Assuming you don't mean the steam/mist there is a marginally lighter area top right that I think is a cliff face/slope, but it is still possible to see detail in it as something to do with the Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Steve
Printable View
Assuming you don't mean the steam/mist there is a marginally lighter area top right that I think is a cliff face/slope, but it is still possible to see detail in it as something to do with the Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Steve
Here we are
Attachment 61841
we can see they are all trees now. Click for larger view.
Steve
Wow I like that better actually, did you find the photo and digitally alter it or find a different version?Quote:
Originally Posted by 250swb
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
If the OP is interested in learning more about the creation of dramatic B&W images like that presented, he might want to check out John Sexton's Listen to the Trees. I believe that is the book with the useful technical information on John's technique. Oh, yes, look at the pictures in the book also!
Fair enough. In the original on my screen it was dark enough that I didn't see any detail there.Quote:
Originally Posted by 250swb
Practice helps. You need to be able to read the light to tell when such a shot is possible. Notice that the example is pretty much back lit, which is common for such dramatic contrast. If you have important foreground detail, you will usually need carefully controlled fill light. Learning to use your light meter in back lit conditions is also essential. Learning the Zone system, how to previsualize the print, how to assign exposure zones to the subject, and how to develop for a usable result (adjusting for the exposure) are also handy. Since such exposures often require development adjustment away from what is the average on a roll, sheet film can be handy. It all comes in time, and with more than a little luck. Your luck is more or less proportional to the number of days you get out and do some serious shooting.
Thanks for your advice, everyone. I realize it is something that will take years of careful attention and patience, and while my post came off a bit eager, I was simply trying to figure out the right direction to go in order to some day arrive there. The lack of shortcuts is one thing I love about film so much.
Everyone has been telling me to overexpose, but from what I can tell it looks washed out. For instance, in this photo I used an iPhone light meter app (I realize it's crude, but it's all I have at the moment) and set the EV compensation to 2 stops under. I then metered off the sky, which should have underexposed the image even more, if I'm not mistaken. Upon scanning it (unaltered), the image was still too bright for my tastes, and I had to drop the brightness maybe 1 stop-worth to get it looking like this: http://geometryofthought.tumblr.com/image/34321301137Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew.roos
My understanding up until this point was to underexpose the negative to get dramatic contrast, then print without altering it. It seems my concept of the photographic process was wrong. So the negative is for capturing the most tonal information, with adjustments to be made in the darkroom, correct? Rather than doing everything "in camera," so to speak...
The photographer is Hengki Koentjoro, who shoots with a Hasselblad. I have not tried to ask him; it's always the simplest and most direct solutions we seem to overlook, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
If you are completely new to B&W film and would like to get into the "fine art" style; dramatic contrast, may I suggest you spend a few years just working with B&W and you may realise that lighting is not the biggest factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandysloo
anything made by a hassleblad looks like this
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by jnanian
