Worth Getting Muddy...bigger.

Matt Clara wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:OX%0g.7360$Qz.6821@fed1read11...
Some asked for a bigger version:
This one's about 1/2 MB...
http://www.pbase.com/image/58828940/original

-Mark



That is a great shot. I'd be sad that I "only" captured it with
digital, though! That's a medium or large-format shot, for sure!
;-)

I printed it 17" x 25.xx" and was amazed how well the image holds together.
No...you can't see every needle on each tree...but Everything else...the
mountain...clouds/sky...water...grass looks great. This partiucalar shot is
perhaps more forgiving that some might have been.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message news:nWu1g.10542
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message

Some asked for a bigger version:
This one's about 1/2 MB...
http://www.pbase.com/image/58828940/original

-Mark



That is a great shot. I'd be sad that I "only" captured it with digital,
though! That's a medium or large-format shot, for sure!
;-)

After seeing Clyde Butcher's photography up close and personal I think you
might just as well say "too bad you weren't using a 5x7 view camera" or
something similar.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

"Beach Bum" wrote in message
m...
"Matt Clara" wrote in message
news:nWu1g.10542
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message

Some asked for a bigger version:
This one's about 1/2 MB...
http://www.pbase.com/image/58828940/original

-Mark



That is a great shot. I'd be sad that I "only" captured it with digital,
though! That's a medium or large-format shot, for sure!
;-)

After seeing Clyde Butcher's photography up close and personal I think you
might just as well say "too bad you weren't using a 5x7 view camera" or
something similar.



I did. Large-format includes 4x5. I have two 4x5 cameras myself. :-)

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message

After seeing Clyde Butcher's photography up close and personal I think
you
might just as well say "too bad you weren't using a 5x7 view camera" or
something similar.



I did. Large-format includes 4x5. I have two 4x5 cameras myself. :-)

You know, it's like my brain got target lock on the wrong item - that or I
can't read. Please disregard my idiotic post.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

"Beach Bum" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" wrote in message

After seeing Clyde Butcher's photography up close and personal I think
you
might just as well say "too bad you weren't using a 5x7 view camera"
or
something similar.



I did. Large-format includes 4x5. I have two 4x5 cameras myself. :-)

You know, it's like my brain got target lock on the wrong item - that or I
can't read. Please disregard my idiotic post.


Not at all, it gave me a chance to talk about my 4x5 cameras! ;-)

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

You know, it's like my brain got target lock on the wrong item - that or
I
can't read. Please disregard my idiotic post.


Not at all, it gave me a chance to talk about my 4x5 cameras! ;-)

LOL!

I almost bought a Mamiya 645. In part, the cost and availability of film
prevented me from doing so. One day I'd like to goto a larger format than
35mm, but by then who knows what the market will offer in digital - and I
can always get my chemical fix (no pun intended) with 35mm B&W.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

Annika1980 wrote:
Its very gratifying to have an image that seems to get better with
enlargement rather than worse (motion blur, focus issues, etc.). I
just made a home print at about 17"x25" and the image holds up
amazingly well.

I agree. The bigger version is much better. I'll bet the original
size version really looks awesome. Size matters.

And to think that pic was taken with a lowly 10D. Next time you go,
rent a 1DsMKII. Now that would be something.

But you need the SCENE, too.
-Even the mighty 1DsII doesn't change the weather/light/etc...
(if it magically would...I'd spend $8K...T-O-D-A-Y-!!)

BTW, was that taken with the 16-35 f/2.8L?

Ya.
-WAY down at a tiny f20, though...
When you don't have a tilt-shift...all you're left with are tiny apertures.
I think the DOF well, considering...

"Beach Bum" wrote in message
...
You know, it's like my brain got target lock on the wrong item - that
or
I
can't read. Please disregard my idiotic post.


Not at all, it gave me a chance to talk about my 4x5 cameras! ;-)

LOL!

I almost bought a Mamiya 645. In part, the cost and availability of film
prevented me from doing so. One day I'd like to goto a larger format than
35mm, but by then who knows what the market will offer in digital - and I
can always get my chemical fix (no pun intended) with 35mm B&W.


Around here it costs $20 a roll to get b&w developed and printed, and it's
always too high-contrast for my taste. So I put in a basement darkroom, but
as it turns out, darkroom work can take a lot of time, so I don't shoot b&w
snapshots anymore, and if it's not snapshots, then it's medium or
large-format. Lately, for snapshots, its been Fuji 160 NPH.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote:

Around here it costs $20 a roll to get b&w developed and printed, and it's
always too high-contrast for my taste. So I put in a basement darkroom, but
as it turns out, darkroom work can take a lot of time, so I don't shoot b&w
snapshots anymore, and if it's not snapshots, then it's medium or
large-format.

Matt,

It sounds like you need to discover chromogenic (C41 process) black
and white film. It is cheap to process. Almost any minilab can
provide cheap proof prints and a scan to CD. When you get time in the
darkroom, it prints beautifully. It also scans beautifully.

I have used Ilford XP2 Super for several years now, but my current
favourite is Kodak BW400CN. I have never used a better all-purpose
black and white film - I just *love* it. It will all end in tears
when Kodak discontinues it.

Lately, for snapshots, its been Fuji 160 NPH.

NPH is ISO 400. NPS is 160, but in my experience it is better exposed
between ISO 80 and 125. Fujicolor Professional 160S and 400S are the
replacements for NPS and NPH, but I am still using up my stocks of the
earlier emulsions.

Tony

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Around here it costs $20 a roll to get b&w developed and printed, and it's
always too high-contrast for my taste. So I put in a basement darkroom,
but
as it turns out, darkroom work can take a lot of time, so I don't shoot
b&w
snapshots anymore, and if it's not snapshots, then it's medium or
large-format.

Matt,

It sounds like you need to discover chromogenic (C41 process) black
and white film. It is cheap to process. Almost any minilab can
provide cheap proof prints and a scan to CD. When you get time in the
darkroom, it prints beautifully. It also scans beautifully.

I'll give it a try. I tried the Kodak product when it first came out, but
was unimpressed.


I have used Ilford XP2 Super for several years now, but my current
favourite is Kodak BW400CN. I have never used a better all-purpose
black and white film - I just *love* it. It will all end in tears
when Kodak discontinues it.

Lately, for snapshots, its been Fuji 160 NPH.

NPH is ISO 400. NPS is 160,

I can never keep those designations straight. The new monickers will be
easier to remember.

but in my experience it is better exposed
between ISO 80 and 125. Fujicolor Professional 160S and 400S are the
replacements for NPS and NPH, but I am still using up my stocks of the
earlier emulsions.


That's interesting. I've found I need to expose them right on, as opposed
to over exposing them.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com