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

St George's at Sunset
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:19 am    Post subject: St George's at Sunset Reply with quote
This church is close to my house and it is on a hill so the last light of day always makes for dramatic lighting and long shadows.

Agfa APX100 rated at 50 then developed in Fomadon LQR diluted 1:19 for 10mins at 28C.

Century Graphic 23 with 6x9 rollfilm back. First one is with Schneider Angulon 6.8/65 at f22, second two are Mamiya Sekor 2.8/80 at f22.

No PP, just as they came out of my old Epson Perfection 3200.

#1

#2

#3


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Last one is excellent for both light and subject (I would only fix horizon a little)


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers Orio. That's about my tenth attempt at capturing that scene at sunset over the last few years, finally got one that isn't spilt by flare or some technical issue.

I've agonised about the horizon, it doesn't quite look right but the verticals are all properly vertical so it must be level, it must be due to none of the land you can see (apart from the cricket pitch) being level, it's all hills. If you look at the telegraph pole right of centre, you can see it's vertical rather than off-kilter.


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
very nice I would pp a bit but still very impressive


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers, the great light made all the difference, I've shot the same scenes a few times before and had less nice results, great light is a rare thing here.

I tried some PP and couldn't com up with a version I thought was an improvement, but I'm always happy to hear some suggestions.


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know it all depends on what you like, there is always something you can do



PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ooh, that's interesting, cheers, always like to see alternatives, I like that, looks like the tonal scale has been expanded and I always like that, narrow dynamic range isn't often to my taste.


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, I hope you don't mind but I've made a slight adjustment to your image. To my eye, the verticals are still a bit off, so I have tweaked them a bit and adjusted levels slightly.



PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like Nurkov bright version a lot.


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Ed, I don't mind at all, I think you've improved it, cheers.


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I like Nurkov bright version a lot.


I don't Laughing (sorry Nurkov Smile ) . It looks like a 70's photocopy to me (you know, those made on that thick sort-of-greasy paper)

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I've agonised about the horizon, it doesn't quite look right but the verticals are all properly vertical so it must be level, it must be due to none of the land you can see (apart from the cricket pitch) being level, it's all hills. If you look at the telegraph pole right of centre, you can see it's vertical rather than off-kilter.


About the horizon, I usually don't trust phone poles, because they tend to get inclined with the years. What I do is to check the houses,
they are the most reliable reference.
If you look at your houses, they're perfect on the left side of picture, but inclined on the right side of picture.
This means that one side (left) is over-corrected, at the expense of the other - and of the horizon.
What you want to do in this case, is to rebalance the picture so that both the houses at left and right are inclined by the same amount of inclination.
When you get that, it means that your horizon is now correct, and that the houses have all the same amount of inclination that was introduced
originally by the wide angle lens not being perfectly leveled perpendicularly.


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Ooh, that's interesting, cheers, always like to see alternatives, I like that, looks like the tonal scale has been expanded and I always like that, narrow dynamic range isn't often to my taste.


Cheers Mate


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I like Nurkov bright version a lot.


Smile


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Orio"]
Attila wrote:
I like Nurkov bright version a lot.


I don't Laughing (sorry Nurkov Smile ) . It looks like a 70's photocopy to me (you know, those made on that thick sort-of-greasy paper)

[quote="iangreenhalgh1"]


No hard feelings Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


About the horizon, I usually don't trust phone poles, because they tend to get inclined with the years. What I do is to check the houses,
they are the most reliable reference.
If you look at your houses, they're perfect on the left side of picture, but inclined on the right side of picture.
This means that one side (left) is over-corrected, at the expense of the other - and of the horizon.
What you want to do in this case, is to rebalance the picture so that both the houses at left and right are inclined by the same amount of inclination.
When you get that, it means that your horizon is now correct, and that the houses have all the same amount of inclination that was introduced
originally by the wide angle lens not being perfectly leveled perpendicularly.


Aha, I see the problem now, as you say, the houses on the left are vertical, the ones on the right aren't. Thanks for taking the time to explain it, useful for me to know for future reference.


PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, here is my version with lightroom

Smile


PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ooh, now that one I do like, looks much crisper than the original, cheers!


PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Ooh, now that one I do like, looks much crisper than the original, cheers!

+1, looks much better indeed


PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be fair, the original is closer to how it looked to the naked eye, it was a full 1 second exposure at f22 as the light was fading and it was very hazy. The PP has cut the haze away, I suppose using a yellow filter would have done something similar, but coloured filters for BW are something I have barely played with so far, it's something I plan to explore in the near future though. My rationale for not using them much so far is digital processing can do the same job.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1