The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ralfsworld

New member
This is a part of the Old City of Stockholm, Sweden. I made this one few days ago from the boat in motion, handhold. This is a 50% crop.



Regards from cold Stockholm.
/Ralf
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well . . . . here we go with my new Alpa Max. + Hasselblad H4d 60 back + Alpa APO Switar 35mm lens. Two frames stitched by shifting the back. Not much of an image but it's taken a few hours to sort out flat frames and the like, working out presets for shifts. Color casts and vignetting were fully controlled in Phocus with the presets. Pixel dimensions of the finished tiff are roughly 13,000 x 9,000.

Yeah, I really am a gear whore.

I also like this image a lot. It looks very 3D. After reoplacing my Hy6 -Sinar gear with a S2 I am struggeling to sell also my Artec (original plan) or to keep it.
If I keep it I need to buy a used back (like the AFI7 offered in the sales section). But then I have used the Artec maybe 5 times in 1 year only.....

No, I need to resist and stay out of it.

Image like yours dont really help here ;)
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
So I've strapped a 6x7 Linhof film back on to my TC and shot . . . .F***. That's right, film. The f word. The back is a loaner from Doc Moore. I'm shooting Ilford XP-2, a "chromogenic" B&W film. This shot with my TC + 35mm APO-Switar + XP-2 scanned on a Hasselblad Imacon scanner.

The diagonal line that appears to come from the street lamp isn't a digital artifact because, well, the image wasn't captured digitally. The trail is way too long to be an aircraft (2 second exposure) so I'm assuming it's a satellite.

 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
So I've strapped a 6x7 Linhof film back on to my TC and shot . . . .F***. That's right, film. The f word. The back is a loaner from Doc Moore. I'm shooting Ilford XP-2, a "chromogenic" B&W film. This shot with my TC + 35mm APO-Switar + XP-2 scanned on a Hasselblad Imacon scanner.

The diagonal line that appears to come from the street lamp isn't a digital artifact because, well, the image wasn't captured digitally. The trail is way too long to be an aircraft (2 second exposure) so I'm assuming it's a satellite.

I assume that the trail is way too large (width) to be astronomical object and would bet that the scan was compromised in some way. It appears to impact the building so again not completely understood...however a great capture. The nice thing about film is there is no true upper limit for exposure time.....

Bob
 

etrump

Well-known member
Haven't seen many vertical panos so I thought I would post this image I just finished processing for a gallery print.

P30, 645ADFII, 55-110mm

 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Haven't seen many vertical panos so I thought I would post this image I just finished processing for a gallery print.

P30, 645ADFII, 55-110mm

That's a beauty - Im a sucker for earth shadow pre-sunrise / post sunsets ... Did you manage to capture the moon in that single exposure or blend in a second exposure?
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I assume that the trail is way too large (width) to be astronomical object and would bet that the scan was compromised in some way. It appears to impact the building so again not completely understood...however a great capture. The nice thing about film is there is no true upper limit for exposure time.....

Bob
A scratch? I'll check the negative when I get back to NY
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I assume that the trail is way too large (width) to be astronomical object and would bet that the scan was compromised in some way. It appears to impact the building so again not completely understood...however a great capture. The nice thing about film is there is no true upper limit for exposure time.....

Bob
Seems unlikely to be a satellite ... not sure any satellite would cooperate so as to line up perfectly with the angle of the buildings like that. Satellites travel fast, but seems way too long to be from a 2 second exposure.

I suppose a scanning artifact is possible, but a close examination of the original film should easily decide that ... either it's on the film or it's not. Doesn't look like one to me.

It aligns so perfectly with the verticals I just can't see it was accidental ... how to you "scratch" a neg so perfectly?

Where was this taken? It looks just like an image I took of the Luxor in Las Vegas with it's beam shooting out the top a few years ago. I've heard of a few of these in NYC, any chance it's one of those? It does look like it's coming from the top of a building in the distance.

Accident or real, cool shot and I like the light beam ...
 

etrump

Well-known member
That's a beauty - Im a sucker for earth shadow pre-sunrise / post sunsets ... Did you manage to capture the moon in that single exposure or blend in a second exposure?
One of my favorite subjects too Graham. Around here it gets pretty hazy in the summer so we don't usually get the deep colors. This one was right after a few days of heavy rains which helped. The moon in the first exposure was marginally over exposed. This is a blend of two exposures one stop apart. I used the main exposure for the slight glow which is hard to see at web size.
 

dick

New member
A couple of images from today in South Lake Union, Seattle

Mamiya RZ Pro IID w/Aptus-II 7
I appreciate that in the days a of film most professionals did not have a clue about colour temperature or white balance, and did not use red correction filters on overcast days... but now WB is so quick and easy - I find it difficult to appreciate why we get so many pictures here with blue casts - the float plane picture looks so much better with one click of the mouse to grey balance.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Hey Woody, really stunning image you got there with the Linhof back. What resolution do you get out of the Imacon at this neg. size? Care to post a 100% snippet of it? Wondering how it compares to your 60 MPX sensor ... guess that a 100 iso film might be compareable? Got more analog goodness? Film's great still!

Kind regards

Paul
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
It's a scratch. The satellite idea was pretty stupid - an example of seeing what you want to see rather than what is there. The alignment is an accident.

In terms of sharpness the image looks way less good full rez on the screen than a 60 meg (or even 39 meg) digital image. I have photographed from this spot with an M9 with better results in terms of resolution. It's not fair to film to post a crop because this was 2 seconds without a tripod - braced against a light pole - the image is sharp but not perfectly so. The scanned tiffs are 49 megs each. The scanner more than fully resolves the film's grain at this file size - the scanner is significantly oversampling the film.

What film brings to this picture (and what makes the picture appealing) is the shoulder of the response curve which means that the illuminated windows don't fully blow out, and halation, which leads to a warm glow around the windows. It took 10 minutes or so to spot the scan in Photoshop.

This image suggests a lot that there is to love and hate about film.

Here's a repost of the image with the scratch gone and a minor curves adjustment. This is Mies van der Rohe's Seagrams building; the image is part of my longstanding project photographing icons.

 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
While it isn't sharp, it has something to it, really, I think you could call this "graphical". I imagine this in large, beautifully framed ...

Woody, do you like shooting film alongside MFDB or is it an experiment you won't repeat?
 

mvirtue

New member
I appreciate that in the days a of film most professionals did not have a clue about colour temperature or white balance, and did not use red correction filters on overcast days... but now WB is so quick and easy - I find it difficult to appreciate why we get so many pictures here with blue casts - the float plane picture looks so much better with one click of the mouse to grey balance.
On what in the image did you balance on? I can force a blue cast, but I'm not seeing it. 99% of my stuff is indoor sports/dance or studio and I'd love to learn more about this type of work.

EDIT:
Found a spot on the plane that did something. I had to have both versions up at the same time to notice the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top