Interesting Large Format Work

I know, I know. I have decided to leave it for a few months until I have enough to do it properly.... Well the wife has decided.....:D
 
To be fair, whilst an interesting set, there's nothing about these photographs that really required large format in execution unless the photographer was looking to make very big prints.
 
skysh4rk said:
To be fair, whilst an interesting set, there's nothing about these photographs that really required large format in execution unless the photographer was looking to make very big prints.
Click to expand...

You can say that for almost any photograph even tilting for increased dof is just a workaround for the inherent lack of dof with the big lenses.
 
True, but it has given me an idea for some MF shots.
 
steveo_mcg said:
You can say that for almost any photograph even tilting for increased dof is just a workaround for the inherent lack of dof with the big lenses.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree and, although I could have made it clearer, I'm not meaning to question the photographer himself or his choice of equipment.

What I'm trying to say is, in the context of the ongoing conversation regarding large format between @Carl Hall and @Andysnap, there's nothing about these particular photographs that can't be accomplished with medium format equipment.
 
Last edited:
These would possibly even be harder with LF using a ground glass as in the dark you'll be able to see basically nothing
 
simon ess said:
Exactly why I bought some Acros. (y)

Just need to get myself to a suitable location.
Click to expand...

Mmm, maybe a night time filmie meet is in order?
 
I'd certainly be up for that.

However.....

Tadaaa.....

I have a 10 stop ND filter. :cool:

Edit: In fact I've go two - a 77mm and a 67mm.
 
Last edited:
I've got an 8 stop and a piece of welding glass.... :banana:

I think it would be different though with actual moonlight, something more ethereal and lunar......:thinking:
 
Oh yes, I agree.

How would you meter it? The only meter I have that can register low light like that is my D7000, and that only goes to 30 sec.

Hang on, a couple of brain cells just decided to work.

Wack the iso right up and do the maths.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Exactly why I bought some Acros. (y)

Just need to get myself to a suitable location.
Click to expand...

simon ess said:
Oh yes, I agree.

How would you meter it? The only meter I have that can register low light like that is my D7000, and that only goes to 30 sec.

Hang on, a couple of brain cells just decided to work.

Wack the iso right up and do the maths.
Click to expand...

I recently did a few long nighttime exposures with Acros and 160NS. I didn't even bother with metering for either of these films; I just set the camera for t-exposure and let it sit for a few hours.

I don't have the colour negative results yet, but I developed the Acros a few days ago. What did I learn? I need to more tightly control my development set up, as my negatives were a bit overdeveloped (I'm a bit nonchalant as it is and didn't even have a thermometer in this case).


 
Last edited:
As RJ says, you barely need to measure for long exposures. Use the ultimate exposure calculator to get you in the ballpark, do a bit of bracketing for shorter ones. Almost impossible to over expose, I need to process my moonlit shots from last summer and scan my attempt at star trails too...
 
Crikey, that's an eye opener.

So literally just leave it for a couple of hours, more or less?

F22 or thereabouts?
 
My star trails were f8 for an hour with FP4 and the fore ground was under exposed.
 
Shoot MF, get darkroom, make LF print from MF neg.......simplez..:D

oh alright then, not that simplez, they both appear awkward financially and faffically, for one reason or another :)
 
Interesting large format wok!

630092911.jpg
 
Last edited:
^^^ Nutter. :D
 
skysh4rk said:
I don't disagree and, although I could have made it clearer, I'm not meaning to question the photographer himself or his choice of equipment.

What I'm trying to say is, in the context of the ongoing conversation regarding large format between @Carl Hall and @Andysnap, there's nothing about these particular photographs that can't be accomplished with medium format equipment.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with you here, if I had seen these photos with no information about what camera was used, I wouldn't have any idea whether it was 35mm or 8x10. (I'm a film noob though so that's probably why!)
 
One advantage of using sheet film for a set like this is that you don't need to finish the roll to see you've messed something up and given he's probably taking one image per night two weeks worth of work could be lost with a simple error.
 
If your after metering in moonlight and I know every one in the Film section has GAS, then you could look at the Gossen Luna Six meters as they supposedly can meter moon light. Not sure about pitch black mind basically guess work.
 
steveo_mcg said:
One advantage of using sheet film for a set like this is that you don't need to finish the roll to see you've messed something up and given he's probably taking one image per night two weeks worth of work could be lost with a simple error.
Click to expand...

You don't need to finish the whole 120 roll either. It'd still work out to be cheaper and easier to shoot medium format even if you just took a couple of shots per roll.
 
skysh4rk said:
You don't need to finish the whole 120 roll either. It'd still work out to be cheaper and easier to shoot medium format even if you just took a couple of shots per roll.
Click to expand...

If you're only going to make one image on a roll of film you might as well make it a big one :D

Whilst that is true, in reality who would waste a roll for just one frame. Note the difference from just one image, I've certainly spent an entire roll on just one composition.

And to be fair, cheaper and easier and relative especially in this little section of the web.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
If you're only going to make one image on a roll of film you might as well make it a big one :D

Whilst that is true, in reality who would waste a roll for just one frame. Note the difference from just one image, I've certainly spent an entire roll on just one composition.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't personally waste the rest of the roll, but you could if you were really that concerned about messing something up. In reality though, most people would use all of the frames of the 120 roll, which would constitute a much bigger advantage for most people than any single exposure of 5x4 would offer.
 
If I was really concerned about not screwing something up (or wanted to do it cheaply) then I'd just use my digital SLR that I own but don't use lol. I used digital and film to shoot my feb POTY entry, and I'm soooo glad that I did as I ballsed the film up so now I only have a digital entry haha.
 
skysh4rk said:
I wouldn't personally waste the rest of the roll, but you could if you were really that concerned about messing something up. In reality though, most people would use all of the frames of the 120 roll, which would constitute a much bigger advantage for most people than any single exposure of 5x4 would offer.
Click to expand...

In reality most folk would use a dslr but we're all a little eccentric round here...
 
As with many aspects of life its 'horses for courses'. The guy I linked to wants to shoot LF, he shoots one shot for each image, if it worls great, if not he moves on.
I'm sure you could do the same with MF, and I intend to try, but if you want to shoot it in LF then go for it. I shot a roll of 120 last night on a single rose.... I might not get one decent shot... but I might get 12 (unlikely :D) it doesn't matter as I enjoyed the process more than I will the result.

Andy (in philosophical mood)
 
Carl Hall said:
If I was really concerned about not screwing something up (or wanted to do it cheaply) then I'd just use my digital SLR that I own but don't use lol.
Click to expand...

Two points on that:
  • Digital is only cheaper if you already own the equipment (which itself is more expensive)
  • Given the latitude of negative film, I find it much harder to screw up than digital for 95% of what I do

steveo_mcg said:
In reality most folk would use a dslr but we're all a little eccentric round here...
Click to expand...

For many shots, yes, but I don't think people are taking exposures of many hours with digital cameras, however. That is a realm that still firmly belongs to film cameras to my knowledge.
 
skysh4rk said:
For many shots, yes, but I don't think people are taking exposures of many hours with digital cameras, however. That is a realm that still firmly belongs to film cameras to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

I know digital doesn't like very long exposures due to heat build up causing excessive noise but they do things like exposure blending which combines hundreds of single exposures to get a similar effect. I don't know how well it would work on moving water and I do know I'd feel more comfortable leaving the RB on a tripod for hours than any thing electronic.
 
At any rate, I do think we're all really missing a key point by primarily focusing on the equipment here. I'd argue that this is 'interesting work', not 'interesting large format work'. Nothing about this series requires large format or even medium format for that matter. Just about every single one of us in this forum already has the gear necessary to produce these sorts of photographs.
 
Andysnap said:
As with many aspects of life its 'horses for courses'. The guy I linked to wants to shoot LF, he shoots one shot for each image, if it worls great, if not he moves on.
I'm sure you could do the same with MF, and I intend to try, but if you want to shoot it in LF then go for it. I shot a roll of 120 last night on a single rose.... I might not get one decent shot... but I might get 12 (unlikely :D) it doesn't matter as I enjoyed the process more than I will the result.

Andy (in philosophical mood)
Click to expand...

I've done similar things I shot two rolls trying a concept out for last years POTY and I wonder if I'd had used my LF then it would have been an extension of the slow down and think mentality that draws many off us. So instead of 20 shots at my table top shot I'd have one or two and would that one have been the same one one I ultimately chose from the 20 out of the RB.

/philosophy.
 
skysh4rk said:
At any rate, I do think we're all really missing a key point by primarily focusing on the equipment here. I'd argue that this is 'interesting work', not 'interesting large format work'. Nothing about this series requires large format or even medium format for that matter. Just about every single one of us in this forum already has the gear necessary to produce these sorts of photographs.
Click to expand...

Indeed, its turning in to the rest of forum round here. Sorry my fault. :)
 
steveo_mcg said:
Indeed, its turning in to the rest of forum round here. Sorry my fault. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's your fault, Steve, and part of the fun of film in the 21st century is that we do have lots of very affordable equipment options available to us. At the end of the day though, it's the person using the gear and they choices that they make regarding composition, use of light, etc. that will have the biggest impact on any image.

With regard to the actual images in question, I find the concept mildly interesting and some of the individual photos are quite good, but others I do not find nearly as strong. I really like the third one from the end with the red points of light, but the ones with the weeds/bushes don't look as well planned out and really lack any significant points of interest in the frames.
 
Surely the reason for shooting complex landscape exposures on large format is in order to fully utilise the benefits of zone system? Expose for the shadows / develop for the highlights. You can do this on roll film but you would end up wasting the whole roll...
 
GCCR said:
Surely the reason for shooting complex landscape exposures on large format is in order to fully utilise the benefits of zone system? Expose for the shadows / develop for the highlights. You can do this on roll film but you would end up wasting the whole roll...
Click to expand...

Colour film development is a standardised process.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top