Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Your favourite lens
- Thread starter simonpg
- Start date
Sorry it takes so long to respond, my health is very poor and only today have been able to say much.
The 'bird on Velvia' is/was a very complex studio shot. The tubes and bird are white, There were a combination of backgrounds, switched from black to white mid-shot. Essentially a 32 shot multi-exposure. Instead of using the shutter I used a piece of black velvet to block the lens from light during set changes. I used a only a small penlight to accomplish changes in an otherwise totally dark room.
The changes included:
Black background directly behind tubes and in front of bird, to enable lighting of tubes only, lights gelled blue,
Black 'far' background lighting only the bird, lights gelled yellow, gobo'd some of the tubes close to the bird to avoid too much reflection,
Removed black background to reveal white background which was gelled blue, used appropriate lighting to achieve gradation effect,
Lens, 120cfi, was quite close to tubes, needed to use f/22 for adequete dof, This meant multi-pops of the flash to build up enough exposure. Of course the shot was bracketed so a whole lot of work was require for the end result.
The 'bird on Velvia' is/was a very complex studio shot. The tubes and bird are white, There were a combination of backgrounds, switched from black to white mid-shot. Essentially a 32 shot multi-exposure. Instead of using the shutter I used a piece of black velvet to block the lens from light during set changes. I used a only a small penlight to accomplish changes in an otherwise totally dark room.
The changes included:
Black background directly behind tubes and in front of bird, to enable lighting of tubes only, lights gelled blue,
Black 'far' background lighting only the bird, lights gelled yellow, gobo'd some of the tubes close to the bird to avoid too much reflection,
Removed black background to reveal white background which was gelled blue, used appropriate lighting to achieve gradation effect,
Lens, 120cfi, was quite close to tubes, needed to use f/22 for adequete dof, This meant multi-pops of the flash to build up enough exposure. Of course the shot was bracketed so a whole lot of work was require for the end result.
Gilbert, Marc, Jurgen, Wilko, Simon and Paul...
Thank you all so much for your kind words. I have never really liked most of the work I've done. It's only now that I'm trying to print up a few memories for my wife that I have started to enjoy some of these shots.
Regards to all...vic
Thank you all so much for your kind words. I have never really liked most of the work I've done. It's only now that I'm trying to print up a few memories for my wife that I have started to enjoy some of these shots.
Regards to all...vic
How could you have done what Jurgen? (excellent photo BTW, but just wondering what you are referencing).
To see what can, and has been done in the darkroom, see the work of Jerry Uelsmann among others.
Many of the ideas in Photoshop were pioneered by photographers and darkroom masters 40, 50, even 100 years ago. That's why it's called "Photoshop".
Photoshop just makes it easier to do some of the things that were done in the traditional darkroom. This doesn't mean people do them well, just that they can do them.
Also, Photoshop combines the techniques of the darkroom master, and those of the photo retoucher.
When I started in the graphics/advertising business, I worked at a famous art studio employing illustrators and photo retouchers. These people could do anything and absolutely make it believable. Man, the things I've seen in my trek.
What always fascinated me was the "in-camera" stuff that was done in the past. A study of the Time-Life technical innovations to accomplish a photographer's vision is an ex&le of this.
To see what can, and has been done in the darkroom, see the work of Jerry Uelsmann among others.
Many of the ideas in Photoshop were pioneered by photographers and darkroom masters 40, 50, even 100 years ago. That's why it's called "Photoshop".
Photoshop just makes it easier to do some of the things that were done in the traditional darkroom. This doesn't mean people do them well, just that they can do them.
Also, Photoshop combines the techniques of the darkroom master, and those of the photo retoucher.
When I started in the graphics/advertising business, I worked at a famous art studio employing illustrators and photo retouchers. These people could do anything and absolutely make it believable. Man, the things I've seen in my trek.
What always fascinated me was the "in-camera" stuff that was done in the past. A study of the Time-Life technical innovations to accomplish a photographer's vision is an ex&le of this.
simonpg
Active Member
Victor, I'm sorry that you have been so unwell and I hope that improves quickly.
It was great to learn about how you make that bird image - like other art-forms even photography can require a great deal of "hands-on" skill as you have shown - again, well done.
Jurgen, your rocks image is a gem and even at 72dpi over the web it "glows" - as you know I have a large framed print of it and everyone loves it as well as its "non-identical" twin!
Marc, the Beetle image is a classic ex&le of how MF (and Zeiss glass I am sure) produces a superb 3D effect, even over the web. But the lilly now shows how the Fuji glass and a 39mp back can achieve a similar quality. The texture in the lilly is so life-like. Do you think that combination is the equivalent of Zeiss glass and positive film?
It was great to learn about how you make that bird image - like other art-forms even photography can require a great deal of "hands-on" skill as you have shown - again, well done.
Jurgen, your rocks image is a gem and even at 72dpi over the web it "glows" - as you know I have a large framed print of it and everyone loves it as well as its "non-identical" twin!
Marc, the Beetle image is a classic ex&le of how MF (and Zeiss glass I am sure) produces a superb 3D effect, even over the web. But the lilly now shows how the Fuji glass and a 39mp back can achieve a similar quality. The texture in the lilly is so life-like. Do you think that combination is the equivalent of Zeiss glass and positive film?
Juergen,
Why can't the rocks and water shot be made in the analogue darkroom?
Moderate contrast light, moderate contrast range etc? Looks very possible (touch of burning in on the top of rocks, maybe) or am I missing something.
I call such shots 'flushing dunny' shots for their similarity (!!) to the water flushing in a toilet (dunny).
Nice Glory Lily, Marc. Although such things are weeds here! My Mum calls them 'Uncle Tom's Lily' as a family name, which always made it hard to remove them from the bush at the back of her old place when I visited!
Here is a challenge for you, Marc: there is a recent book on flowers some of which were taken (from memory) with V series and 120 Makro and some with H series and zoom. The challenge is to work out which photos are taken with each system!
Actually, there are 2 challenges: finding the book as I forget the author's name (I only saw it in a bookshop briefly - I think he is American). Perhaps someone can help...
Why can't the rocks and water shot be made in the analogue darkroom?
Moderate contrast light, moderate contrast range etc? Looks very possible (touch of burning in on the top of rocks, maybe) or am I missing something.
I call such shots 'flushing dunny' shots for their similarity (!!) to the water flushing in a toilet (dunny).
Nice Glory Lily, Marc. Although such things are weeds here! My Mum calls them 'Uncle Tom's Lily' as a family name, which always made it hard to remove them from the bush at the back of her old place when I visited!
Here is a challenge for you, Marc: there is a recent book on flowers some of which were taken (from memory) with V series and 120 Makro and some with H series and zoom. The challenge is to work out which photos are taken with each system!
Actually, there are 2 challenges: finding the book as I forget the author's name (I only saw it in a bookshop briefly - I think he is American). Perhaps someone can help...
jotloob
Well-Known Member
Nick
I use a large Intuos 2 (WACOM) graphic tablet and a WACOM pen instead of a mouse .
Looking at the "white lines" in the stones , these are actually "quartz veins" , they turn out a bit weak , when printed on silver gelatine paper .
Using PS and my WACOM pen , you can dodge these lines , even if they are very thin . I have done that to the shown image .
It shows , PSCS is a very powerful tool . But , as Marc already pointed out , it takes much time to learn and I shurely don't use more than 20% of its power .
I use a large Intuos 2 (WACOM) graphic tablet and a WACOM pen instead of a mouse .
Looking at the "white lines" in the stones , these are actually "quartz veins" , they turn out a bit weak , when printed on silver gelatine paper .
Using PS and my WACOM pen , you can dodge these lines , even if they are very thin . I have done that to the shown image .
It shows , PSCS is a very powerful tool . But , as Marc already pointed out , it takes much time to learn and I shurely don't use more than 20% of its power .
keith_laban
Member
The natural perspective of the 80mm.
Gosh, sorry about the repro, just how restrictive is this 130KB (I actually had to reduce it to well below 130KB before it would accept it) upload limit?
Gosh, sorry about the repro, just how restrictive is this 130KB (I actually had to reduce it to well below 130KB before it would accept it) upload limit?
keith_laban
Member
Thanks Colin, appreciated. I can't believe that I had to save this at a quality setting of 30% to get under the upload limit.
michaelhcothran
Member
The 100/3.5 CF would rate as my all time favorite. Not sure why, but it does stay on my body more than any other lens, and I get a feeling of secure confidence when using it.
Michael H. Cothran
Michael H. Cothran
keith_laban
Member
Many thanks Simon. Perhaps it's a tad unusual for a photographer, but I tend to dislike images that are overtly "photographic". I use the 80mm for most of my landscape/nature work to avoid the obvious compression of perspective when using telephotos and the opposite effect when using wides.
Velvia 50, 1 second at f16/22
Velvia 50, 1 second at f16/22