Didier Lamy

<p>Same white sky when printed on a A4 format. Playing wildly with the histogram makes some details appear (and disappear everywhere else). So there is some information available for post-processing. But the sky is definitely not the subject of the photo, I was just curious about the difference with the reflection. I occasionally use an orange filter when the sky is the main topic, but I don't like it too much, it gives an impressive result but a bit artificial (except in high altitude). As a default filter I use a light yellow one (0.6 stop) with Tmax films. </p>

A 50mm for the reasons exposed above, and a good one. put some money on it, it will help you forget the lazyness of zooming. look at Zeiss lenses

<p>"check the luminescence of brighter areas to be sure you do not overexpose the rest." yes that was why I took also a -1stop, the 0 is a little overexposed in this area. And there is still details in the dark shadows in the -1, thank you Tmax400.<br> "minimalist landscape approach that micheal Kenna (michaelkenna.net) has shown us in much of his own work": yes, but that does not rule out keeping the information intact. This may not be necessary on a print observed at a certain distance, but this add a feeling of ~quality to the result. See for example the full screen view of this pair of Rembrands.<br> <a href="http://www.louvre.fr/en/portraits-maerten-soolmans-and-oopjen-coppit-rembrandtan-exceptional-acquisition-exhibited-musee-du">http://www.louvre.fr/en/portraits-maerten-soolmans-and-oopjen-coppit-rembrandtan-exceptional-acquisition-exhibited-musee-du</a><br> Barry: actually, like large format film, digital photography allows tailor-made development, which 35mm film cannot. And as you pointed out, the exposure - development coupling is essential for real good photography. <br /> thank you for the tip about Charlie Lemay, I will explore this track<br /> "shooting a scene at the right time of day makes the difference": definetly yes, one should first select a time, and then manage to get there accordingly. I hiked 2 times up this place to get this one :<br> <a href="/photo/18109050&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/18109050&size=lg</a><br> I new the time at sunset when the shadow on the bottom would reach the foot of this summit. It was moving fast, I was late and I had to climb fast, and take the time to set up my stuff calmly. Lot of fun.</p>

<p>Hi Arthur, I considered at some point metering on the bright field on the left background, or on the bunch of irises on the left (I focused on it, 40mm Ultron), but I knew that the right side would have been buried in the dark. What is not obvious on this vignette is that under the bridge there is a mixture of everything, so I chose everything..<br />"That is not to suggest that sometimes completely featureless black or white zones are not effective" well, I am not yet at this point, in a few decades maybe..</p>

<p>Barry, yes (who else?). Actually I own "The making of 40 photographs", and a few of his best photo books, and I have gone through his zone system, which as you know is difficult to apply with 36 exposures rolls. Regarding this lake, and whatever the treatment he applied in developping and printing it seems obvious to me that he had enough details in the sky and the lake. My point is that he had few stops between both, and no differencial filter. Also: "One tip. If your camera allows for live view..." it does, this is a F3..<br /> David: "for the vast majority of exposures that include the sky", Yes, I agree, although I prefer trying different exposures to swithching filters constantly very close to the front lens.<br /> Glen: ok, with three stops there should be an exposure with enough details everywhere.<br> Arthur: I am not that smart, what I did (see the full photo below) was to meter under the bridge and take 0 and -1 stop (this one is the -1, f8 1/250), and to hope for the best. There was too many variables for my pre-transhuman brain. However, in retrospect I should have done more with this pretty place (even as I ended up with plenty of details in the shadows). What would you have done in front of this one, with a ~spot centered camera, Tmax400, light (this one) and medium yellow filters, polarizer filter, monopod, plenty of film?</p><div></div>

<p>Yes, this kind of filter would be a good idea, but how did Lord Ansel make this one?<br> https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/4-web.jpg</p>

<p>So you mean that, in the photo above, the sky is overexposed about 4-5 stops to get the same details as in the pond reflection?</p>

<p>Physics + something = Monet<br> http://www.musee-orangerie.fr/en/article/claude-monets-water-lilies</p>

<p>The filter was a B+W 021M MRC Light Yellow Filter Factor 1.5 (0,6 stop).<br> So, there is three effects: less luminosity due to partial reflection (when the sky is overexposed), a color shift (blue?) caused by the reflection (when a yellow filter is present), and some light polarization if I remember well what I was supposed to learn at school.<br> Thank you for your help, I am going to explore this phenomenon with all available ponds, lake & rivers..</p>

<p>That could be the answer, the exposure was f8 1/250, so enough to overexpose a quite luminous sky, as I remember. Any rule about this kind of attenuation caused by reflection (-1,2,..stops)?</p>

<p>Hi, any idea why is there much more details in the sky (see a,b) when it is reflected?<br /> F3, Tmax400, light yellow filter<br />I suspect that there is some polarizing effect on the water surface, but I would have expected a lighter effect since the actual sky was not that hazy. Anything else?<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>The copycat...<br />the boat was moving too fast for a 2d shot<br />Final result, thank you Corel PSPX7: <a href="/photo/18206712">http://www.photo.net/photo/18206712</a></p><div></div>

<p>ok, but what about multiple exposures? X-ray machines are everywhere today, even in public buildings, touristic sites, etc... Personally I get tired after a while to fight for an exemption</p>

<p>135 mm f2.8 AIS. Excellent, small, light, perfect to carry in a backpack in case it is unsafe to zoom with his feet..<br> Example: <a href="/photo/17861592">http://www.photo.net/photo/17861592</a></p>

<p>Joe, I agree that the little squares are artefacts, but I see at least 3 corners of a rectangle in which the saucer is centered, see the photo below. Coincidence, or cut and paste ?</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the thing at 200% after playing with contrasts etc.. It looks to me that it is included in a rectangular shape that has been fused with the background.</p><div></div>

<p>Albert Kahn created a wonderful garden in Paris, a very fine place for photography, no crowd, quiet: http://albert-kahn.hauts-de-seine.fr/jardins/les-differents-jardins/</p>

<p>"There is no "optimal distance in relation to its size" per see"<br /><br />Not "per see", but regarding artefacts due to film, artefacts, sharpeness, imho, yes.</p>

<p>I have been routinely storing my best inkjet prints (Epson pigments) in Panodia Pergamin ("cristal") sheets to protect them from chocs, since they are mostly printed on coton rag paper (Hahnemühle), which is supposed to be fragile. And the whole stock is stored in non-acidic cardboard boxes, which obviously is not fully consistent with a regular, acidic(?) paper like Pergamin. I am starting to worry, should I move to more expensive polypropylene, acetate sheets if I want my prints to be still in good shape in 10, 20,.. years?</p>

<p>Thank you everybody for your answers, I am much impressed by their expertise (I was ready to get just a one sentence answer by a compassionate pro..).<br /> So by default the distance should be a function of the diagonal of the print, and then one should move depending on the photo itself. <br /> Applying Allan's rule of D = F x magnification, I get for my A4 prints a magnification of ~8x. With a 50mm lens photo, that makes a distance of 40cm, which, fortunately, is a bit less than the length of my arms. The diagonal is then ~35cm.<br /> My concern with the viewing distance comes from occasional landscape Tmax400 prints with more grain than usual in the clouds. And contrary to people who were born with digital photography, I see nothing inspiring in granulates. I am trying to keep the problem under control by playing with the usual parameters, but at the end I have found that the best remedy is to increase the viewing distance, which of course is not fully satisfying.. Using a slower film (Tmax100) makes things better, but then details get easily lost in the shadows, a problem that can sometimes be solved by getting closer to the print..<br /> Thank you again, I will write the Marcus / Neblette rule on a mental post-it.</p>

<p>I have already read something about the optimal minimal distance for looking at a photo print in relation to its size, but I have forgotten to remember it..<br />I guess there is no upper limit..<br />Regarding my prints, I am a frequent user of Tmax films<br> Thanks for your advice</p>

<p>Sorry, I missed your point. Maybe the rationale for giving this diagonal angle is the same as for TV screens, which I am missing too.</p>

<p>Here is the GH view</p><div></div>

<p>Edward this is just a thumbnail compared to a real print on A4, A3 fine paper, which is the usual output for the photos I want to keep. Despite having used a polarizing filter, I had to make some heavy contrast adjustment in post processing to get some details, and on paper it does not look good at all. <br /> I agree with you that getting closer does not mean always getting a better result, but imho this mount is worth a try. In this case, the hills closest to the summit are probably too close (~1.25km). The spot I have selected on the map is probably somewhere on top of the black hill with the house on the right, and outside the frame of the photo, which would place the camera quasi perpendicular to the mountain ridge. His elevation (~1850m) would be higher than the elevation of the photo above (~1400m), so I should get more of the mountain foot.<br> Seen through Google Heath it does not look so good (see below, 46°23'52.43"N 12°01'43.90"E). Unfortunately GH tends to flatten things a lot, so it is difficult to make a conclusion. Nevertheless this is a good idea to do more virtual hiking around, and see the potential obstacles.</p>

<p>Thank you for the precision, obviously I need to learn more on optics..<br /> So on my map the minimal horizontal angle of view for this photo would be 44° (at a distance of ~6.25km). Thus my 50mm ZF2 is insufficient (38°), but the 35 mm would be ok (54°). Vertically, the interesting part would be included inside an angle of 14° (1400m above 1600m, not counting the sky). Again the 35mm (38°) would be fine. So, I am set, see Rodeo, angles are not that useless..<br> Below is this summit taken years ago from a distance of 11.5km at dusk, when I was traveling in the area. When I saw that, I stopped my car and made this photo with the 135mm 2.8 and Tmax 400, f4 1/250. Time to go back closer..</p><div></div>