minimalist landscape photography

<p>Hi there,<br>

Firstly, if I have chosen the incorrect forum to post this question in, I apologize. Moderators, please move it to wherever you think is appropriate.<br>

- - -<br>

I have been immensely inspired by "black & white minimalist landscape photography" recently, especially having stumbled across some amazing images on flickr. I'd really like to try my hand at attempting this myself but wish I had some better guidance. I tried to contact the photographers themselves but have received no responses. I believe that they all used medium format cameras and from the lenses, I have gathered that most of them use Hasselblads. I think. I have an old Mamiya 645, which I haven't even tested yet (since it was given to me by my grandfather) and I'm wondering if I can achieve similar results with it.<br>

I guess my question is, by looking at these images, can you tell if they were shot with film or digital? The first one used film but the 2nd and 3rd ones don't give any info. How much photoshopping or post-production would you think was involved? Okay, I'm still an amateur at this whole thing but I'm pretty sure places like these don't look like that in person. Also, are there any websites or resources out there that teach you how to achieve final results like these? I know a bit of photoshop but I would love to advance my skills....I'd like to learn how to "polish" my images like the ones below...<br>

Thanks in advance for any advice and recommendations.<br>

Take care - Dylan<br>

Oops, for some reason, inserting the image using icon thing didn't work. So I will just list the links.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/c-l-p/4536896927/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/c-l-p/4536896927/</a><br>

<a href="

<a href="

<p> </p>

<p>The first one is probably on 4x5 film, a guess due to the lens. Long time exposures to blur out the waves. A lot of it is in camera taking the image. Probably shot in the morning or evening, likely with overcast skies. Winds are usually lower in the morning. Start practicing. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you'd like to read more about minimalist landscape photography in general, not just black and white, I highly recommend checking out a European photog named Bruce Percy.</p>

<p>His website is www.brucepercy.co.uk<br>

Check out his e-book, "Simplifying Composition"<br>

I don't know if I would call him strictly minimalist, but his compositions are certainly straightforward, especially in that e-book.</p>

<p>There's a simple majesty to minimalist landscapes that is extremely difficult to pull off correctly, so I am always in awe of anyone who can properly execute good simple compositions. Percy shoots a lot of film, mostly with a Mamiya 7II 6x7cm rangefinder.</p>

<p>The style of these is very similar to Michael Kenna, his was the first work of this type I remember seeing. Michael takes a lot of his at night, using exposures of many hours duration. His gear is a 500 series Hasselblad. But he'd probably be the first one to tell you that with this type of image the camera type isnt so important. The hard bit is going somewhere near the coast in the night with no lighting around and sitting it out for th elong exposure.</p>

<p>Have a look at this guy's work. He came to town for one of our art festivals. He's from New York. His work had a good overall concept to it. He does a fair amount minimalist type prints in color. </p>

<p>http://www.markmackinnon.com/</p>

<p>One of the interesting presentation devices that he used, which I thought improved the photos, was to frame them in white. That is, if most of the background color was light (most of his were) then the matting and the framing would be done in a form of white. It made the big seem bigger. </p>

 

<p>Assuming you have a camera, go out and use the most insensitive film or sensor setting (smallest ISO value, 50 or 100), close your lens down the most (largest f number f/22 or smaller f/32), focus ,,, ... Put a filter on the front, maybe a polarizer (- 2 light values) or a neutral density filter, get your tripod out, find a suitable subject and TRY your luck with a long time exposure, maybe a minute, maybe two ... whatever your lightmeter tells you!</p>

<p>That is how it is done. YOU CAN DO it all by yourself. Good luck!</p>

<p>Take a look at Joel Tjintjelaar's works on Flickr also. He also has a website (<a href="http://www.bwvision.com/">http://www.bwvision.com/</a>) and describes the process in his tutorial section. Check out his "The Ultimate Guide To Long Exposures" tutorials. They should help you out. Amazing work. Good luck.</p>

<p>It is almost impossible to tell from web reproduction. If you are interested in how the images were produced, I would contact the artist. </p>

<p>There are a whole raft of photographers producing work like this , mostly on film and very often 6x6. Kenna is seemingly the root from which the others grow.<br>

<a href="http://www.michaelkenna.net">www.michaelkenna.net</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.f45.com">www.f45.com</a> Rolf Horn</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gerardlaurenceau.com">www.gerardlaurenceau.com</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.michaellevin.ca">www.michaellevin.ca</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.josefhoflehner.com">www.josefhoflehner.com</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.billschwab.com">www.billschwab.com</a></p>

<p>and there are others. Outside of subject selection, format, the frequent use of long exposures, and exemplary printing, I'm not sure there is much you can do to get the work looking like theirs- its down to the idea really. As far as i'm aware the details of their films, processing, papers etc are often quite different and may change over time. The answer doesn't lie there; it lies in the application of any of a wide range of suitable materials to an idea.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>can you tell if they were shot with film or digital? The first one used film but the 2nd and 3rd ones don't give any info. How much photoshopping or post-production would you think was involved? Okay, I'm still an amateur at this whole thing but I'm pretty sure places like these don't look like that in person. Also, are there any websites or resources out there that teach you how to achieve final results like these?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The type of camera doesn't matter. You need the right weather (overcast, possibly foggy), the right time of day (for soft light), and of course a subject that you can isolate. These are long exposures, so if boats of people were moving through the frame it would ruin the tranquility of the shot. The one piece of gear that might be handy is a neutral density filter (not graduated) that can slow your shutter speed. Singh-Ray's VariND filter would be a good option.</p>

<p>Photoshop? Well, you might have to remove (from the sky) streaks left by seagulls. Whenever I photograph near water birds are a constants nuisance. Don't waste a great shot just because a bird (or an aircraft) flew through your frame during a long exposure. Edit them out.</p>

<p>For the work you contemplate, I somehow feel that the better formats begin at 6 X 6, really 6 X 7, and 6 X 9 is the greatest. The 645 was optimized as a wedding photographer's format. Having been a total jerk by dissing the tool you have at hand, I'll end by saying neglect not to use mirror lockup and a cable release. Good shooting! </p>

<p>While bigger is always better in landscapes 645 works fine, it's miles ahead of 35mm when you want grainless and smooth and detail can be pretty amazing. Also, it's *much nicer to carry around* than 6x9 or 4x5 and if you want rectangular prints then it's basically the same as 6x6. (I like 6x6, squares are interesting, but I wouldn't run changing gear if I were you.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How much photoshopping or post-production would you think was involved? Okay, I'm still an amateur at this whole thing but I'm pretty sure places like these don't look like that in person.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Long exposures at times when people rarely visit places (night, early dawn...) can give you pretty "otherworldly" results without any editing. You can't normally see two hours compressed into one moment...</p>

<p>I don't mean to diss the 645, I had two of them, including a brand new 635E. (I gave it to my film school nephew , but somehow I suspect it wound up in a hock shop.) If 645 is what you got, go for it! But for someone else contemplating landscape and hasn't bought yet, there acres of bargain basement RB 6 x 7's out there gathering dust.<br>

Somewhat unrelated to this topic, I suspect there are a few readers in here who aren't aware that 6 x 7 refers to centimeters, and 4 x 5 refers to inches. So:<br>

4 x 5 (inch) = 4 x 5 inches<br>

6 x 7 (cm) = 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 inches<br>

645 is 6 x 4.5 cm = 2 1/4 x 1.8 inches.</p>