Creemore Cumulus

Len - that is one wild sky but very appealing. It reminds me in my very early days of b&W film (agfa 50) when I would try out a red filter over the lens and if memory serves me well I use to get skies like that. All the best on a fine shot.

Thanks for your input.  The original is a Sensia 100 colour slide.  Scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual ll & converted via Channel Mixer (100% Red) in Photoshop.  Same effect as the method you describe with B&W film.  Best, LM.

Yes, reminds me too of shooting with Ilford Delta 400 with red filter.  Long time ago. I like the foreground except down to the bottom where it looks blurred. Maybe out of focus at the bottom?

Good to have your views on this B&W offering.  No, the bottom is not out of focus.  I think that is simply a band of finer vegetation which is difficult to resolve because of the small image.  I'd have needed a view camera with tilt functions to get that kind of control over the DOF.  I was using a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens (possibly a 35mm lens).  Best, LM.

Ah, out in nature with a view camera taking photos like this was once a dream of mine.

Len - thanks for the technical lesson. I use Nik Capture NX for my conversions but I must try your method one of these days with PS.

I like the big sky and the huge fluffy clouds, it gives a great sense of space and openess. Whilst there are darker aspects of the sky where there is no cloud and of course highlights within the clouds themselves that seem perfectly exposed, I'm wondering why there appears to be a grainy element in the spaces between the clouds at the bottom and middle left of the image?  Sorry Len your going to have to educate me as I know nothing of film, scanning etc. Also the tree line to the left appears flat with little definition compared to those on the right, is this something to do with DOF also? Hope you don't me asking what probably appears to be stupid questions : - )

Best Regards

Alf

Thanks for your always welcome visit & critique.  While I can't see the 'grainy element' of which you speak (could be the result, perhaps advantage actually, of old eyes) it could be that the area is coming under the influence of a cloud shadow & is simply reflecting an element of underexposure.  I was using 10 year old Sensia (albeit refrigerated stuff) so that may be a contributing factor.  Also I may have been a little too heavy handed in 'Channel Mixer' when converting to B&W.  Take your pick!  Same thing with the tree line on the left.  Anyway I was pleased with the conversion so I posted it.  I was using a polarizer so the blue sky was already dark.  Best, LM.

Wonderful picture. The undulating land and the towering sky seem to belong to two different worlds. The horizion line is perfectly situated here for maximum dramatic effect.

It was a perfect clear sunlit day with cumulus clouds that just wouldn't quit.  Combined with some Fuji Sensia 100 and a polarizing filter the slide pleased me well.  Experimenting in PhotoShop Channel Mixer the result with 100% Red pleased me even more.  Thanks for your visit.  Best, LM.

I recently used and posted Fuji Pro 400.  I like its colors. A bit different than the portra I think. Another remarked that the fuji was too "cold".

Fuji Pro 400 is a great film as is Portra.  Both were favourites of the wedding shooters when film was king.  Still a good choice today.  Very forgiving.  No unpleasant surprises.  Colour balance is very easy to change if you are not pleased with your results. I wouldn't hesitate to use either for people photos. Or, most landscapes for that matter.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Best, LM.

a very dynamic still photograph! great take. compliments -koushik

PS: updated the photo after your suggestion.

Thanks for your visit & comment.  I felt the B&W version had more drama.  PS: I'm happy you agree with my suggestion.  Some would prefer the original version.  Lot's of 'artistic wiggle room' in most shots.  Best, LM.

Gotta love the shot Len.  The old film days get to take on some new life.  The cloud/sky contrast is wonderful since they have beautiful tones and are not washed out. Likewise the corn field.

The running narrative on technique is interesting and helpful.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks.  In truth, I use film mainly because I own some very serviceable and costly film gear.  Were I able to start over I would embrace digital with a passion.  No more scanning!  No more (well very little anyway) dust spotting!  I tried increasing the overall contrast but  the clouds are so close to the edge that with even a light application of contrast increase they started to blow out.  So I left things alone.  I too love the running commentary as it's difficult to cover all the bases that folks are interested in with one comment.  Thanks for your most welcome visit.  Stay tuned for more film based posts.  Best, LM.

This I call best lighting for landscapes although I simply don't do landscapes! I wanted to say that the polarizer wasn't needed here for clear sky and air with running clouds make a wonderful effect by themselves, on the ground lovely shadows and highest level technical quality of the colors is achieved with the clean air! 

Best regards Len!

PDE

Nice of you to stop by.  Your views are much appreciated.  Yah, in retrospect the polarizer may have been overkill but undeniably makes for a more dramatic sky.  I wanted to emphasize the dark sky but I wasn't really expecting it to go black.  Perhaps next time I'll take a couple more shots with the polarizer dialed back a notch or two after I capture one shot with it at full effect.  Bracketing of a different sort.  Best, LM.

very good bw.tones...congrats

Thanks for your always welcome visit & for your views on this one.  Best, LM.

Your constructive comments\critiques will be gratefully received.

Best, LM.