Around Crows Nest

[Reschsmooth]

Here are some scans from shots taken around the local area. I am keen for feedback as I am looking to take some more at the larger format. These have had minimal processing apart from some tinkering in ACR.

[Remorhaz]

I've wanted to photograph the church for a while now but never got round to it. I think I find those power lines too much here. The rest of the image (& even the flare) is good for me

With the second I reckon the grain is a bit too much and the softness takes away from the image for me. The tree is a very nice shape.

[Reschsmooth]

Thanks Rodney. I have a number of different images of that church - very photogenic. But definitely agree about the power lines. I get the feeling there may be resentment if I got rid of them.

Regarding the tree, there shouldn't be too much grain - it is 125 ISO film, and I shot it at that EI. I think the textures give the appearance of grain. Here is a crop from the right of the tree. It possibly isn't as sharp is it could be, although I recall using a tripod for this one.

[sirhc55]

Patrick

#1 I agree about the power lines - very distracting. Also, I find the left side too dark and the loss of detail in the church frontage(?) at odds with the lightness of the right hand side.

#2 The tree is too central and on screen appears to be out of focus to the building in the rear. My suggestion would be a finer focus on the tree with the background slightly out of focus

Just my observations

[zafra52]

All the above. I guess you are using a 35m film, but you mention ISO 125.
My experience with film and scanning is that it will have grain and other
artefacts if the scanner hasn't been well cleaned or the film has been
exposed to dust or not handled with the necessary care and and scratched.

As it is, it has its own charm. If you want to use film and still want the
quality output of a good digital SLR, you should consider the lower ISO film
(ISO 60) you can get and if you don't do your own developing, get a
professional photographic firm that does, even if it costs more. Also little
home scanners like the ones I got the Kaiser Bass 35mm Negative & Slide
scanner or the the all-in one Canon Pixma printer will not produce the quality
scanning than a professional photografic firm would. My scanning is passable,
but that is where it stays.

The best quality photographs I've seen recently have been done using
gelatine plates or large format cameras, but I am entering now a terraine
I have not practical experience and all I know is what I've read and seen in
books or at exhibitions. Others here are more knowlegeable than me.

If you like film photography, stay with it, I think it is more demanding than
digital, and experiment with different ISO films. The higher the iSO; the
more grain it will be in you photographs. There is nothing wrong with it and
ofcourse once you convert it to digital you can further manipulate the
picture, unless you want to be a purist.

[Reschsmooth]

Thanks chaps.

Upon closer inspection, the tree is unsharp.

Regarding film, scanning, etc., these were taken on Ilford FP4+ 120 size on the Bronica, developed in Rodinal (normal development), scanned using Epson V700. I plan to reshoot these with a 4x5 when I get the chance.

[gstark]

All the above. I guess you are using a 35m film, but you mention ISO 125.
My experience with film and scanning is that it will have grain and other
artefacts if the scanner hasn't been well cleaned or the film has been
exposed to dust or not handled with the necessary care and and scratched.

Film will have grain regardless of the scanning processes involved. It's the nature of film, and grain, in and of itself, is not necessarily an unpleasant artifact.

Dust is different thing altogether.

Generally speaking, ISO125 will be a fine grain film, but I think Patrick will have been shooting on the Bronica here, using the beautiful 645 format. Using medium format will have an side effect of reducing the apparent/relative grain, because, for a given image size, he's working with a larger negative. That is one reason why medium format is preferred over 35mm, and large format over medium format.

But what we are seeing today, with the increase in resolutions available to us in the digital realm, is starting to make the differentiation between the major film formats become somewhat of a moot point.

That said, there is nothing in the photographic world that compares with the deliberation and thought needed to shoot large format. You have not tried real photography unless you've shot large format.

[Reschsmooth]

That said, there is nothing in the photographic world that compares with the deliberation and thought needed to shoot large format. You have not tried real photography unless you've shot large format.

And, hopefully by this time tomorrow, I may have my first scans of proper 4x5 negs (not including those taken with the Nikon F Speed Magny previously.)

[zafra52]

Gary, you are quite right in all counts. I have never used film
larger than 35 mm. And till I read Patrick answer I did not
realised what camera or film size he was using.

The lowes ISO film I used is so long ago now I cannot even
remember if it was ISO 60 or lower. It certaily was lower than 125
and the prints were practically noise free (meaning no grain was
detectable on the print up to about A4. I did not try larger print;
I was at uni and my pocket was not deep enough - it still is not deep
enough to indulge in medium or large cameras or my own dark room.

I thought Patrick was using an old film camera, had the film
develope at the local chemist and scanned the print himself, as
I did with some old family photographs - and hence my comments,
sorry Patrick.

[Reschsmooth]

For the sake of discussion, this image is off the same roll, with two crops showing the amount of grain present. Note that agitation was for 10 sec every 60 seconds.

One note on dust: with the scanning software I am using, it is creating interesting artefacts when I use the ICE dust removal setting. Not sure why. So these have been scanned with no software based dust removal.