The power of f64.

Morning Tea, Sunny Verandah​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford MG IV FB, image area 19.6cm X 24.5cm, from a 8x10 Tri-X negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens.

Optical law has not been repealed and small lens apertures cause diffraction which diminishes image sharpness. It is also true that stopping a lens down stretches depth of field and the total amount of detail in the picture can increase dramatically. The sunny verandah was a spatially deep subject where an aperture of f64 was just enough to keep the strong pattern in marginally good focus.

In the original gelatin-silver photograph the book on the table near the teapot can be deciphered as Minor White's "Zone System Manual", second edition. Apparently for the 8x10 camera sharpness is not a problem even at f64.

This photograph contains an artistic dilemma. The shapeless form on the verandah post at the right is my focussing cloth. At the time of setting the camera I had to put it there to provide something (anything) to act as a formal compositional counterbalance for the figure at the table. I think it works but it is a heavy-handed artifice nevertheless.

Those guys (f/64 Group) knew whereof they spoke.

There's something magic about f/64 on LF film.

Maris Rusis said:

Morning Tea, Sunny Verandah​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford MG IV FB, image area 19.6cm X 24.5cm, from a 8x10 Tri-X negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens.

Click to expand...

Maris,

A delight to see LF work! Bravo!

I wonder how you approach printing this picture. There are a series of repeated parallel structures and shadows all of a low density. There are so many choices as to the level of contrast you might choose. So do you use different papers or alter the processing to refine your final image? Or else, this is what you photographed, this is the framing for this type of processing and paper and "That's that!"?

Asher

Maris Rusis said:

Apparently for the 8x10 camera sharpness is not a problem even at f64.

Click to expand...

Hi Maris,

f/64 will work due to the lower output magnification requirements for such a large film size. While that aperture will produce diffraction patterns of 86 micron diameter, that is still something like 293 PPI @ 8x10 inch output size.

Tonality is of course very good with an 8x10, although the JPEG you posted has no dark values in the 44 lowest histogram bins, which makes it look a bit grey instead of brightly sun lit.

It's an interesting composition, with the person almost being an oasis of organic shapes in the midst of artificial straight lines.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Hi Maris,

f/64 will work due to the lower output magnification requirements for such a large film size. While that aperture will produce diffraction patterns of 86 micron diameter, that is still something like 293 PPI @ 8x10 inch output size.

Tonality is of course very good with an 8x10, although the JPEG you posted has no dark values in the 44 lowest histogram bins, which makes it look a bit grey instead of brightly sun lit.

It's an interesting composition, with the person almost being an oasis of organic shapes in the midst of artificial straight lines.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Bart, you are right on all points. I think I know where those dark values went, an uncalibrated scanner and trying to judge a monitor image in a darkened room at night. Even a $49.95 flatbed scanner running on automatic guarantees nothing. Here is a better scan , I hope.

Morning Tea, Sunny Verandah​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford MG IV FB, image area 19.6cm X 24.5cm, from a 8x10 Tri-X negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens.

In replacing the original image on the web host I think I destroyed the link. Another beginner's gaffe! Anyway there is something lookable at the end of the thread instead of the beginning.

Oh I like that version much better. I must say I think the dropped cloth on the post was a mistake though. To my eye it's a distraction rather than a balance.

Nill

Nill Toulme said:

Oh I like that version much better. I must say I think the dropped cloth on the post was a mistake though. To my eye it's a distraction rather than a balance.

Nill

Click to expand...

That's why I asked about your work in the darkroom. How much leeway do you allow yourself for change in processing and framing. Never, sometimes, always?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

That's why I asked about your work in the darkroom. How much leeway do you allow yourself for change in processing and framing. Never, sometimes, always?

Asher

Click to expand...

Large format black and white film is amazingly forgiving in exposure and processing. And it eats difficult subject matter for breakfast; a quality Jim Galli calls "brute force". The only two deadly sins are underexposure and under-development. Even so getting the exposure and development right becomes truly routine after some initial testing backed up by some conscientious note taking.

The capacity of big film to record subject luminances means that tonal extremes, from white paint in sunlight to lumps of coal in the shade, can live on the same piece of film. In the past the celebrated Zone System prescribed different processing regimes for different subject luminance ranges. The negative had to "fit" the paper. I used to do my Zone System rituals but no more.

Modern variable contrast photographic paper largely obviates the need for Zone style N+ and N- development. A one grade lift in paper contrast is strikingly similar to N+1 development, one grade down looks like N-1, and so on.
In a nutshell, exposure and development are standard, and picture tonalities are "matched" to subject brightnesses by changing paper grades in the darkroom.

Framing for 8x10 contact work, for me, admits no leeway at all; not even a millimetre. A well made view camera has a ground-glass precise enough to guarantee what's in and what's out. If the image is wrong, walk away. If an image is declared right, shoot and take the consequences. That thick black line around the picture is the film rebate border, an characteristic artifact of the equipment, an imposition. Subject management and image management are merely "chores" that place things within that pre-existing boundry.

In the final gelatin-silver photograph the black edge amounts to a "verification border" that announces that I take full personal responsibility for what lies within it. The border also invites the viewer to give themselves wholeheartedly to the photograph knowing that they are not a victim of some subterfuge or concealment.

Maris Rusis said:

The capacity of big film to record subject luminances means that tonal extremes, from white paint in sunlight to lumps of coal in the shade, can live on the same piece of film. In the past the celebrated Zone System prescribed different processing regimes for different subject luminance ranges. The negative had to "fit" the paper. I used to do my Zone System rituals but no more.

Modern variable contrast photographic paper largely obviates the need for Zone style N+ and N- development. A one grade lift in paper contrast is strikingly similar to N+1 development, one grade down looks like N-1, and so on.
In a nutshell, exposure and development are standard, and picture tonalities are "matched" to subject brightnesses by changing paper grades in the darkroom.

Click to expand...

That's a brilliant invention!

Maris Rusis said:

Framing for 8x10 contact work, for me, admits no leeway at all; not even a millimetre.

Click to expand...

I wondered about that, Maris. But what if, by chance, after all, you come to realize that the cloth was wrong, a mistake, what then?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I wondered about that, Maris. But what if, by chance, after all, you come to realize that the cloth was wrong, a mistake, what then?
Asher

Click to expand...

That's the part of the art cycle called "taking the consequences". The photograph I present has my imprimatur, my affidavit, that I vouchsafe it as my artistic committment. This can be a scary thing to do because I could be thoroughly wrong. Self deception happens. But it is also exhilarating to dare to fail on the way to success.

The alternative, framing the picture loose, posting it on a web site, and cropping it by committee vote is too timid to be interesting. Some times the game is worthwhile only if the stakes are high.

Morning Tea, Sunny Verandah​

Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford MG IV FB, image area 19.6cm X 24.5cm, from a 8x10 Tri-X negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a Fujinon-W 300mm f5.6 lens.

Maris,

Now in the new version, your picture does make much more sense and the cloth just balances the weight of the figure which is "inserted" on this otherwise strict celebration of geometrical form and shadow. The contrast makes such a huge difference. But looking further, the teapot and cup do that locally and for me, at least, the cloth would not be needed. The square form of the top of the banister and upper rails would be purer, to my taste.

Maris Rusis said:

That's the part of the art cycle called "taking the consequences". The photograph I present has my imprimatur, my affidavit, that I vouchsafe it as my artistic committment.

Click to expand...

Well said! Do you sometimes add surprises like the cloth?

Asher

Maris, as somebody who has quite recently switched to large format in a very "big way" (not in terms of format size, but in terms of earnestness and relative frequency of use) it's exiting to see other work posted from members!

I think your photograph has (or had!) very interesting possibilities, which you possibly missed out on - but this is just my opinion:

• I must agree that the dark cloth in the frame was a mistake, this image was already interesting enough, with "heavy enough" shapes on the right-hand side, to not require artificial balancing. But really, the first thing I though was "doh! he forgot his [jacket, or whatever] in the frame...
• I am but an amateur using a 4x5in camera (and not planing to move up in size, as I like to take my camera with my almost anywhere) and this do not know the ultimate limitations of a 300mm normal lens on 8x10in, but I am pretty confident that on my setup I could have applied lens tilt+swing to my 150mm on 4x5 in such a manner as to have rendered both your human subject, as well as the entire stairway and banister coming up towards us and to the right - in crisp focus. Especially at f/64 (or f/32 in my case, for the equivalent DOF). This is the gift of the LF camera!

My point is that this is actually a very pleasing and excellent composition (except for the artificially-inserted cloth!) - the eye can wander around the frame. As somebody who has now (finally) gone through all available film and digital formats, from sub-miniature to large format, I feel that the large format camera is best applied to photograph a scene with extraordinary dexterity, i.e. to in some or other way push the boundaries of composition, depth of field (shallow or deep), and smoothness of tonal transitions.

I think that the camera could have been applied to this image to create one which could not possibly have been created with any other. As it stands, apart from resolution, any camera could have been used to create this image. But all things considered, I would chop off the entire right-hand side of the image (just to the left of the dark cloth), turning it into a portrait-oriented one.

(You have the resolution to spare, of course!)

As a large format newbie, who understands the difficulties when you're "in the moment" underneath the dark cloth, I of course commend simply getting the shot at all! Please do not take my criticism too literally, it's just that I have seen what is possible. When all factors come together, large format is spectacular enough to make all the effort worthwhile.

Dawid Loubser said:

I think that the camera could have been applied to this image to create one which could not possibly have been created with any other.

Click to expand...

What about with a tilt-shift lens?

Dawid Loubser said:

As it stands, apart from resolution, any camera could have been used to create this image.

Click to expand...

It's the planning that goes with LF that mostly does not occur with 35mm, but is no way excluded.

Dawid Loubser said:

But all things considered, I would chop off the entire right-hand side of the image (just to the left of the dark cloth), turning it into a portrait-oriented one.

(You have the resolution to spare, of course!)

Click to expand...

Dawid,

I already broached the question of what leeway Maris allows himself once the frame is chosen and the film is exposed. He has clearly said that he allows no leeway at all!

I can empathize with that POV as it applies to a few exceptional images of mine where I have conceived, nurtured, planned, drawn and then photographed. There may be work on the final tonality distribution but no change in composition. Still, my borders can change a bit!

So I don't think cropping is one of those options that are open to Maris, even though the image might be more powerful to us. I respect his strategic and stoicly restrictive stance for himself even though I might agree with your practical tactic. Maris wishes his composition to be judged as of the time the film is exposed to light and when the first occult writing occurred.

Dawid Loubser said:

When all factors come together, large format is spectacular enough to make all the effort worthwhile.

Click to expand...

Yes, and we all appreciate seeing real silver gelatin and other analog work.

Asher

With all due respect, I would argue that the coat makes all the difference in this shot. The overall sense of the shot is about geometry and perspectival distortions. Yet the woman with the book is looking at the camera - adding a human element, but left alone, removes the conversation from formal relationships alone and adds a human question. It is left hanging, unresolved, and without closure, would frankly trivialize the photo.

The addition of the coat provides the necessary balance and closure to that. Perhaps (probably) She's asking "where are you, when will you be done, what are you thinking?", and the response is.... "I'm here, its almost done, I'll hurry...." or something along those lines. But it isn't clear. And the point of the shot (IMHO) is both the passionate interest in the form, but also in the act of photographing. And the closed circle of conversation, left unresolved, as if they always are.

In short, I like the coat. Keep it, it works. And, like much of film, it tells you something about the photo that you may not have totally planned, or thought about up front, but your intuition (remember that?) was guiding you.

Nicely done.

Hi Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

What about with a tilt-shift lens?

Click to expand...

Compositionally, maybe, but (and of course, you know) there is no SLR accepting a tilt/shift lens that will come within one tenth of the image resolution capabilities of an 8x10in camera.

Asher Kelman said:

It's the planning that goes with LF that mostly does not occur with 35mm, but is no way excluded.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But again, my reference was more to the vast film area coupled with lens movements, and not only the planning. And vis-a-vis, I have taken quite spontaneous, badly-framed large-format shots

Asher Kelman said:

Dawid,

I already broached the question of what leeway Maris allows himself once the frame is chosen and the film is exposed. He has clearly said that he allows no leeway at all!

I can empathize with that POV as it applies to a few exceptional images of mine where I have conceived, nurtured, planned, drawn and then photographed. There may be work on the final tonality distribution but no change in composition. Still, my borders can change a bit!

So I don't think cropping is one of those options that are open to Maris, even though the image might be more powerful to us. I respect his strategic and stoicly restrictive stance for himself even though I might agree with your practical tactic. Maris wishes his composition to be judged as of the time the film is exposed to light and when the first occult writing occurred.

Yes, and we all appreciate seeing real silver gelatin and other analog work.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, I equally respect his stance. However, the original post mentioned the "artistic dilemma", and I guess our automatic reaction - since the artist cannot go back and re-capture the moment - is to suggest cropping as a "remedy". Well, those of us who do not agree with the artificial counter-balance (the cloth), that is. Of course, that is simply personal taste.

Maris

I meant to respond earlier to tis - I missed it at first posting.

I enjoy the composition and agree with the inclusion of the cloth. I too would be reluctant to crop to change the composition - find out what the camera gievs you can be part of the process, just as much as the very controlled approach that would lead you to exclude 'undesirable' elements. Said appreciating that the use of the view camera includes a very significant degree of control and that the cloth was a deliberate inclusion.

Cheers

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

Maris

I meant to respond earlier to tis - I missed it at first posting.

I enjoy the composition and agree with the inclusion of the cloth. I too would be reluctant to crop to change the composition - find out what the camera gievs you can be part of the process, just as much as the very controlled approach that would lead you to exclude 'undesirable' elements. Said appreciating that the use of the view camera includes a very significant degree of control and that the cloth was a deliberate inclusion.

Cheers

Mike

Click to expand...

Throwing the focussing cloth into the picture is a disturbing reminder of personal fallibility because it was not foreseen. Everything else was. The angles were plotted the day before the shoot. The time of day for the right play of shadows was calculated to the minute. A giant tripod was wedged across the stairwell to put the camera 2.5 metres in the air. A shooting platform was organised behind the camera so I could climb up to see the ground-glass. I even used a long cable release so I could trigger the shutter while standing under the camera. Very clever, I thought. And then the glaring "gap" on the right hand hit me in the eye and I had to fill that gap with something - the focussing cloth. It is a chastening experience for the "control freak" photographer to miss the obvious!

Maris Rusis said:

Throwing the focussing cloth into the picture is a disturbing reminder of personal fallibility because it was not foreseen. Everything else was. The angles were plotted the day before the shoot. The time of day for the right play of shadows was calculated to the minute. A giant tripod was wedged across the stairwell to put the camera 2.5 metres in the air. A shooting platform was organised behind the camera so I could climb up to see the ground-glass. I even used a long cable release so I could trigger the shutter while standing under the camera. Very clever, I thought. And then the glaring "gap" on the right hand hit me in the eye and I had to fill that gap with something - the focussing cloth. It is a chastening experience for the "control freak" photographer to miss the obvious!

Click to expand...

I thought that might be the case - I have grown very used to personal fallibility and get regular reminders.

Mike