Tidal River

I made two negatives of this scene. They are virtually identical

except that this one has a blurry seagull standing in the shallows,

the other negative doesn't.

 

The question is, which negative should I take into the darkroom; this

one or the one without the seagull?

 

Thanks in advance,

He just looks like a flaw in the negative. If it were possible to see more clearly what he is I might leave him in.

The bird does not bother me. The rest of the photo is so still that the blurred bird adds interest to the composition and to me does not read as a mistake but a happy accident.

Great B&W!!!

to much unsharp mask

What are you seeing on your monitor Rob? Is there some digital artifact that's showing up on your screen but not on mine? I can tell you that this is a 4"x5" neg, taken through the finest normal lens ever made for 4x5". It is razor sharp. I scanned it in an Epson 2450, cropped margins, reduced image size and Saved For Web. I didn't apply any unsharp mask!

 

Is anyone else seeing something bad in the file sharpness?

Beautiful details. I couldn't tell that it was a bird because I couldn't see its head. I think I'd use the other neg.

Very nice image, John. I love going to Wilsons Prom.To me the bird is a little disturbing. It spoils the clean mirror effect. I also suggest cropping just between the bird and its own reflection. Sorry for all the critic. I still like it very much.Regards,Uwe.

Damn, I want a 4x5 camera!!!!

 

Did you crop the reflection of the top rock off the foreground of the negative? I'd like to see more of that maybe.

I really like this composition. Some giant has been stacking boulders! It looks like a designed garden instead of a scene found in nature.

What really adds to the appeal of this picture is that it is overflowing with detail. Large format is perfect for this kind of subject matter. This picture is not oversharpened, it is just really really sharp! Pixels and perceived sharpness are a funny thing. You'd think that at 800 by 500 pixels the format doesn't matter, but somehow if you shot this with 35mm I don't think it would look like this even at this small size.

Allthough I've seen other large format photos on photo.net, the only other picture where I've noticed this extreme large format effect before is in the crystal mill shot of Bobby Douglas.

A large print of this picture must be quite impressive.One more thing: the blurry bird has got to go.

Lovely photograph John. I think that one thing that really helps the picture is the tonal range. Its brilliant and rich. The range of darkness serves as a fine background for the rocks, the largest of which look like some blokes knee joint to me. But its not as if the background is one dull dark cloth. Its got fabuluous whispy white flicks that define shape and outline. Those trees are very elegant with their tall narrow white trunks. I think the composition is great though simple and so as not to heap too much praise on you I have to point out that the arrangement of rocks is in all likelihood none of your doing. The icing is the river reflection. All in all a great picture to stare at.

 

Two things, the presence of the gull is unfortunate. Theres nothing wrong with blur where blur or motion plays a part in the story, the intention or whatever, but here I think it runs counter to its stature. If the other is as good as this, print that one. Second I read that your trecking LF camera is an older Technika IV but the picture shown introducing us to the IV was described as a Technika V. Was this shot using the IV or the V? Because the shot using the IV doesnt seem to have the same luxurious qualities that this one has. Like noticeably inferior. But it oughtnt to be. So Im hoping this was shot using the IV and the other shot was a blip in developing, scanning or something unconnected with the camera.

I agree with Phil except with one qualification: depends ultimately on what you want to do with the print. If its something you simply want to enjoy yourself then I'd say the one with the gull is the keeper. Call me nuts, but I like the element of the blurred gull. If however, you are printing this for a wider audience, then the one without is the way to go.

 

Speaking of a wider audience, have you done any marketing of these fantastic images? I just picked up the latest issue of B&W Magazine and saw one portfolio of a guy, Robert Bueltman, who does a lot of nature B/W work. Its excellent work, but I thought, "Hey, I know someone who does work as good if not better." Bueltman's getting US$1000 for his 8x10s. Why not you? I know what you might say in response, but I guess I'm just trying to tell you that you've got the artistic sensitivity and skill to do whatever you set your heart on with regard to your work.

 

Lovely work, John.

Why can't you just crop the bird out?

Maybe if I read more carefully I wouldn't leave idiotic comments. (then again, maybe I would)

Having read of the choice, bird or no bird, I would say no bird, but I would still crop most of the water out because the reflection is not that novel in that it doesn't reveal anything additional about the scene. It's almost an exact upsidedown version. If it were rippled, or if a crocodile were lurking there, maybe keep it, I would say, but overall, I like what's above the water line, so I'd keep only enough water to show it's water. The gull's presence is anti-climatic to the detail and design of the vegatation.

So many comments, if I miss anyone out, please forgive me. Firstly, thanks for the opinions regarding the bird. I've decided to print the negative without the bird first.

 

Michael, there is more neg at the bottom, but if I include more water, some sand creeps into the right hand side, plus the mirror line gets close to centre. I thik I prefer Doug's idea of crimping a bit more from the bottom, to just below the joint line of Phil's knee.

 

Thanks for your comment re sharpness Kai, perhaps Rob had some monitor issues.

 

Phil, this was taken with the V, the cannon with the IV, but the variation in quality is due to other issues. This was taken with a better lens on a more stable tripod placement, and the film/dev combo is different. The APX responds beautifully to Rodinal, but the HP5+ is a little mushy in comparison. All the lenses are interchangeable from the V to the IV, and when used more carefully, the IV will produce exactly the same quality. I've also just bought another wide angle lens, because my 75mm Biogon is just too heavy to carry on long trips. I've now got a 90mm f8 Super Angulon which is small and compact, ideal for wilderness trips. My annual big wilderness trip is coming up in January, and I'm yet to decide whether to lug the 4x5 with 90mm and 135mm lenses, or the Pentax 67 with 45mm and 105mm. There are pros and cons.

 

Andy, you say the kindest things! I'm trying to move some ideas forward, but it's hard to make the break from a 9-5 career that pays the mortgage and feeds the family. I'm loading Buelteman's website right now, but it's a little slow.

 

Good thoughts on the composition Doug. I'll bear those in mind when I print it.

Beautiful image John. As hard as it is for me to disagree with Doug I must say I like the reflection. You can certainly crop in a little but I'd like to see the reflection of the central tree fit comfortably.

 

The tones are perfect, and this absolutely does not look over sharpened. I also agree that you should print the negative without the bird. For me the bird is in a blurry middle ground. It's not quite blurry enough to achieve the desired effect (for me at least) so it may as well go.

 

As lovely as this image is I must admit that it's confusing me a bit! At first glance I get an impression of the size of the rocks. The size they feel to be. And when comparing the rocks with the bird the proportions fit and my feeble brain can handle it. Then I look at the trees and that's when the confusion sets in. If these are in fact trees then those rocks are MUCH larger than I thought, and that bird is much closer to the lens than it appears! Or, these tress are not trees after all, but are some type of mutant broccoli that only LOOKS like trees from a distance! Help me!

It's interesting, regarding Doug and Bob's comment, that if you cover the reflection portion of the image, that the scale increases hugely. I love all the tone and detail but I am distracted by the reflection looking like some alien form with its spindly arms and wide hips. And I think the bird has to go. I thought you'd dropped your kleenex.

Down here we have no need of Kleenex in the wilderness Hanna. We do the bushie-blow: seal off one nostril by pressing a finger against the side of the nose, just below the bony bridge. Blow out really hard through the other nostril. Swap hands and clear the other nostril similarly. Wipe any residue off onto a clean seagull.

 

Bob, your cropping thoughts are the same as mine. I wouldn't want to lose the reflection of the central tree either. For scale, the central tree would be about 15ft high, the largest boulder, maybe 18ft high.

Thanks for a few minutes of tranquillity and serenity, from this superb photo. It's both simple and complex at the same time.

 

My first reaction is to let the bird fly away, but on second thoughts it shows that this is a real place with real life. The bird adds a touch of life along side the mineral (and static) nature of the rocks. On the other hand ... Perhaps the image is so strong it doesn't matter! (after all the bird is just where you'd want it to be)

 

Just out of curiosity, what time of day was this?

This photo has a mesmerizing stillness about it. The bird does disturb that stillness quite a bit as has already been noted. Still this is a fantastic image.

Very nice shot John!

John, thanks for the encyclopaedic definition of a bushie-blow. And is the procedure still the same when walking into an 80 knot headwind?

Dominique, about 7pm, evening.

 

Hanna, a headwind is an advantage! Just tilt your head to the side.

Great shot.

 

Whilst the bird does provide some balance across the shot, I would probably prefer if it wasn't there, particularly if the shot was enlarged and it become more obviously blurred when all the other detail can be looked at up close.

Hanna, Matt is an expert proponent of the bushie blow, he travels with a pocket full of seagulls.

 

And he's also my personal large format coach!

 

http://mattstasmania.tripod.com/

 

Great photo. Only one thing bothers me though-why are there no ripples around the bird? Hard to believe he landed and didn't move again long enough for the ripples to subside waiting patiently for this photo-op. Most patient seagull in the world. Probably should use the one without the bird.