depth of field.
I've seen a few spots somewhat similar to this, but I really like the interesting shapes and curves here. Did you get the obligatory "slot canyon with light beam" yet??
Nice one....CJ
CJ - Portra was used simply because the deep shadows would have registered as pure blacks on slide film. The dynamic range was simply to great. I've recently switched from Fuji 160s to Portra 160nc, because I found I like it a little bit better. It scans a bit easier for me (the orange mask is less intense, which may help), and most consumer scanning software seems to have better profiles for it than the fuji film. No light beams I'm afraid, I've yet to witness any grand light shows here. I don't believe it's deep enough, or light enough rock to get much of the reflected light that makes slots so popular.
How is the grain on scanning the Portra - I've heard anecdotes of increased grain with neg film versus slide? Any difference in sharpness between the 2 neg films? Inquiring minds want to know....or in my case, obnoxious minds!
CJ
Excellent captures and processing! I feel that you've done a wonderful job in terms of combining these two images to create a very nice depth to the various zones.
I, too, enjoy shooting Portra, but I mostly use it for portraits and weddings. I'll have to consider using it more for my outdoor shooting. I detect more grain in my Portra scans, but by the time that I print anything, I don't feel that the grain shows up any more or less than when I shoot Velvia...
Tim!
Chuck - I'm unsure as to the geological origins of this particular section. The river this is next to has many kettles and such, and it's possible that the river was once up at the level this was taken. It could very well be the result of glacial erosion, that would probably be my first guess given how much elevation change there is between this point and the nearby river.
CJ - As Tim mentioned, it's a bit grainier than slide film. That said, I don't find it objectionable, especially considering how much film area you have to work with in a 4x5 neg. For area's of smooth tonality (such as sky's), you can also run NoiseNinja or NeatImage on, and then combine on a separate layer during the final sharpening process. In other words, it's completely work-able. The film is much softer in appearance than slide film, so I will generally only use it if the light requires it. Color neg. has a permanant place in my film loadout though. Compared to Fuji 160s, the grain is easily as good - to my eyes, it's maybe even slightly better. Portra has recently been reformulated for scanning performance - and it's pretty darn good! I hope that helps.
The last few years before I went digital, Portra was easily my favorite when I needed print film!