Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Fairly Rare White Skunk Cabbage
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:41 pm    Post subject: Fairly Rare White Skunk Cabbage Reply with quote

The Skunk Cabbage is usually yellow here in coastal Washington State.
Here is a white Skunk Cabbage, not seen too often, so I thought I
should post it, regardless of quality.


Pentax ZX-5n
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 SL
Provia




PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regardless on quality?

What's wrong with the quality?

The picture is great.

tf


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Tri. I think the quality would have been better at about f:5.6
rather than wide open. I would have liked to see a deeper depth
of field to bring out all the water drops on the Skunk Cabbage.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

great shot man, really like it! skunk never seemed so good Surprised


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
great shot man, really like it! skunk never seemed so good Surprised


Thanks Rebel Yell! That was a good song by Billy Idol. Shocked

Regarding the Skunk Cabbage, I have learned to like the smell, it helps
me in finding the good patches of the plant. Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RY: good song; better bourbon! Very Happy (as you can see from my avatar)


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice shoot and I agree with Larry about quality, not good as his other photos taken with medium format cameras.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Nice shoot and I agree with Larry about quality, not good as his other photos taken with medium format cameras.


Attila, I agree that you agree! Haha!

I cannot scan with the same quality as a medium format
transparency. If I happen to get an exceptional image, I would
revert to a drum scan from the 35mm transparency for any
printing enlargements.

I have been enjoying using the ZX-5n camera, and especially
for the CV lens and other wonderful screw mount and K mount
lenses. The 35mm system is just another tool. But I still love
my Yashica Mat and Pentax 645. Cool


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know that you can see the difference here - but after the scan,
at full size, there is quite a difference between 4.5x6 from the Pentax
645 and 24x36mm from the ZX-5n.

Anyway, here's a quick scan of a P645 transparency. No enhancements.


Pentax 645
Pentax-A 55/2.8 lens
Provia



PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes , I not see here differences.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Yes , I not see here differences.


Yes, that's what I thought. However, the original files from each are
quite different to my eyes. The medium format original scan DEFINITELY
has more "density", if you know what I mean. And, of course, I guess
that would make sense since the transparency is so much larger. Nothing
new there, I'm sure.

So Attila, the only way I'm going to get some kudos from you, is to scan
more medium format transparencies, correct? Razz I still have a lot of old
transparencies that I haven't touched. I'll look for the more colorful ones,
and start to post them again. Just have to get out the big box and sort
some of them out. Shocked


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurence wrote:
Attila wrote:
Yes , I not see here differences.


Yes, that's what I thought. However, the original files from each are
quite different to my eyes. The medium format original scan DEFINITELY
has more "density", if you know what I mean. And, of course, I guess
that would make sense since the transparency is so much larger. Nothing
new there, I'm sure.

So Attila, the only way I'm going to get some kudos from you, is to scan
more medium format transparencies, correct? Razz I still have a lot of old
transparencies that I haven't touched. I'll look for the more colorful ones,
and start to post them again. Just have to get out the big box and sort
some of them out. Shocked


Laughing Laughing Many, many thanks in advance !!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Laurence wrote:
Attila wrote:
Yes , I not see here differences.


Yes, that's what I thought. However, the original files from each are
quite different to my eyes. The medium format original scan DEFINITELY
has more "density", if you know what I mean. And, of course, I guess
that would make sense since the transparency is so much larger. Nothing
new there, I'm sure.

So Attila, the only way I'm going to get some kudos from you, is to scan
more medium format transparencies, correct? Razz I still have a lot of old
transparencies that I haven't touched. I'll look for the more colorful ones,
and start to post them again. Just have to get out the big box and sort
some of them out. Shocked


Laughing Laughing Many, many thanks in advance !!


Haha! You are a funny man, Attila! Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put the first one in black and white, keep full black out of the tonal range, and you will have an Edward Weston ... Shocked Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish4570 wrote:
Put the first one in black and white, keep full black out of the tonal range, and you will have an Edward Weston ... Shocked Very Happy


Haha! I was ahead of you on that one. I actually already took the shot
with my old Revueflex loaded with HP5...hope to get the film back in a
day or two. Of course, it wouldn't actually be a Weston, it would be a
Smith. But who am I to quibble? Razz


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edward Smith? Laurence Weston? Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I liked the first one Larry but I really like the second one.

I wish I could see thing like you do.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, here's your black and white Smith & Weston... Laughing

As suggested, I didn't let the blacks go completely black. Took a bit
of tweaking, as I'm not knowledgeable on black and white conversions.



PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice, Laurence. You're a pistol ... Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish4570 wrote:
Very nice, Laurence. You're a pistol ... Very Happy


I "get it", glad you did too. Hehe!