PhotoArt Appreciation - Page 2

Funny thing is that there is a parallel perception about Photography & Art. The distinction between "photo_art" & the "árt of photography". Which you will probably heard related to the b&w forms of enlarger techniques "dodging or burning", or developmental processes like pushing or pulling, rather than "ïn_camera" processes.
In fact I intented to shoot this as a sunrise but the low overcast sky didn't allow the sun to peek through until mid morning. I could have shoot the pier lit up the night I shot the previous photograph but I didn't.

Ah, seeing the pier reminds me that I just got back a coouple of 5x7's. This one I shot from the top of the Pier, I still have to get a (ground glass) focus screen but I wanted to try out the camera so the focus may be a little off. They were having a triatholon, I know because as I set up, they were announcing the positions & times.

It is hard to showdetail because of the small file size on the net so I cropped this out to give a better feel of the detail of a LF slide. (Not that the web shot does it justice to the image in hand.) The photograph was exposed at f32@1/30 of a second.

I had taken some other shots but I didn't think that they were good or that they did not present a validating reason for there inclusion . . . but as time pasted I reconsider & will post some of these as they tend to accent resembles the content or tend to relate to the content of other threads.

For example, I had shot 2 4x5 slides before (earlier as the Pier didn't open till 10am) shooting the 5x7 slide. [shown above] These shots are from the ST. Anthony's Triathlon.

Actually there were 2 separate exposures 1) with a 300mm lens & the 2) with a 500mm lens. These were exposures with a (time) duration of 1/4 of a second. Now, I include these sections of the scene to show that although you can distinctly see spectators, one doesn't see any participants? Now I will admit that this seems rather far fetched so I went back over them with greater care & deliberation.
The first 2 are from the 300mm exposure & the last is from the 50mm shown above . . .

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=361677#pos
t361677
Large Format Photography Forum > LF Forums > Darkroom: Equipment

Question on enlargers in relationship to normal lens?
May have been asked before but search didn't turn up anything so I am thinking about using the 4x5 Cambo as an enlarger or possibly getting an LF enlarger. As I am just getting into the 5x7 format, I started thinking about a thread stating that the 4x5 => 5x7 as an optimum & I thought just as the 8x10 format was sprouting some variations for landscape photography, why not the 5x7 format?
My question is what or how much does the normal lense for particular format effect printing? I don't have a good understanding of this aspect but I would assume that the normal lense aspect is directly related to the image circle required by the format?
so if I were to use variation of the 5x7, say a 3 or 2.5 x7, it would require the same normal lense as the 5x7 or could I use an intermediate lens say 180mm to print either 4x5 or 5x7, which would be closer to a reduced image area based on the 5x7 format?
Re: Question on enlargers in relationship to normal lens?

quote:

---

Of course, all enlarging lenses require a glass carrier and a properly aligned enlarging set up to deliver optimal results. For these requirements a view camera on a copy stand usually will not deliver all of the quality inherent in a negative and possible with an enlarging lens.

---

So if I where to shoot a reduced variation of a 5x7, it might actually work better to use a [4x5] wide angle lens for enlargement? Can you define further the last paragraph of your post? Such statements as "all enlarging lenses require a glass carrier and a properly aligned" tend to imply to me that because glass is used to form the negative carrier that glass bends the output differently (more than air) & thus the need to realign the projected image?

quote:

---

For 4x5, 150mm is a nice length. For 5x7, around 225mm, and for 8x10, 300mm. You can use shorter lenses, but even if a shorter lens has enough coverage, it's generally best to employ the center of the lens's image circle, where the best quality is given.

---

I was considering about an 180mm lens but as primarily I am thinking 4x5 format then a 150 would be better.

Re: Question on enlargers in relationship to normal lens?
Thank you for your insight so far & I would ask you to bear with me a few moments longer
1) Ran search & found one thread that dealt with home-made enlarger but the guy was asking or stated that he was using a cold light source. He didn't go into details as to the construction . . . alignment considerations?
2) Considerations of producing 5x7 format gives rise to question of available out sourcing . . . as I had not been doing any 5x7 negative processing, I was reluctant to start with my initial exposures which I had to mail out of state to have processed.
Now as to printing . . . I do know or did know of one place that printed 4x5 but I don't know that they do 5x7? I don't know that they are still in business & if they are I know that they did b&w and color negatives but I don't think they did positive printing processes? These concerns (general) arise as an aspect of a particular instance or exposure. [See attached photos]
As part of camera build I wanted to make trial exposures but not having gg for back, I used substitute of photograph frame glass. It didn't work well, I could focus directly though the lens opening (like a telescope) or by getting at an extreme angle under the hood (dark cloth) I could make out a small circle on the (sg-1) substitute glass.
Normally one would set up for 5x7 negative then move easel to print cropped area. but I was questioning, why not physically cut down the negative (slide) to a 4x5 format? Which extends itself to considerations of multiple format in 5x7 like that of the 8x10 format & how adversely it would effect the sharpness of the print?

Re: Question on enlargers in relationship to normal lens?

quote:

---

Enlarging lenses are optimized for flat field. Most "normal" lenses are not.
You can use shorter lenses, but even if a shorter lens has enough coverage, it's generally best to employ the center of the lens's image circle, where the best quality is given.

---

I had heard that statement before that there is a difference between enlarging lens & camera lens and had accepted it without relating what was being implied by the statement . . . flat field? Both the enlarger & the camera project an image on to a flat field or plane . . . unless you are shooting one of those rotating camera using mirrors to project the image onto roll film => ie 180 degrees panoramic?
Rethinking it I wonder if that which I am not understanding has to do with the relative angle at which the light enters the film or printing medium?

quote:

---

Noting that if I take the glass beaker I use the processing chemicals & fill it with water then putting the plastic stirring rod into it. I note the rod appears bent when it extends from one side to the other but as I move it into the vertical parallel & perpendicular with the surface the angle changes

---

. . . so if I relate this to the lens aspect then the further (greater the angle) from the center the more the image (light) has to bend (is bent) to form the focused image?
Is this what is meant by the "flat field" statement?

Photo i took from a bay in Seattle.

Photoshop image of a street sign in downtown Seattle

CrypticTruth can you handle a little critque? I liked your shots especially the cloud formations as they enhance the scenes.
But on bay photo, the inclusion of the (partial) boat tends to be a detracting factor. It may have worked better if you had shot this in the (horizontal) scenic rather than the protrait (verticle) form.
Sometimes it is necessary to have elements which extend out of the frame so take careful deliberation about what & how do these effect the overall view.
A couple of shots I took while kayaking along the Withlachooche River as an example . . .

In contraast to this shot from the *relative location.

*(After all I am shooting from a kayak is in the water)

I have been doing some b&w too, they seem to have a feeling all of their own. Took a ferry out to one of the local island (preserves)Got a nice shot so I thought I would submit it to the parks dept. But as I soon discovered, they don't accept b&w photos

Noting this scenic format (horizontal shot of gun battery) doesn't say as much as well as the previous portrait (vertical) format photograph?
I think that the distant ships tend to reinforce the perception of why these guns where mount here & as the ships are distant (softer focus in tone) gives the scene a more historical aspect?