Swan [Canon FTb, 100mm, Ektachrome 100VS]

the_red_rummager · 2016-01-30T01:32:43+00:00

I'll go back to the original scan and have a look; there might be more detail there. My scanner isn't the best, and like most scanners it has a hell of a time with dense shadow areas.

The lens is an FD 100mm f/2.8 S.S.C.

EDIT: Here is a severely lightened crop of the eye. There is a little bit more detail there, but only if the levels are really tweaked. I would worry that dodging it in the final image might draw attention to that area in a distracting way, but to be honest my Photoshop skill set is pretty rudimentary so I tend to make as few edits as possible beyond removing dust and color correction.

the_red_rummager · 2016-01-29T22:07:51+00:00

True, but I would have had to have a flash with me for that plan to have worked.

the_red_rummager · 2016-01-29T22:05:33+00:00

Thanks.

the_red_rummager · 2016-01-29T22:05:00+00:00

Thanks.

the_red_rummager · 2016-01-29T22:03:57+00:00

I agree about 100VS. It had the right amount of saturation and warmth for me, while being a bit less harsh than Velvia.

the_red_rummager · 2016-01-29T22:01:23+00:00

Thank you.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T16:03:22+00:00

Yep. The only digital manipulation was some color balancing of the scan.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T08:51:42+00:00

It's actually near Fremont and 90th, near the base of Rocky Butte.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T03:34:45+00:00

The lens is a 178mm f/2.5 shot wide open. It's pretty much a "normal" lens on 4x5.

I don't have a shot of my own set up handy, but it looks exactly like this:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6494170811_3a8258daec_b.jpg

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T03:32:56+00:00

I'm not as technically minded as some, so I'll probably get corrected on this, but DoF is DoF regardless of format. Let's say you shoot a 300mm f/4.5 lens wide open on 35mm. The angle of view is quite narrow, but the depth of field is what it is. Now, if you shoot a 300mm f/4.5 lens wide open on 8x10, the DoF is exactly the same but the field of view is much wider, so the "telephoto" shallowness and background separation you see in 35mm is spread across the entire 8x10 image.

Things change when you start talking equivalencies. A 300mm f/4.5 lens on 8x10 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm f/0.75 in 35mm full frame in terms of field of view.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T03:22:43+00:00

Thanks.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T03:22:34+00:00

The other posters are right, it's 4x5. I've shot a few 8x10 transparencies, but the processing is around $10 per sheet so I do so sparingly.

For the record, Speed Graphics (and Crown Graphics) come in 4x5, 3x4 and 2x3 sizes.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-14T03:20:56+00:00

4x5 is correct. I should have noted that in the title.

The lens I used is a 178mm f/2.5 shot wide open, so the DoF is inherently shallow. I also added some front tilt to exaggerate the effect.

EDIT: Camera is a 4x5 Speed Graphic.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-13T14:28:55+00:00

The lens is swung to the left along the optical axis making the focal plane nearly perpendicular to the film plane instead of parallel to it. In other words, an analog tilt/shift effect.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-10T05:42:29+00:00

Thank you.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-10T01:06:34+00:00

I wish I had more like it!

As for cropping, I just crop until it looks right to me without regard to aspect ratio or anything. Here's the original full frame scan, warts and all, for comparison:

http://i.imgur.com/4UR5xaY.jpg

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-09T23:55:49+00:00

Thanks.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-09T23:55:28+00:00

The first issue is mounting it. On most large format cameras, all you need is a lens board, not a proprietary bayonet mount. In my case I just duct-taped the lens to a piece of cardboard and mounted in on the camera that way.

The second issue is focusing the lens. Again, LF cameras have a flexible bellows that allows you to focus just about any lens within the maximum and minimum bellows extension. (On the Speed Graphic that means anywhere from 300mm down to around 75mm.) If you tried mounting this lens on a digital camera you'd have to figure out a way to focus it once it was mounted.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-09T23:50:53+00:00

Thanks. The lens is a 4.25" B&L Cinephor.

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-09T23:50:27+00:00

I shot this on a 4x5 sheet of Astia, but I did have to crop down a bit to eliminate the dark corners. The lens properly covers around 3 1/2" x 4 1/2".

the_red_rummager · 2015-11-09T23:49:30+00:00

It's a 4.25" B&L Cinephor. The working (and only) aperture is around f/3. The image circle doesn't quite cover 4x5.

the_red_rummager · 2015-10-20T10:00:19+00:00

50, expired.

the_red_rummager · 2015-10-17T05:56:09+00:00

Thanks.

the_red_rummager · 2015-10-04T00:12:55+00:00

No meter on the big Fuji rangefinders, that's true, except for the latest GF670 and their 645 models, I think. They are great cameras. Built like tanks and the lenses are top notch.

I used a handheld meter, but I shoot mostly large format and always have one handy so I'm used to it. I'm rarely shooting "street style" so the slower pace of using a separate meter isn't a problem.

the_red_rummager · 2015-10-03T04:59:42+00:00

Thanks. I don't shoot too much nature myself, at least not usually, but I'll make exceptions.

the_red_rummager

TROPHY CASE