My First Decent MF Landscape Shot

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>With apologies to the forum police I'm hoping this is a friendly crowd. I picked up my RZ last September and have been getting to know it since then, shooting a number of rolls os Velvia, Provia and HP5. I have not however been fortunate enough to shoot an image I wanted to see large-until about a week ago. This is the first image I've gone through the complete process with: metered, shot, processed and drum-scanned at maximum resolution. As a result I can say I'm more passionate about MF than ever before. The resolution and detail on this shot is just spectacular looking at it on my Apple 30" display. It's ENORMOUS, and I'll be getting my first MF lightjet of it soon. Just wanted to give a "rah rah" for MF and film in general.<br>

[Details: RZ67 Pro II w/ waist level finder, metered with my Sekonic L758DR, shot with the 65/4 L-A at 1/45 @ƒ32 with M-up double cable release on Provia 100. Drum scanned and processed in CS3.]<br>

Go Mamiya MF rigs. Rah. Thanks for not calling the forum cops on me ;-).</p><div></div>

[jay_chadney]

<p>That <em>is </em> a nice shot. Congrats!</p>

[jeff.grant]

<p>Nice shot, John, why not put it up in your portfolio? Posting in the forum is what the Leica crowd do, and we should all be pleased they do so.</p>

[thomas_wilson1]

<p>Very nice, indeed. I can't help but wonder if you are your toughest critic. Every once in a while, I like to have a freind look through all of my "Rejects." I've picked up more than a few "Keepers" this way.</p>

[bob_hack]

<p>I can understand your excitement over this shot. It is great. As as experiment, I took the liberty of doing a horizontal flip on it. It seems to give it a different dynamic that I like. Does anyone see this? Please excuse my using your masterpiece for my own edification. Does seem a sacrilege. Certainly not meant to. Any discusion would help my learning experience. I am putting together a ProSD kit, but I sure haven't got any shots like that yet.<br>

Best of luck, Bob</p>

[frank_bunnik]

<p>I noticed this morning when I looked at the (very nice) image that flipping the photo horizontally will give it an even greater feeling of dept.</p>

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>Hi Guys, thanks so much for the input. Jeff, regarding putting in my portfolio, I put an earlier version up and have tried to overwrite it but haven't been succesful. I'll need to remove the old version and re-post. Thomas, you're 100% right about being my toughest critic. It's an affliction I suffer with. I'm learning how to see things more objectively but it's a tough thing to do.<br>

Bob, thanks for flopping it and I'm not offended in the least-please be edified by me any day. I agree completely. Something is pleasing about the bottom left feeding the darkest part of the Butte. The thing that "pleases me" the most when I look at the image is the golden grass in the bottom right (left when flopped) of the image. The problem is I'm a bit of an authenticity freak. It's a well known landmark in the North Park area and the fishermen who I'd maybe try to market the print to would spot it instantly. I can remember standing the field while shooting this thinking, "man, I wish that curve was facing the other way..." which in the waist level finder, it was ! ;-)... And Frank, I think you're right-something about it's depth seems more pronounced when it's flopped. Maybe I'll have to do 2 versions ;-). Thanks guys-I appreciate the kind words & encouragement very much. Take care, JBCrane</p>

[btmuir]

<p>Rah Rah 6x7 indeed!</p>

<p>Nice work John.</p>

[steve_parrott]

Love the shot John. I have often considered getting an RZ 67, but cash is tight now so I stick with my Mamiya 645 AFD, which is no slouch

in it's own right.<p>As for flipping the photo, yes, I agree it does look better, and to me it is rather easy to understand why. We are brought

up all our lives reading left to right and just tend to do all things in this manner. When the photo is flipped, the bushes lead the eye INTO the

photo. The angles just naturally pull you into the photo. In the normal orientation, the angle of the bushes and ground grass actually take you

OUT of the photo. Makes a big difference, but I can understand you wanting to maintain the authanticity of the photo for those who know the

area. But for others, I think two versions of it would be a good idea.

 

steve

[jeff.grant]

<p>John, you should be able to replace the original by going into Photo admin, edit info and then choosing the new file to upload. It takes a while to show up in your browser but it should work. I have marked you as interesting so anything you do will show up.<br>

Posting in the critique forum will expose your work to a much larger group.</p>

 

[gt1]

<p>I must be dyslexic, I like the original orientation better.</p>

[douglas_tourtelot]

<p>Any filtration? It IS a very nice photograph.</p>

<p>D.</p>

[jbcrane_gallery]

<p>Hi Douglas, no filtration at all. I'd lent my polarizer to a friend who was going to the Caribbean, and I didn't even have a UV filter on the 65/4. I've only had that lens since Christmas and am very pleased with it. The floating element thing had me a little puzzled at first, but now I think I get it. Here it is set to infinity. There is no sharpening applied to this image at all-it's all native from the drum scan. When I down sampled in CS3 to post, I used bicubic sharper, which seems to have made the grass and bushes just a bit unnaturally "edgier." Thank you for your comments.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>Congratulations, I just purchased a RZ67 pro and will get out there and hope to get the same level of results. I am pleased to see it work for you. I am waiting for scans from my first roll of film. just local shot 4000 dpi scans.</p>