High-Tension Teamwork

[Dawid Loubser]

I can only Marvel at the men whose daily job - at near minimum-wage - involves this:

High-Tension Teamwork

(Ilford Pan F+ at ISO32 (6x7cm), Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 140mm Macro, hand-printed in the darkroom on 8x10in Ilford MG IV Multigrade paper)​

Technical comment: I have always maintained that Ilford Pan F sligtly over-exposed and under-developed (I shoot it at ISO32) has among the most gorgeous tonality of all B&W films. This was the first time I used it on medium format, and I am absolutely thrilled - I shot twelve rolls of a road trip "blind" (having never shot it in MF before) but now I can't wait to develop and process the rest!

This film takes no prisoners. But it places great demands on one's technique, and requires the stables of tripods to extract the resolution. Then again, after shooting a lot of 4x5in, shooting the Mamiya RB67 SLR again is like using a point-and-shoot!

 

[Asher Kelman]

I can only Marvel at the men whose daily job - at near minimum-wage - involves this:

High-Tension Teamwork

(Ilford Pan F+ at ISO32 (6x7cm), Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 140mm Macro, hand-printed in the darkroom on 8x10in Ilford MG IV Multigrade paper)​

Technical comment: I have always maintained that Ilford Pan F sligtly over-exposed and under-developed (I shoot it at ISO32) has among the most gorgeous tonality of all B&W films. This was the first time I used it on medium format, and I am absolutely thrilled - I shot twelve rolls of a road trip "blind" (having never shot it in MF before) but now I can't wait to develop and process the rest!

This film takes no prisoners. But it places great demands on one's technique, and requires the stables of tripods to extract the resolution. Then again, after shooting a lot of 4x5in, shooting the Mamiya RB67 SLR again is like using a point-and-shoot!

I love the detail of the work and the appearance of the silhouettes of the workers in the workers in the pylons as if birds were populating winter trees.

BTW, how does Ilford Pan F sligtly over-exposed and under-developed compare to FP4 and HP5 in your use for such images?

Asher

 

[Dawid Loubser]

I love the detail of the work and the appearance of the silhouettes of the workers in the workers in the pylons as if birds were populating winter trees.

BTW, how does Ilford Pan F sligtly over-exposed and under-developed compare to FP4 and HP5 in your use for such images?

Asher

Thanks Asher. Compared to FP4/HP5? The only disadvantage is a tendency for slightly blocked highlights. More careful attention is needed to over-exposure, where even 3 stops over doesn't bother FP4/HP5 in the least.

The info is there, but the contrast curve has flattened out in the highlights to such a degree that it becomes difficult to print those highlights satisfactorily without muddying the rest of the image. I think it takes a bit more skill in the darkroom to print Pan F negatives (whereas, say, Kodak TMY400-2 basically prints itself, it's like digital: very linear).

In all other respects, Pan F is like a fine wine: Simply delicious. Subtle. Ultra-high resolution. It has a mid-tone rendering that is smooth/"steely". It makes medium format look like 4x5in large format, pure and simple. Well, this is from the two images I've printed so far

I am going to try to print one image per day of my ~10 rolls of Pan F (only the good ones, obviously - many were simply for documentary purposes on a road trip).

 

[Doug Kerr]

Dawid's shot reminds me of the series I did in 2009 on the upgrade of the 345 kV transmission line near our home in Weatherford, Texas.

This shot seems especially apt.

Douglas A. Kerr: High Iron​

I'm sorry I didn't grab a WA shot of this scene to show it in context.

Here, much of the high work was done from buckets in extraordinarily large cranes, but some was best done by the ironworkers scaling the towers.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

High-Tension Teamwork

(Ilford Pan F+ at ISO32 (6x7cm), Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 140mm Macro, hand-printed in the darkroom on 8x10in Ilford MG IV Multigrade paper)​

This is great: the towers, the men hanging up, everything. The tonality is superb. But, why cut the third tower in its middle? I am sorry if I sound harsh, but for my eyes this ruins everything.

Move one meter to the left, 4 or 5 back and turn the camera a few degrees to the right. And get the left foot entirely in the picture, and clone out that hanging hook at the top (yes, you can do that with analogue as well, because the sky is just empty...).

now I can't wait to develop and process the rest!

I am only saying this in the hope you have the third tower in the rest of the pictures...

 

[Asher Kelman]

This is great: the towers, the men hanging up, everything. The tonality is superb. But, why cut the third tower in its middle? I am sorry if I sound harsh, but for my eyes this ruins everything.

Jerome,

You're right! However, for me I'd have anyway taken "coverage". I cannot say enough times, the teaching of framing close, leads to such dilemmas. Always frame wider unless doing fashion or product with a Phase One, Hassy and such with the ability to have a preplanned overlay from the design department with test already on it or doing direct positive prints with Harmon or Ilfochrome paper.

I try to take adjacent overlapping areas. However, push comes to shove. If this was really needed, one could rebuild the 3rd tower and then make a new film negative. I'm not advocating this just pointing out that it's indeed possible.

It's possible that one couldn't move to where one can include all towers satisfactorily in one shot.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

It's possible that one couldn't move to where one can include all towers satisfactorily in one shot.

Indeed, since in this case there might have been 50 of them.

Or is the real point here that it would be better from a compositional standpoint to include in the delivered image only an integral number of towers?

In that case, the third one could certainly be extirpated from the existing shot.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jerome,

I am only saying this in the hope you have the third tower in the rest of the pictures...

And the fourth, and the fifth . . .

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

Hi, Jerome,


And the fourth, and the fifth . . .

Best regards,

Doug

That is a snug remark.

As far as I can tell from casual observations of high power lines, the towers are usually in a straight line for some distance. If such is the case, by moving to the left we will have a whole series of towers merged together and by moving slightly to the right we will be able to isolate the third tower from the line.

It's possible that one couldn't move to where one can include all towers satisfactorily in one shot.

This excuse was never accepted when I used it for my own pictures for review.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jerome,

As far as I can tell from casual observations of high power lines, the towers are usually in a straight line for some distance. If such is the case, by moving to the left we will have a whole series of towers merged together and by moving slightly to the right we will be able to isolate the third tower from the line.

But why should we assume that including the third is desirable but not also the fourth, fifth, etc.?

And, in this example, if we did move the vantage point a little to the left, likely the fourth tower might would overlapped the third, as the third already overlaps the second (and would so so more greatly with the new vantage point). You in fact speak of the towers being "merged".

So I'm not sure I follow your motive, your objective, or your suggested technique.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

But why should we assume that including the third is desirable but not also the fourth, fifth, etc.?

It would be desirable for me. You don't have to agree.

And, in this example, if we did move the vantage point a little to the left, likely the fourth tower might would overlapped the third, as the third already overlaps the second (and would so so more greatly with the new vantage point). You in fact speak of the towers being "merged".

Indeed.

So I'm not sure I follow your motive, your objective, or your suggested technique.

The "suggested technique" would be easier to follow on the spot, obviously: just move around and see what the perspective gives. But maybe this discussion leads us away from the point I wanted to make: the cut third tower is a problem for me.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jerome,

The only way to directly deal with that would be to move further away from the towers or choose wider lens. The overlap is still going to be there so one has little option. For me, this would be case for overlapping and stitching.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome,

The only way to directly deal with that would be to move further away from the towers or choose wider lens. The overlap is still going to be there so one has little option. For me, this would be case for overlapping and stitching.

Asher

I don't understand what you mean by "overlapping and stitching", but the farther away one will be, the more overlap there will be. So if one want to keep roughly the same image but separate the towers a bit more, one should move closer and use a wider lens.

But this discussion is not very useful, I'm afraid. In practice, faced with this subject, a photographer will simply move around until the perspective is to his or her liking. All the more when one is using a RB67, which is not exactly the kind of camera leading to casual, fast snapshots.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

You guys are funny... I purposefully cropped the image to cut the right tower in half. For various reasons, this was better for the image.

I will most certainly not structurally modify the image such as cloning out bits, reconstructing other bits, etc. If I start doing that, I rather like to fire up Blender and render a 3D scene that I constructed entirely. My idea of photography is "truth" - and the beauty of film is that it captures everything the camera sees, warts and all.

I enjoy the compositional challenges within these constraints, but greatly value the feedback and discussion nevertheless!

 

[Asher Kelman]

You guys are funny... I purposefully cropped the image to cut the right tower in half. For various reasons, this was better for the image.

I will most certainly not structurally modify the image such as cloning out bits, reconstructing other bits, etc. If I start doing that, I rather like to fire up Blender and render a 3D scene that I constructed entirely. My idea of photography is "truth" - and the beauty of film is that it captures everything the camera sees, warts and all.

I enjoy the compositional challenges within these constraints, but greatly value the feedback and discussion nevertheless!

Somehow, Dawid, I was thinking of a Mamiya VII and then Jerome reminds us that it's a RB67 you are using. That is one heavy but wonderful machine. I also am glad you are telling the truth with your work. One of the reasons I'm challenging myself with shooting direct to positive film is that there's absolutely no alteration of what's recorded. I have been spoiled by the skilled software that I'm so used to using. I do think being more honest in photography is the harder and higher art.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

You guys are funny... I purposefully cropped the image to cut the right tower in half. For various reasons, this was better for the image.

I thought you did. How else could one explain that the tower is cut exactly through its middle?

Now, I am sure that you had good reasons to crop that tower. It may be that it was not possible to construct the image in a different manner and that by not cropping it we will see more distracting elements. You know, because you were on the spot. But I don't know what is outside of the frame, so I can only give my impressions about what I see from the picture. And that impression is that I do not like the frame to cut out half of the tower.

I remember a similar discussion about a picture of mine where I had cropped out a distracting bit but cut a part of an element which was in the picture (a hand). The teacher said that I should not have cut the hand. My answer was that it was a necessity to avoid a distraction. The teacher said that he did not care whether I could have done it or not, getting the full hand and no distraction was my problem, not his. When you hang a picture on a wall, you do not hang a note next to it with excuses.

I will most certainly not structurally modify the image such as cloning out bits

My opinion has always been that a photograph clones out all the reality which is outside of the frame. It is inside and you see it or outside, even right at the edge, and it does not exist any more.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Asher,

If I were ever to start using a Mamiya 7, you'd sure know about it! (a bit of a dream camera of mine - but a "reserved" dream). For the type of shot I made here with a 140mm lens, the RB67 is much better to compose with (big, bright ground glass) and a 7 could never replace the RB67, but I sure would like one to compliment it!

As I said, I definitely agree that the shot would have been more aesthetically pleasing with the full third tower, or without it completely. Other elements in the image did not really make this possible. But (especially to Jerome) the concerns are duly noted. I don't quite think it's the same as chopping off a person's body part with the frame edge, that very rarely works.

 

[Paul Abbott]

Your first initial image is simply fantastic! I get so much out of this image, especially with all those lines and they're points of intersection, the human element is so well photographed in this also...

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Dawid

A great image. I agree with Paul, the people are brilliantly photographed.

I'm also not sure that the cropped tower is a problem. As it stands it closes the frame and contains the action. It would be interesting though to make a comparison.

I'd leave the skyhook too. David Hurn comments on honesty in 'On Being a Photographer' - a book that's well worth a few reads.

You might also try Rollei 80S as well as Pan F. Process in rodinal or xtol.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Doug Kerr]

We're fortunate to have a number of power transmission lines near our home. This one crosses White Settlement Road (its town was named when this area was mostly occupied by Indians) just east of Azle Highway.

Douglas A. Kerr: Lots of towers​

But I didn't really want to show that many towers. Well here's a crop:

Douglas A. Kerr: Just three towers - well sort of​

Here we see the first three. But wait - there's that pesky fourth one sneaking in to wreck the picture.

Well, I'll get rid of him:

Douglas A. Kerr: Just three towers - well almost​

Good, he's gone. But wait - now we only see part of number three. Well, maybe I should only try to include two.

Douglas A. Kerr: Just two towers - well sort of​

But now there's that pesky number 3 intruding.

[continued]

 

[Doug Kerr]

[part 2]

Well, I can get rid of him easily enough:

Douglas A. Kerr: Just two towers - well almost​

But now part of number two is gone.

Let's press on. There must be a solution. Ah, this is it:

Douglas A. Kerr: Transmission tower​

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Now, for this one, maybe we could . . .

Douglas A. Kerr: Transmission towers​

Oh, screw it!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

We're fortunate to have a number of power transmission lines near our home.

Are you trying to say that I would not know how a power transmission line looks like?

 

[Doug Kerr]

Are you trying to say that I would not know how a power transmission line looks like?

No, I'm saying that we (those of us in this house) are lucky to have a number of transmission lines nearby.

A great shot. I love the rich blue of the sky. The perspective is entrancing.

Four circuits on that puppy. Single-conductor phases (except for the upper-left circuit), so the voltage on the other three may not be that high. (Corona considerations.) (Notice also longer insulator strings on the upper-left circuit.)

The tower seems to be a little quasi-Eiflfeled (the legs spreading apart partway up). Makes best use of the material.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug