Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines
  

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film

  
 
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


As promised, I had taken several film exposures before I used the DSLR

Taken with Toyo, 150(50)mm, 1 sec/f45, Ektar 100 - Negative
http://www.danswigerphotography.com/Film-/i-PpSdMKN/0/XL/T45ekvsraw_0014_131119_p2w-XL.jpg

Taken with Toyo, 150(50)mm, 1 sec/f45, Fuji Astia 100 - Transparency
http://www.danswigerphotography.com/Film-/i-9vgHNnm/0/XL/T45rapvs_0012_131119_p1w-XL.jpg

Realize they're same basic scene but wanted to show the rendition of neg vs transparency

Hopefully better control of scanning/post process this time

C&C

Thanks
Dan






Nov 29, 2013 at 09:21 PM
Alan Brock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Always nice to see other large format shooters out there! I prefer the Ektar for this scene. The way it keeps the highlights under control is just magic; really nice work here! I also like the scene is a bit better for the Ektar shot; the clouds are more dramatic with the highest peak showing through. What did you use to scan them?


Nov 29, 2013 at 09:38 PM
AMaji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Great images with very nice reflections. I like No. 2 more as No. 1 has the yellows turn brownish.


Nov 30, 2013 at 01:04 AM
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Alan,
I too like Ektar, but for some scenes, Asti has decent range. But for these the neg is warmer.
I scan with an Epson 4990. Just recently installed ColorPerfect plug-in so I now only scan using VueScan w/raw output. Much easier to manage in P/S.

Al, I'll take a closer look at the foliage coloring.\

Thanks

Dan



Nov 30, 2013 at 01:25 AM
mr.jboy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Very nice scene/image, I like #1 although I think Fuji Velvia would have been a better choice for this scene...I have a DSLR but I shoot landscapes with velvia, just love that film!

John



Nov 30, 2013 at 07:46 PM
Wayne Willison
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


The magical feel of film.
Good stuff, Dan.

Wayne



Nov 30, 2013 at 09:16 PM
killersnowman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


the negs definitely handled the highlights better. the transparency is pretty dull in the highlights. either way its great to see some LF work from the national parks.

really love the comp as well



Nov 30, 2013 at 10:01 PM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Hey Dan,

I hate to be the only one here who doesn't like these, but the shots seem so flat and lifeless. I can see in the background that there is sunlight in the scene, there should be some glow to the trees in the middle in #1. Using an ND grad is pretty much essential when shooting reflections and using film. Obviously having just a window of sky in both shots makes that a more difficult proposition, but I think even a one stop soft grad brought down to start above the river would help tone down the blown out sky. It would also help retain more detail in the Royal Arches, especially in #2.

Shooting this in digital would have allowed you to have increased the DR. With a layer mask you could have brought some life to the ground layer while preventing the sky and rock walls from blowing out.

I know you are having fun shooting film, and that is definitely important, but it definitely has limitations compared to digital. And while there are still some people shooting flim, there is also many reasons (as you know) why so many of us who used to shoot film have switched to digital.

I wish I could be more enthusiastic about these, but you know me, I have to share what I am feeling in what I view.

Jim



Dec 01, 2013 at 01:25 AM
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Jim,
I always appreciate your comments, especially since you started out in film!
I had the GND with me, in the other bag of course. Go figure.
It was raining when I set up & I guess some things aren't second nature to me yet.
The use of the GND would have let me open up a full stop

More to your point about the trees lack of glow. On my monitor, the #1 source shot is much brighter & glowing on the trees. Not sure whether its the smugmug host or the size reduction. Hmm. But I can still manipulate the image a bit in P/S to get it to pop.
The DSLR shot taken about 10 minutes later, when the sun finally poked through, has what you would expect.

Only have been serious about this film journey for the last couple of years and still have a ways to go. But each time, I learn something new, figure out some new subtle thing.
I still shoot digital and enjoy both.

Thanks
Dan




Dec 01, 2013 at 02:02 AM
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Here's a re-work w/layers

http://www.danswigerphotography.com/Film-/i-FhtbQW2/0/XL/T45ekvsraw_0014_131119_p3w-XL.jpg

Dan



Dec 01, 2013 at 03:20 AM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Hey Dan,

I really like that rework of #1. You added just that little touch of light and life to the shot. With that added work, this shot now has some depth to it. The originals felt very flat and one dimensional, with adding some more light to that grove of trees, and getting the highlights back in the sky you have added depth to the shot and given it more of a 3D feel.

Nice work on the edit, definitely worth it!

And yeah, I know from shooting film that it is a long process to learn and get the little details of it down. It can take many years to do that. But again, the fact that you are having fun doing it, is huge and important!

Jim

PS... one last thing I forgot to mention in my first comments. In the upper right corner you have a few leaves poking into the scene that don't belong there. I am not sure if it would be an easy fix or not, but I would try to see if you could clone them or content aware fill them away. It looks like there is just a few leaves, so perhaps it won't be too hard to do.



Dec 01, 2013 at 03:34 AM
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Jim,
Yea, I knew the leaves were going to be an issue when I got the negs back
It was raining as I set up near the drip line & the upside down/reversed view bit me!
I had planned on another go at it with clone/content aware.
Was hoping someone would say "that balances out the leaves in the opposite corner" jk

I finally found a decent workflow from the scanner, using raw output & letting ColorNeg do the work as a plug-in.
Much easier to clean up in P/S, set WB, etc. Not sure how to explain it, but the "raw" file results allows me to get more out of the file, double process, almost like digital.

The transparency image, #2, is flat but have a backup shot that should be better.

Thanks for allowing me to re-submit my homework

Dan



Dec 01, 2013 at 03:56 AM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Hey Dan,

That does sound like a very good workflow, especially if you are able to get a raw type image out of the scanning process. One thing to be sure of is to make sure you are editing your photos with the right viewing profile. Since I use IE as my standard for displaying my work to others with it being the dominant browser out there, in Photoshop under the View menu I make sure I have my Proof Setup to "Internet Standard RGB". If not, everything can seem much more vibrant as you edit, and then when you post here on FM the shots can seem a bit more dull.... so better to be editing with the correct proof setup.

And yes, you have gotten a "B" on this last homework assignment, but with a little more diligence you can raise that score to an "A".

Jim



Dec 01, 2013 at 02:51 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


It occurs (not an original thought!) that the negative/transparency simply scanned is roughly equivalent to a RAW file opened and (barely) adjusted. Yet another equivalence between film and digital.

The point about highlights is instructive. In somewhat the same way that we have to be very careful about blown highlights, those shooting positive transparencies have to watch them as well - in either case, blowing them out is a major danger. (The transparency film may roll off the blown out tones a bit more, but still...) With negative film the concern is more likely to be about shadows, since they are represented on the negative by almost (or - oops! - completely) transparency with little or no detail recorded.

The further processed image later in the thread looks a lot more interesting that the originals posted at the beginning. It also has a quality that I've come to recognize as that which could look very nice in a print but which may not "show" quite as well on the web, where we are conditioned to expect something much less subtle.

Take care,

Dan



Dec 01, 2013 at 03:41 PM
dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


Dan_
Thanks for the coments & encouragement.
I will give you credit for causing me to consider the idea of subtle vs bright-punchy presentations (don't let it go to your head ).
Something I always consider now & still trying calibrate my sense to.
Working w/film is one way to get there for me.
This why I prefer neg/transparency over positive film like Velvia.
Also why I've been experimenting w/Astia & Provia.

I am interested in your take on printing this image as I would like to maintain brightness/color.
When I've had prints on canvas, some become flatter/darker.
I've also had this occur on some matte papers

Jim, I use the IE profile mentioned for proofing.
I've notice Flickr renders flatter than Smugmug.

I added a link to an edit that removes the leaves. Used both clone & content aware
http://www.danswigerphotography.com/Film-/i-qP4f7dm

Thanks
Dan



Dec 01, 2013 at 05:30 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Yosemite Never Disappoints, Pt 3, 4x5 film


dswiger wrote:
I am interested in your take on printing this image as I would like to maintain brightness/color.
When I've had prints on canvas, some become flatter/darker.
I've also had this occur on some matte papers


There are no correct answers when it comes to papers and alternatives like canvas. I have some ideas, but they probably represent my own personal biases as much as anything.

In general for large prints I prefer to print on so-called "lustre" papers (some of which go by different names) which have a reflective surface but not a smooth glossy one. They can produce very good blacks and seem to naturally create an appearance of stronger contrast, though you can also print very subtle images on them. There are a lot of fine papers of this type, though I like to use Epson Ultrapremium Lustre for proofing and for occasional less expensive versions for some clients for whom cost is an issue. (For example, certain commercial uses where the appearance of fine art is more important than the reality of fine art quality prints.) My favorite papers for serious printing (and I don't mind at all that others like different papers than I do!) are Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk for color and Ilford Galerie Gold Mono Silk for black and white.

On the other hand, I do think that matte papers can also be nice, and they work especially well for very small prints intended to be held in the hand and viewed closely - including folios and cards. But matte papers do tend to mute the intensity of colors and contrasts. That's fine if it is what you want (for example I've seen some beautiful matte prints of very high key photographs) but if you are working for sufficient contrast and color it might not be the ideal way to go.

I'm not a big fan of canvas myself, though I've seen some very effective prints on canvas. It is excellent for pushing print size a bit further than you might with a more traditional style of photo paper, since the canvas texture tends to make resolution issues a bit less critical. And I wouldn't hesitate to go with canvas for a client who was set on that idea.

In any case, if you are having a challenge in getting your matte and canvas prints to have enough life, it just might be that you might like a lustre surface a bit more.

Good luck,

Dan



Dec 01, 2013 at 07:29 PM





FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.