Thread: LF: f128: Snow Gum Dance
View Single Post
  #7  
Old March 30th, 2015, 01:05 AM
Dawid Loubser Dawid Loubser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 592
Default

As evidenced in my own work, I can't resist a tree and a big piece of film either - this is very nice! Intriguing composition, and gum trees surely have the most photogenic trunks / bark patterns.

I take it you purposefully went for a low-contrast, gentle look to this image? Because the one thing a big negative has in abundance, is the data to drive some dramatic tone. What did somebody on this forum once call it...? "Brute force tonality". This is why I enjoy the larger formats.

Again - lovely composition... I find myself peeking into the depths behind your subject, most engaging.

I'd like to add to your sentiment that big cameras don't mind small apertures. I frequently shoot f/32 and f/45 on my 4x5in, and I *do* enlarge (16x20 usually) and any diffraction softening is nowhere to be seen. You're only one effective stop down from my f/45 on your 8x10 (at f/128), so even if you did - and spectacular it would be - diffraction would be the least of your worries.

On a more daring note - if your end result is an 8x10 print on photographic paper - how am I to be convinced that 8x10 is worth it (over 4x5?). Anybody who tells me that they can see a visual difference (resolution, tone) between a contact print, and a 2x enlargement (or, say, a 4x enlargement) are, at best, seeing technique differences in the printing process in my opinion.

What have you found to be the real advantages?

I ask, because I frequently flirt with the idea of a nice modern wooden 8x10 to use my Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 360mm on - it's a real beast on 4x5in as a short tele - but I just can't convince myself. With my 16x20 prints, my printing technique - and not the equipment - is the limitation.

regards,
Dawid



Quote:
Originally Posted by Maris Rusis View Post

Snow Gum Dance, Charlotte Pass
Reply With Quote