www.graemehird.com

Yep, the rest of the world has lots of vowels to spare too! I think the declining US dollar must be causing some sort of shortage there. I'll lend you a few if you like. :)

Thanks for the comments on the photos. The lightning shots are preconceived and visualised before I even leave the house: the internet tells me where the storm is headed, and I go to one of the sites I've marked out around town. I set up the canvas with a foreground, some one else wields the brush for the sky. He rarely misses the canvas. I rarely miss the foreground, but I've got the GG to help me.

The purple comes from the rendition that velvia gives it. I have not tried to correct (?) it out because I like it. I'll load up a quad-toned B&W with a different slant on things.

Cummulo Luminous looks great at 16"x30", 6'x11' might be pushing the friendship with the wife (not to mention the bank manager) a little too much!

Cheers, and keep up the interesting threads. I'm enjoying following your development through the photographic journey to personal satisfaction.

Scott,<p>

You say <i>"The 'lines' don't mean much to me". </i><p>

Perhaps that's my poor expression of the property we are looking for. When I said "if the lines aren't working when inverted" I probably should have said "composition" or "graphic design" instead of lines. The inverted image is almost a pure image which is not being filtered by your memory of the scene in front of the camera (which is in turn influenced by what you are feeling at the time: the smells, sounds and biting bugs that are all part of the experience of being there.) The viewer of your image won't have the benefit of your experiences at the moment of capture, so they are only seeing the pure image <i>sans</i> filter. What I'm saying is that the inverted image should be a competent image that will display a graphic quality of its own: if it doesn't, then your tranny is not likely to show one either.<p>

<i>A 5 inch wide gg just does not reproduce what my eyes see as I look over the camera. </i><p>

Precisely! Therein lies the problem. Neither does the tranny: your eyes (through that wonderful interpretation device, your brain) "see" the whole experience, including sounds, tactile stimuli and peripheral vision, whereas the GG is <b>only</b> reproducing the light reflecting from the scene. This property is further enhanced when you remove yourself from the environment by ducking under the dark cloth. When you later look at your trannies, you are seeing what what you saw on the GG: if the tranny doesn't cut it, it's because what you saw on the GG didn't cut it. You just didn't recognise it at the time because you were remembering the world outside the dark cloth, not critically assessing the image on GG.<p>

<i>So my problem has been learning to faithfully reproduce the real world through the illusion of film.</i> <p>

I get the impression that you may be reproducing the real world more faithfully than you want to, not the other way around. You <i>are</i> getting exactly what was in front of the camera, but you are only remembering selective parts of the scene (probably those parts of the that made you get the camera out in the first place). You need to be more selective with the scene, and critical of the image on the GG, <b>before</b> you push the button, not after.<p>

Try this little exercise: take some of the well exposed trannies out into the field and stand in your tripod positions. Look at the scene in front of you and compare it to the tranny. Does it faithfully reproduce the real world? I'll bet you it does, only <i>too</i> well. Then set your camera up as it was when you took the picture (same lens, filter and composition). After you've set up, look at the GG and compare it again with the rotated tranny. Has the tranny faithfully reproduced what you see in the GG? Apart from the differing light conditions, the images should be essentially the same. The camera's not at fault: it did what it was told to.<p>

<i>My failures have been mostly failures of exposure and of learning what can and what cannot be seen on a flat piece of transparency film.</i><p>

Your high "failure" rate is not likely to be due to camera error, but is more likely related to your failure to recognise that the image on the GG is not going to be a "winner". Critically assess that image before inserting the film and you will save yourself money and time, and learn your craft in the process. While I can't help you with the exposure, I <u>can</u> tell you that what can and can't be seen on a flat piece of transparency film is the same as what can and can't be seen on your ground glass.<p>

Good Luck,<p>Graeme

Scott,

I think you may have taken a step backwards here: the best way I've found of developing my vision is to use the inverted image on the ground glass. If the lines aren't working upside down, they aren't likely to work the right way up either. The slow, considered approach demanded by LF, and the cost of pushing that plunger on the cable release, are the best way to limit your film wastage and to teach you what will work with LF. Stepping back to a "point and shoot" methodology is not likely to improve your ability to see through LF eyes.

I think Kelly Flannagan posted a message some time ago about using a digicam as a scouting tool. That's probably more valid than the MF route, since you know that your little digital file just won't hack it for quality, and you must go back to get it with the high quality equipment. Viewing is no problem on your screen, and ongoing costs are minimal. With MF, you might be tempted to say "that's pretty good, no need to shoot that again".

In any case, I hope you find the vision you're looking for.

Graeme

Ole,

I thought you got by without one! :)

Oh, and just rebutting what Dave said: stepping only occurs when a file is printed at a resolution that is too low and the pixels become visible. Files should be resized to increase the print area if you are after a bigger image: simply printing them bigger without increasing the file size is plain wrong. There are various ways to increase the file size, but you've got to start with a good file in the first place.

Graeme

Domenico,

You'll need to establish the resolution of your printer first. If you intend to print at (say) 360 dpi, then a 1:1 scann will be at 360 dpi. If you want to double the area of your original, you'll want to scan at 720 dpi (or higher) and so on. Remember that you can increase the image size in PS only so far from the original scan, and higher resolution scans will not necessarily yield better prints (due to the defects in the print also being enlarged).

If you have not done much work digitally yet, you might be better off letting someone else that you trust do this work for you. If you want to learn more about the whole digital process, visit scantips.com and read all you can. The answers are much bigger than your questions.

Either way,

Good Luck.

Graeme

<i>"I just want to know...where should I point my camera? "</i><p>

At the part of the scene that made you unpack the camera.

Scott,

If you're serious about ever doing LF (and not just spruiking for business), keep the lot. You'll probably never get it again at the price you got it for.

At least use it a few times and see if it really is too soon. You might find, like the rest of us here, that LF is a fantastic medium.

Graeme

Hi Per,

How I wish I was able to come along to one of your workshops! (Are you coming to Western Australia to run one? :)

I completely agree that composition can be taught. If anyone doubts it, ask them to pull out some of the earliest photos that they ever took (before they read about using a camera) and compare them to their recent shots. I'd be extremely surprised if they couldn't spot an improvement in their own compositions. Improvements indicate that we have learnt from past experience.

Almost by definition, if one can learn about an element of photography, it can be taught.

Cheers,

Graeme

On the 2450, I scan emulsion side down to reduce the occurrence of newton's rings. The less shiny, emulsion side diffuses the reflections from the glass. The curve on my 5x4 Velvia trannies also fights gravity, making them less likely to sag onto the glass during the scan (another cause of newton's rings).

I use vuescan to mirror the image as it saves it.

Cheers,

Graeme

Michael,

If you have a look through the archives, there is a thread which details how you can slice a dark slide length ways to reveal half a 10x8 sheet (giving you two 10x4 photos on a 10x8 sheet). You compose your shot to suit, insert the film holder, remove the normal dark slide, insert the half slide and expose the film. To use the other half, rotate the back 180 degrees and repeat. No need to trim film or to make several special holders.

If you can keep track of which half is exposed, I think it would be a good system. I haven't tried it myself, but others who have say it works well. I prefer to crop a whole sheet (by printing only the portion I like) after I've made my image.

Cheers,

Graeme

'Fess up Wieslaw, the picture's a fake - was that your doing or someone else's? :-)

Cheers,

Graeme

Janko,<p>

Please feel free to have a look at the <i>f</i>32.net site. There is a forum there which includes a photo critique section (found at http://www.f32.net/discus/) where only LF pictures may be posted. It might be just what you seek.<p>Cheers,<p>Graeme

Steve,

Where does the cat fit into the bag, and who let it out? :-)

Cheers,

Graeme

Roger,

Those size prints are fine. Don't go below 250 dpi on lambda prints. You're going to have to live with the large file sizes if you want photographic quality prints.

The print service I use is found at www.fstoponline.com.au, but it is in Australia and may not be of any use to you, assuming you're in North America.

Graeme.

Scott,

On Lewis Downey's Cicada web site, there is a whole book's worth of information and an interactive exercise to help you understand the system. His web site's address is :

http://photography.cicada.com/zs/intro/

However, it doesn't get any easier to understand than Marshal's explanation.

Graeme

Don't get so hung up on the optics. Even an average lens in LF will give you enough resolution to trounce 35mm and 645 films. Your film area is huge.

Take the advice you've been given: (1)Read, (2)buy what you can afford second hand, (3)sell if if you don't like it.

But I can promise you one thing - if you don't like LF, it won't be due to the optics of your lens!

Graeme

Bob,

Only the hairy nosed wombat from the Nullabor Plain has ear tufts. They HATE Glasgow, but your wombat calibration method may work on a cloudy day on the Nullabor.

Graeme

Geoffrey,

Somewhere in the archives, a person described how to do what you are asking. I can't remember the exact details, so please search for it before you do what I'm about to tell you.

If I remember correctly, you set the meter in the mode you want to calibrate (spot or incident), turn it off, hold down the two ISO buttons and turn it on. The screen comes up with "Cal" and then a number. Rotate the dial until you're happy with the calibration setting and turn the meter off.

As I said, this is all from memory, so I could be wrong on the exact procedure (I don't own the meter - I just read it in passing some time ago). The point is, the info is in the archives somewhere.

Good luck

Graeme

Skip,<p>Email me and I'll send you a photoshop action which puts a 2mm white and a 15mm black border around the image, as seen in the image <a href= http://www.photo.net/photo/1142782&size=lg>here</a>. (It has been resized, so it's smaller, but you'll get the idea). Now it actually adds a further 2mm of black to the bottom to give the image a better "optical weighting".<p>

Regards,<p>Graeme

<i>"So how do you color match from your computer to the printer at a service bureau?"</i><p>

Ask them to send you an ICC file for soft proofing or a calibration print and file. Colour management is a thread all to itself. There are lots of previous ones, so check for them in the search engine.<p>Graeme

Another handy hint I've learnt over time: When the light is rapidly changing in front of you and turning into the best photo you've ever seen, turn your back on it! Stand in front of your camera and get it ready to make the shot.

By ignoring the scene and focusing strongly on the camera I remove that adrenalin rush which others have so aptly described as performance anxiety. Once the camera is ready to make the shot, I am too - not before then. Concentrate on what you can control (the camera) and let the light do what it will. If the light's gone before you are ready, you'll know you did your best.

Concentrating on the camera is a routine, and routine is your friend when faced with a complex set of procedures. Give it a try.

Graeme

Go back and do it again. Go a couple of times if that's what it takes to get both shots, but I think with practice you will be able to get both shots in pretty quick succession.

Graeme

Mike,

Have you thought about going digital? Scanning transparencies, manipulating the files for colour, dodging, burning, contrast control and the like are reasonably easy. You then send the file over the internet to a printing bureau and get a perfectly repeatable print at a good price.

Beware of colour management if you think this system sounds good! It is the single biggest drawback of the whole system.

I do my prints this way, and I love it. Others hate it, but do investigate this way of printing as an option for the future.

Cheers,

Graeme