Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just went back to the negative for this and I realized that my crack leveling skills in LR mucked this all up. Here is a corrected version, with a little more punch to the snow. I have had a fiber print made recently involving snow and I thrilled with the picture overall but I wasn't thrilled with the lack of detail in the snow. So i am thinking that from the perspective of serving as a road map f what I want I should leave some grayness and detail in the snow and hopefully this will be translated appropriately in the print. I will make clear that I want "punchy white snow with max detail"

I would also point out that the 8X12 print will be made on white 11X14 paper, so there will be bright white borders and I'm thinking that I want to have snow and sky that is less than completely bright white; otherwise the photo will melt into the border and will lose its framing. (I could always just place a different shade of matte on the photo, but I like the idea of a single piece of photo paper for storage, presentation etc)

 

Any more thoughts? Thanks again; I've learned a lot

Adam,

I propose this if you want "enhancing" the snow as you said , respecting the weather conditions that day :)

 

1- + Some more structure

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

or

2- + a little underexposure

 

 

which you prefer ?

 

Best

Henry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

x

Charlottetown. Prince Edward Island, Canada

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Pete, Keith and Henry, a LOT.

 

I love Keith's rendition. And I have no doubt that the printer in the lab can make the snow punch like snow (I diliberately made the snow gray in order to instruct the printer not to make it flat white and to try to extract as much detail as possible in the foot prints, shadows and bike track). But my question is: can I get the analog fiber printer to sober up the trees or will I have to fix it digitally as Keith has done and then run it through a digital printer??

If it is the latter, I will have suddenly lost all interest in my photo...

Thanks again.

Your not printing it in the darkroom [emoji15]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not printing it in the darkroom [emoji15]

Adam and Gary,before developing on photographic paper (better than print on inkjet) , with enlarger you can do anything to change its picture or negative, for example by adjusting the aperture of the enlarger lens or pushing a little more development

or pushing the enlarger exposure time on the silver paper.

Gary I think Adam gives his Jpeg photo to the laboratory for printing on inkjet :)

Best

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam and Gary,before developing on photographic paper (better than print on inkjet) , with enlarger you can do anything to change its picture or negative, for example by adjusting the aperture of the enlarger lens or pushing a little more development

or pushing the enlarger exposure time on the silver paper.

Gary I think Adam gives his Jpeg photo to the laboratory for printing on inkjet :)

Best

Henry

 

Sorry for not being clear. My intention is to provide the jpeg file to my lab so that they can make a silver gelatin print on their enlarger (not on an inkjet or light printer). The jpeg file will serve as an instruction manual for how I want the print to come out. All manual; nothing digital. This is why I haven't been fussing too much over the details of the jpeg file (I have no use for the jpeg other than to achieve my analog print).

 

Henry - many thanks for your suggestions. The both look great although for digital I like the first better. For analog, I am concerned that if I give the first to my printer he will make the snow pure white with no detail. This is why I left the snow a little gray.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not being clear. My intention is to provide the jpeg file to my lab so that they can make a silver gelatin print on their enlarger (not on an inkjet or light printer). The jpeg file will serve as an instruction manual for how I want the print to come out. All manual; nothing digital. This is why I haven't been fussing too much over the details of the jpeg file (I have no use for the jpeg other than to achieve my analog print).

 

Henry - many thanks for your suggestions. The both look great although for digital I like the first better. For analog, I am concerned that if I give the first to my printer he will make the snow pure white with no detail. This is why I left the snow a little gray.

Adam I understand now :)

Yes the first picture seems also good for me

I have compared two pictures printed, one in inkjet and one from my enlager . It's nicer on my enlarger and on argentic paper (Ilford) and you're right

Best

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2012, I've had something of a love affair with my M Monochrom, but last December, I succeeded in dropping said M Monochrom onto a concrete pavement. It's a sturdy camera, and it survived the fall with nothing more than the rangefinder out of whack. I've kept meaning to send the camera away to have this remedied, but not quite got around to it yet.

 

The main reason is that since the accident with the M Monochrom, I've made a foray back into film, through the medium of my M5. This time, however, instead of dropping the films off for processing and scanning, I've processed the film myself. And wet printed the results in an actual darkroom. I've not been in a darkroom in 20 years. I'd forgotten how much fun it can be to make something with your own hands. It's been nothing short of a revelation.

 

I decided to shoot Ilford HP5, pushed to 800 ISO, since I live in Glasgow, and currently it's dark and wet a lot of the time. I also made the decision to just shoot one lens, the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE. I simply carried the camera with me wherever I went, as I did with the M Monochrom. Once I'd finished and developed the film, I bought a box of 5x7 fibre-based paper, and spent yesterday afternoon in the darkroom (Street Level, in Glasgow). The neg carrier in the enlarger I used had been filed away so it was possible to print the entire frame, plus a little around the edge.

 

Best afternoon I've had in an age. There's something so nice about a fibre-based analogue print. So easy to make. Much quicker than the PP required on Photoshop with a digital file. The snap I attach is from an iPad, and gives no clue as to the luminous and gorgeous tones of the prints. But, trust me, they've got character and atmosphere in spades.

 

Curiously, the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE seems to shine on film. It seemed almost too sharp and contrasty on the M Monochrom. But then the digital M files are very sharp anyway, and probably four times the resolution of 35mm film. I'm beginning to realise that our modern obsession with sharpness and detail and examining small portions of files at 100% on a screen might just be a touch unnecessary.

 

Anyway, I write this still flushed from the buzz of some darkroom printing. If you've been toying with the idea of dabbling in film, let me, for one, heartily recommend it.

 

Best wishes all,

 

Colin

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin , first you are "welcome to this film thread" !

 

Secondly, look at this photo

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2893625-post1.html

I do not doubt the photographer's competence * who has well composed , but the picture itself , its "synthesis" character , that you Colin

speaks of "sharpness" I say, "smoothing" lines, or if you want "pixel smoothing" . It is for this reason that my 2 M8 and M9 still stay in my

Billingham bag !

Colin It's a wise and a good decision and you will see that you will not be disappointed !

Enjoy photographing,thinking about what is photographed, this is the most important !

Many photographers come back to film as in the good old days of Henri Cartier Bresson and his M, with beautiful pictures with its subtleties printed

as you have shown on your last photo.

Best

Henry

Leicaiste exclusively since 1970

 

* This is why I did not want to comment this photo

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, and yes - I agree. The subject, composition, lighting, etc are the most important factors.

 

And, as flushed with the joys of shooting film recently, I could never be parted with my M Monochrom. Digital and film are not mutually exclusive - they can compliment one another.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin - thanks for sharing. I had pretty much the same experience as you, even down to the foot fault of having a MM drop that started the digital dominos to fall. Ive sold my MM after a solid year and over 11k actuations, and now am shooting exclusively film (though mostly color).

My only regret is that i dont know how to print. My wife wont let me bring chemicals into our manhattan apartment b/c she is scared thati'll accidentally poison our kids:eek:

 

Luckily, there is a large photo district in NYC with lots of labs that can take instructions pretty well and crank out prints pretty quickly. But one day i'd love to be able to take this in-house with respect to my B&W photos. (Im thinking of seeking out a darkroom to rent at one of the local photography schools)

 

The MM for me lacked the charm and authenticity that i get from film. Ive said this before on this forum but i think that at the end of the day it is a "bourgeois" tool. Sorry Leica"

 

Best, adam

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, if you do not want that children touch the photo products, make yourself a folding shelf attached to the wall of the bathroom, for example. This shelf should be high enough up to the middle of your body.

 

"The MM for me lacked the charm and authenticity that i get from film"

Well said Adam , bravo ! :)

 

Best

Henry

Adam , shelf with two hinges installed on the shelf and the wall

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites

This waterfall is about 40 meters high, I photographed when I was walking to go to care the population in the villages.

Enriching experience for me, for pictures of tracks, the M is the camera for this kind of photo, light, holding in a hand !

 

I took two photos, which you prefer ?

 

Photo 1:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Photo 2:

 

 

Stone, sky and trees colors are well reproduced

Laos 2014

Humanitarian mission

Leica M7

Kodak Portra 160

Pictures not corrected

Apo Summicron 90 Asph

(a little heavy)

Best

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not being clear. My intention is to provide the jpeg file to my lab so that they can make a silver gelatin print on their enlarger (not on an inkjet or light printer). The jpeg file will serve as an instruction manual for how I want the print to come out. All manual; nothing digital. This is why I haven't been fussing too much over the details of the jpeg file (I have no use for the jpeg other than to achieve my analog print).

 

Henry - many thanks for your suggestions. The both look great although for digital I like the first better. For analog, I am concerned that if I give the first to my printer he will make the snow pure white with no detail. This is why I left the snow a little gray.

 

When i get a shot good enough i'm sending a negative to this printer R O B I N probably one of the best in the World

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tip. But could this really be cost-effective from NYC? Do you know what they charge for an 8X12 print on 11X14 Ilford multigrade paper?

 

I pay about $70 for this in NYC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2012, I've had something of a love affair with my M Monochrom, but last December, I succeeded in dropping said M Monochrom onto a concrete pavement. It's a sturdy camera, and it survived the fall with nothing more than the rangefinder out of whack. I've kept meaning to send the camera away to have this remedied, but not quite got around to it yet.

 

The main reason is that since the accident with the M Monochrom, I've made a foray back into film, through the medium of my M5. This time, however, instead of dropping the films off for processing and scanning, I've processed the film myself. And wet printed the results in an actual darkroom. I've not been in a darkroom in 20 years. I'd forgotten how much fun it can be to make something with your own hands. It's been nothing short of a revelation.

 

I decided to shoot Ilford HP5, pushed to 800 ISO, since I live in Glasgow, and currently it's dark and wet a lot of the time. I also made the decision to just shoot one lens, the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE. I simply carried the camera with me wherever I went, as I did with the M Monochrom. Once I'd finished and developed the film, I bought a box of 5x7 fibre-based paper, and spent yesterday afternoon in the darkroom (Street Level, in Glasgow). The neg carrier in the enlarger I used had been filed away so it was possible to print the entire frame, plus a little around the edge.

 

Best afternoon I've had in an age. There's something so nice about a fibre-based analogue print. So easy to make. Much quicker than the PP required on Photoshop with a digital file. The snap I attach is from an iPad, and gives no clue as to the luminous and gorgeous tones of the prints. But, trust me, they've got character and atmosphere in spades.

 

Curiously, the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE seems to shine on film. It seemed almost too sharp and contrasty on the M Monochrom. But then the digital M files are very sharp anyway, and probably four times the resolution of 35mm film. I'm beginning to realise that our modern obsession with sharpness and detail and examining small portions of files at 100% on a screen might just be a touch unnecessary.

 

Anyway, I write this still flushed from the buzz of some darkroom printing. If you've been toying with the idea of dabbling in film, let me, for one, heartily recommend it.

 

Best wishes all,

 

Colin

 

Great looking shots, i love shooting HP5 @ 800 i do it quite a lot in daylight for nice contrasty shots

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got very lucky with this wet print the other week

Scan of print

651-XL.jpg

 

Last Thursday we had an auction at our club and i managed to get a Plustek 7500i and i also managed to get a Nikkormat FTN with Nikkor 50F2 and 18 rolls of out of date film 8 roll are original Agfa APX100 well stored, i loaded a roll of Tmax400 that i found in the bag i bought for £2 and had to really underexpose it and stand developed it and print it

It was printed on a Focomat 1C so i think i'm allowed to show it (nice and grainy)Shot @ 1/30 F2

 

652-XL.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...