One that worked

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 1691 times.

nathanm

One that worked
« on: 5 Mar 2008, 07:20 am »
I practically did a "burst mode" of LF shooting this weekend, 28 shots!  Althought a bunch were double exposure panoramas.  I did a nice pano of this scene but the left side one got fogged somehow. Dang it!  I also sabotaged half of another pano by moronically switching on the lights when my Graflex holder had a frame expsosed. :banghead:  Whoops.  This one was okay, though.



Here's a dumb question: is it possible to fix a negative a second time after its been washed and dried?  I see that my Efke film calls for a fixer with hardener which my current fixer doesn't have.  On this shoot I did notice little tiny scuffs where the emulsion peeled off.  It's no big deal, as long as I handle them gently it isn't a problem, but I was just curious if they could be re-fixed or if that's chemically impossible.

nathanm

Re: One that worked
« Reply #1 on: 8 Mar 2008, 09:40 am »


And now, to make your scroll bars work for a living—a big annoying vertical:

« Last Edit: 8 Mar 2008, 09:52 am by nathanm »

drphoto

Re: One that worked
« Reply #2 on: 12 Mar 2008, 03:04 am »
Very nice. You got some serious heart to get out there and brave the elements for these shots. The creek image is lovely. I personally would rather see the water shot at a faster shutter to retain some detail, but I'm sure the light was low. (everyone's a critic....eh?  :wink:)

Yes, from what I remember.....but it's been a long time..... you can refix and image w/ added hardnener. I don't think you'll hurt anything, even if it doesn't work. Rapid fix can cause some bleaching, but I'm sure you're not using that, you old school rascal. :)

nathanm

Re: One that worked
« Reply #3 on: 12 Mar 2008, 10:43 pm »
The elements weren't that bad on this particular day, actually.  The real labor is carrying the backpack and tripod through the brush and snow.  But heck, I need the exercise.  The pack is about 30lbs. and the tripod is 11lbs.  Maybe about 2 miles worth of walking.  Not exactly a big excursion into the boondocks, but it feels that way with all the gear on.

I only took one sharp water image so far at 1/125th, most times I am not shooting in bright sunlight. I tend to err on the side of the creamy looking water.  It's cliché but it works!  :)  It's hard to manage fast shutter speeds as I almost always stop the lens down in order to maximize sharpness.  For the most part if any bits of a landscape shot are soft it tends to look bad, at least if it's a scenic shot and not a picture of a specific object.

But as I learned with the shot of the smoke stacks, I can grossly underexpose and still get a useable neg.  Probably not so in the darkroom, though.  I have yet to clip the scanner's range.  There's always plenty of headroom in the highlights.  Of course properly-exposed stuff looks better overall, but if you are off by a few stops you're not totally ruined.

Wait, I guess the water in this shot was just sitting there.  I think this was like 1/8th sec.



I just remembered,  I've gotta give your 210mm lens back one of these days!  :oops:

BradJudy

Re: One that worked
« Reply #4 on: 12 Mar 2008, 11:13 pm »
I really like the first pic in this thread.  The juxtaposition of the stillness of the trees and snow with the movement of the water appeals to me. 

I also like the vertical of the aspen/poplar. 

drphoto

Re: One that worked
« Reply #5 on: 12 Mar 2008, 11:46 pm »
No hurry on the lens. Even if my adapter to put the Canon body on the Sinar works, I'll only be using short focal lengths. I thought you might like that Fuji, as it's pretty compact.

JimJ

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 780
  • Ut Prosim
Re: One that worked
« Reply #6 on: 13 Mar 2008, 06:52 pm »
See, it's shots like that that don't help it when I'm trying to save money.

:D

The first thing that came to mind looking at those is that they almost look IR-like...the same kind of surreal, ethereal quality that IR film has.



nathanm

Re: One that worked
« Reply #7 on: 13 Mar 2008, 09:28 pm »
Thanks Jim!  I am not sure if there are any IR films in large sheets or not.  The Ilford stuff I think only comes in rolls.  I'd have to check to see if there are others as it would be interesting to try.  I guess you more or less get black skies and white foliage. 

But there's a huge amount of creative freedom with even the regular B&W negative.  That's the most fun part of all; working with the tonal relationships and essentially "painting" in what I want to see from an otherwise flat scan.