Voja Mitrovic, Printer To The Greats

Check out the two part essays on Voja, who has printed for the likes of Cartier Bresson - for his best prints anyway, and read the followup blogs on The online Photographer.

With Power Comes Responsibility

Photoshop is a very powerful tool. You can do almost anything to an image. BUT SHOULD YOU? Knowing when enough is enough is a vital skill, whether in framing the subject or adjusting the tones in an image. Knowing the difference between magnificent and cartoonish, subtle and boring takes skill, experience and a good eye.

Some claim the good eye is inherent, I think it is developed, through looking at fine images.

Some aspects of the fine image can be garnered from magazine and book quality reproductions while others require seeing original prints, and without glass between you if possible. Workshop teachers typically bring bare prints to show and this is a fantastic opportunity. If you don't spend 4X as much time going over the instructors prints as anyone else in the workshop, you aren't getting the most out of the workshop. Ask to view the prints at lunch time - so what if you starve. Find out if you can have a private look through at the end of the day. Far more than skill or talent, instructors admire enthusiasm and a willingness to learn.

Life Changing Moments

Charles sent me the following:

Message: Ok, so dont keep us in suspense, what is the name of the workshop you said you went to that so radically changed your photogaphy?

As with many questions, there isn't a simple answer, but here's a list of the things that made a difference for me. You won't necessarily be able to do the same thing, but perhaps can find something similar.

1) In the 1970's I took a weekend photographic appreciation course at the Edmonton Art Gallery, given by Hubert Hohn. I thought it a complete waste of time and besides it was boring, but something took and within six months how I looked at photographs was changed fundamentally. I could appreciate a greater range of images and get more out of each image. The problem had been me, not the course.

2) Reading Fred Picker's "The Zone VI Workshop", a very modest book did more to improve the quality of my printing than dozens of previous books including all of Ansel Adams. Now, with digital and Photoshop, it doesn't have the impact it did, but perhaps there are modern books with equivalent impact.

3) Attending a Craig Richards and Keith Logan workshop in Canmore, Alberta - it was helpful and fun and we had some great photographing. It was the first time that I thought my work good enough to show, and was really the starting point for my writing and showing and selling. Some photographers have an inflated opinion of their work and none of us is a very good judge of our skills without getting some outside feedback. Over several workshops I came to realize that I was at least going in the right direction and might have something to offer.

In the 80's Bruce Barnbaum compared some of my prints to those of Jay Dusard - I was floating, then proceeded to point out a series of totally crap images (he was right). By the time I took a second workshop with Bruce and Tillman Crane in Nova Scotia a few years ago, I had a better sense of good images and the ratio of good images to bad was much healthier.

Feedback is essential and it can be hard to get objective feedback. Few workshop leaders are going to tell you your work is crap, but after a few workshops, you learn to read between the lines, and in looking at the work of all the other participants, develop a sense of where you are at. It's rather like reading modern report cards in which teachers are not allowed to say anything bad about a kid, but if you know the language, you can interpret. Making progress means you were lousy before and still have a long way to go. If the instructor starts talking about the quality of your mattes instead of your prints, you are really in trouble (or he is).

4) Getting published - it's a huge affirmation of one's work. Remember though that not all magazines or editors will like your kind of photography, or they may have published something similar recently so aren't likely to want more of same.I don't think contests are a good way to seek affirmation - unless you win of course.

5) Selling a print for real money. It's one thing to admire an image, another entirely to want it so badly you are willing to fork over cold hard cash. Selling to Aunt Mildred does not count however.

6) Compliments depend on who's giving them - kudos from people you respect, who have an artistic eye, or education or experience means so much more. The nature of the complement is important too. Good things said by someone who actually gets what you were trying to do, instead of simply saying they are lovely can be a big step.

In terms of how this information might help you. I can wholeheartedly recommend workshops by Bruce Barnbaum, (and Craig Richards if he is running any), or Tillman Crane or Michael Reichmann. Check around the net for other suggestions for workshops. I hear that Craig Tanner does fabulous workshops. He seems to have particular skill at improving your seeing and pushing your comfort zones in your photography.Your important milestones will be different from mine and trying to reproduce them may be pointless, but you will have them, especially if you make a point to get out there, ask questions, attend workshops, get help, beg favours. Serious photographers hate being asked to pat someone on the head, they generally love to talk about good photographs and most love looking at photographs if the person making them has put heart and soul into making them. Looking at image someone has made to please me is at best boring.

It's Just A Hammer

With me playing with film and large format again, it got me thinking about the emotional worth we invest in our tools. This can cut both ways - believing that without a certain set of tools, we are unable to make great photographs, or blaming our tools for the quality of work we do. Am I retrying large format film to achieve a quality not possible with digital? I don't think so, other than possibly being able to make bigger prints. Am I more efficient? Hardly! Is a ground glass really all that much better than a 3 inch LCD? You must be joking? Could it be that I simply like messing with view cameras, that the process is as important as the result? Absolutely?

But here's the rub. Does the equipment have an impact on our creativity? Might well be. If I spend 4 hours taking a dozen pictures, which I could have done in 20 minutes with a digital camera are the individual images made better? Probably not. But what about all that extra time absorbing the scene - noticing the light, checking the composition especially carefully before wasting film? Don't know.

Who has not at some time seen an amazing photograph in a newspaper. Given the tonalities of newsprint (ain't got none), and resolution of the 5 pixels per inch line screen (just exaggerating here), just about any damn camera could have taken the image and it would still be recognizable as a great photograph.

Is someone who likes messing with  cameras just a hobbyist by definition? Does caring about your tools prevent you from being or being considered as a serious photographer?

We do need to be comfortable with our tools - it's hard to be creative when you are cursing your camera. The right tool doesn't have to be the best tool, or the fanciest, or the most expensive. It doesn't need to be the fastest (and might even benefit from being slower). Wonderful images have been made with rickety old cameras mounting horrible lenses and exposing low quality film (or cheap point and shoot digitals. It helps if the person using said camera isn't letting dreams of better tools get in the way of making the best use of the tool that's in front of them.

Film At Four

AM that is, the time when I finished processing the first 8 sheets of 5X7 film from a hike on Friday. The backpack was about 35 lb. and at age 60 felt more like 50 lb. but I managed, using the waist belt to carry most of the weight it went fine, even taking it on and off repeatedly as I moved through the canyon. Finding a dry rock to lay the backpack and it's turned back flap was a little challenging but it had been raining all morning and conditions in the canyon were perfect.


The Shan Hao worked well, except for the 90 mm. lens which required the front and back standards to touch and which meant no movement in either. Given the depth of field with the 90 on 5X7, not a huge issue but something to consider. If I want to shoot architecture on 5X7, I'll get a 120 Nikkor SW - huge coverage.

There were a few times when I wished I had the simplicity of shooting digital, with a nice bright lcd to show me the image - but decent gr. glass should help - I have ordered a Maxwell screen and will report on it when it comes in a month or so.

I did wish for colour for one image in particular, but actually found it relieving that I didn't have any choice - I had to find subjects that would work in black and white and much to my surprise it was a good thing. I'm not sure that the extra size of 5X7 is worth the weight and bulk - but won't really know till I get some decent prints made.

I did like not having to stitch, not even having the option to do a focus blend, and having to decide which part of the image to let go out of focus, if any, was not a problem.

I made a mount board holder for the 5X7 negs. for scanning - only to have my scanner crap out on me - so no images to show you yet.

I went out last night after tennis to shoot some sewer construction materials lying nearby, this time with my ancient Technika IV. The view camera was ideal for the subject. I could align the focus where I wanted and blur the other areas.

Bottom line is I'm having fun. I fully expect that I won't be as productive (after all, I can't shoot colour), but it will be interesting to see if the quality of the images hold up, and if I'm able to get one good image per shoot, which is all anyone really needs.

Hopefully I'll get the scanning up and running soon and have some images to show.

First Shoot With 5X7

Went to Jura Canyon today. Have been there a few times shooting digital but was back with my 5X7. Pack weighed about 35 lb. and was ok with the waist belt carrying the weight instead of the shoulders. Working is slow, but where I'd take five shots of the same scene, with minor variations in position, each shot stitched or focus blended, not sure that in the end it was any slower.

Did find one shot that I wished I had colour film for, but I quite liked being forced to make black and white images and the real test will be in the quality of the prints made from the shoot. Made 12 images, most of them unique. Only once did I shoot the same setup, same lens, but different exposure.

Composing on the ground glass was frankly much harder than using the lcd - but to be fair this was because of a poor quality fresnel. A decent one is on order and we'll see how much difference that makes.

In the canyon, I used my 90 and 135 the most, and a few shots with the 210 and didn't touch the 450 but that's the nature of the place, narrow and confining and needing LOTS of depth of field.

Tried f32 and a couple at f45 and one at f64 - will be interesting to see if that is practical.

After the first couple of shots, I was thinking I liked that I had earned any images that work out. By the end I was fed up with putting the camera back in the backpack after every shot - carrying a wooden camera weighing sig. more than the tripod in a narrow canyon, water everywhere and some pools fairly deep, and having to traverse wet debarked trees to get past the deepest water - no I don't think I'd want the camera on the tripod for moving positions.

Still, it will come down to the percent of keepers. It will need to be dramatically higher than my digital ratio which is about 1 in 100 (I'm fussy). If it is one in 10, then that means I got one photograph I'll be proud of. In a way, it seems a waste to blow the other eleven negs, but one great image in four hours of photographing isn't that unreasonable.

Well, off to process the film in BTZS 8X10 film tubes - incredibly simple, just a bit slow is all. I wonder if there is a way to process two sheets at a time in each tube (since they are made for twice as large film. The film does move around so two loose sheets isn't on. Wonder what would happen if I used masking tape for the 7 minutes processing time, removing it in the fix. It's a thought. Might just try it on a couple of test pictures.

Quick And Dirty Comparison

For the full effect, click on the images and see them larger, but bottom line is the upper image was made with my 5D2, 50 mm. macro at f11, tripod mounted, live view (ie. no mirror bounce (in fact no shutter at the start of the exposure). The second is the result of literally tossing the 5X7 neg. onto my flatbed 4870 scanner, no holder, no glass to flatten it. It was made with my 210 Symmar S, f 32, 1/2 second exposure on TMAX-100.

At a guess, I'd say I'd need to use at least a double row stitch to get enough pixels to equal the resolution, possibly more. Note that one was taken in the morning, the other the night before, but that's a lot more information, I'd hazard a guess at significantly more than 100 megapixels worth.

Whether the ability to make 35X50 prints that can be viewed from 9 inches is worth the trouble of the 5X7 remains to be seen. I'm waiting on a backpack before I start seriously using the camera.

My plan so far is to use the lenses I have, 90 Nikkor, 135 Sinaron SE (which does in fact cover 5X7, barely), 210 Symmar S, 305 G-Claron and am getting a 450 mm. Fujinon-C.  If this actually becomes practical as well as fun, then I'll get a 120 Nikkor SW for architecture (for movements on the 5X7).

I'll continue to report in.

Light Meter

I'm using my S90 digital point and shoot as both viewing filter and light meter. In fact it took the picture above, which is more than you can say for most light meters. I set the mode to black and white, ISO to 100 and then take the shutter speed on manual exposure and f 8 and adjust it for the film and f stop I'm really using. Let you know how it works after I process the film.

Pictures Of New Camera

In the first photos, the camera looks pretty normal. When you look at the last image, the 4X5 looks like a toy in comparison.

Observations:

the camera is pretty sturdy and sets up easily. At full extension there is a little sag in the rails (you can see it in the second last picture), still very useable, but you'd need to be careful loading film. I'd probably try and avoid this much extension. As this is about 600 mm., and the longest lens I plan on using will be a 19 inch, it shouldn't be a problem.

I have ordered a backpack for it - going with the people at photobackpacker.com and I'll tell you how that turns out.

My new used camera comes with a 4X5 reducing back (as well as the 5X7) and also bag bellows. I'm investigating getting a Maxwell screen for the back.

Today, a three tube, six cap set of 8X10 BTZS processing tubes arrived. I had thought to tray process the 5X7 film but I'm not good at it and have screwed up tray processing of 4X5 any time I tried it. The BTZS will be slow - I can only process one sheet of 5X7 per tube, two tubes at a time. On the other hand, I can adjust development as I go and to suit. As development times are around 7 minutes, to processs 6 sheets will take an extra 14 minutes - not a lot to get custom developing for every single sheet.

I've been talking with other large format photographers and almost everyone is shooting digitally as well, but they continue to enjoy large format, so we'll see. It was the printing that was always a pain, trying for good prints that were reproduceable.

I'm happy with inkjet printing for the most part, but at some point I'll try contact prints, just to see - going back to how I started at age 12 making contact prints from 2 1/4 film.

Shen Hao HZX57 ATII Has Arrived

Big, Beautiful, Heavy - my thoughts on first revealing the camera. It is 8 lb. 15 oz. which is pretty decent for a 5X7 (the Ebony weighs 10 lb). I can remember years ago seeing a 5X7 and thinking it must be an 8X10 so I
m not too surprised. Made of teak and titanium alloy, it is very attractive, the ground glass huge after working in 4X5. The other Shen Hao 5X7 or a Chamonix would be a lot lighter but I'm not prepared to compromise on the swings (on the lighter cameras the swing moves the ground glass off to the side thus reframing the image) - been out twice now with the 4X5 and used a swing both times.

This camera comes with a Technika board adaptor so I can swap lenses back and forth. I'll have to give some thought to transporting the camera - will need space for camera, 3 lenses, and 6 holders.

I already have a Nikkor 90, Symmar S 210 and a 14 inch R. Dot Artar in Copal - might swap that for 19 inch but we'll see. First to see if I make use of it - or do I start thinking of the 4X5 as plenty big enough.

It will be fun.

I'll post pictures soon.

Monarch Coal Mine

On the hillside near the Atlas Coal Tipple, S. of Drumheller, Alberta.

Film Vs. Digital

I was shooting both this evening - hiked up a steep hill, so took the digital (which had a backpack), saving the view camera for some work nearer to the car. I'll need to set up a backpack for the view camera.

The digital seems almost too easy - I like the process of shooting with the view camera - of knowing what I'm doing and going to the trouble - as if somehow I'm earning the image. Whether the images will be any better remains to be seen - still haven't processed any of the film - perhaps tomorrow.

In looking at 5X7 cameras, I had seriously considered the Chamonix 5X8, but it won't take my 90 mm. Nikkor which does cover 5X7. Also, although I have never used a Phillips type camera with the two arms reaching rearwards to the back, it is quite apparent from photographs showing back tilt that in order to use back tilt, one has to swing the camera sideways a considerable amount and the camera is no longer pointing at what it had been - I think I'd find that frustrating - swing - rotate camera - swing more - rotate more - swing a little less - re-aim camera yet again... If anyone has experience with this type, I'd be interested in hearing about their experiences.

In the mean time I have purchased a used Shen Hao 5X7, the more traditional one - heavy at 8 lb. but reputed to be solid, and has the proper type of swing - which by the way, I had to use again with my 4X5 Shen Hao. I was photographing a small rusted cylinder of about two feet height, diameter a bit more than a foot and ran out of near focus with my 210 - the 5X7 extends to 610 mm. so that won't be a problem.

Again, using the 4X5 was fun. Don't know that I'll be using it to take exciting pictures, but hopefully good ones, and who knows, I might try some contact printing.

I Shot Film!, And Enjoyed It

Well, having had fun yesterday with the stump and not feeling I had got the best of it, I emptied out the darkroom (no mean feat itself), wiped down some surfaces and took some clean holders. I threw out all the old film (does film that was thawed in 1992 (God knows when I bought it) still work?). Anyway, I loaded six holders (12 sheets) and headed out for the stump.

I have found that for 4X5, the best tripod is my Berlebach 9043, with no head on it at all, just using the leveling centre post to aim up and down. The wood legs and metal spike feet work better than my carbon fibre Gitzo for the bigger camera. It does weigh a couple of pounds more, and by the time you place 4 inches of ball head on it, isn't as stable, but with camera right on the centre post - pretty good and quite versatile, grabbing the bottom of the centre post to position the camera.


I used both back tilt and back swing to get the plane of focus just right - actually quite fun and much easier than on a tilt shift lens on my dSLR.

I found the dark cloth a bit of a pain, either slipping down over the lens or more commonly off the camera entirely, or falling down between me and the camera - and it was hot under there (on a not especially warm day). My bifocals were a pain, only being able to do much with the bottom 1/8 inch of my progressives for  viewing. I have astigmatism so simple cheaters are not an option.

I once had a BTZS dark cloth which was small and closed at the back and elasticized round the camera - it worked perfectly with my Kardan Color - a couple of plastic clips on the metal body of the camera holding the cloth nicely in place. I might just have to do something similar to my Shen Hao 4X5.

The camera performed flawlessly with both the 135 and 210 lenses and interstingly the 210 stood in nicely for the 70-200 zoom on this occasion (ie. working from roughly the same distance).

Arrguably the fun part is now over - I have to clean the darkroom and the developing equipment thoroughly, process the film and then scan it. I made six shots, using two sheets for each shot. Perhaps I didn't need to do that since I can deal with spots and scratches in Photoshop, but you never know and it's what I always did.

I'll scan one neg from each holder at 300 dpi and consider that my 'proof sheet' from which I can then pick the negs I want to do hi res scans from.

I'll let you know how all that works out.

Of course, the obvious solution is to purchase a $40,000+ medium format digital system but like most of you, I'm doing this as an artist/hobbyist and no way can I recoup the cost of such a system. Factoring in the cost of the divorce,...

Hobbyists and artists just have to lump it and do it the hard way. Whether it will hold up to my 5D2 and have any artistic merits to the workflow remains to be seen.

Never Know What You'll Find

Was on my way to photograph some industrial equipment and though it was there this morning as I returned from the farmers market - it was gone when I went out to photograph four hours later - sigh. So I headed for a city park that is entirely wild - first growth firs - but the path was closed - washouts. On my way back, I noticed a giant tree stump in the garden of a rather modern and ordinary looking church - and spent a delightful hour photographing it in the rain, looking for the best compositions.

Can You Restore?

Last Sunday, I lost the hard drive that contained the upcomging book - everything - images, portraits, texts, even the list of photographers. Fortunately I use a combination of Time Machine and a redundant array Drobo 4X 1 terabyte backup system. Although it took 24 hours to restore all 500 gig. from the lost drive, it came through perfectly. This morning, my fourth drive on the Drobo gave up the ghost, but since the backup is redundant, I simply pulled out the drive and plugged in a spare one, which happened to be twice the size of the other three, no fuss, no muss, nothing lost. It will be a day or two before the new drive is loaded and the redundancy back in force but it doesn't get much more painless than this.

Three cheers for Time Machine and Drobo.

Thnking About Film - Continued

Well, I may be kidding myself, but I did pick up 100 Sheets of Ilford Delta 100 4X5 today. I won't consider any larger format till I have shot all 100 sheets, then we'll see. I might just pick up some colour negative 4X5 too for just in case.

Here's a few images from today - all could have been done with the 4X5 - just more trouble - and iffy whether it would have done any better. On the other hand, if you assume that 4X5 has about 60 megapixels of resolution, that would make 5X8 120 megapixels and it's going to be some time before I can afford a 120 megapixel camera.

Now I have to clean out the darkroom so I can load film. By the way, the middle picture is a two exposure blend, the first and last are focus blends. Wonder if I could have stopped down enough to get adequate depth of field with a 4X5.

Scott Peters Recommended, and Do I Try Large Format Again?

Have been wondering about shooting large format again, just for a change. Was checking out Chamonix cameras from China and their gallery had an image I reecognized - by Scott Peters, who shoots with 8X10 and more interestingly, with a 7X17. I highly recommend viewing Scott's website. He has some lovely 7X17 images in particular.

Of course, enlargine 7X17 is difficult. Hell, scanning it would be difficult - it really encourages you to make contact prints in the wet darkroom. I still have my darkroom - ok, it's a mess and I'd have to remove the crap now being stored in it, but it would be intriguing. Lens coverage for 17 inches wide is problematic - but oddly, old lenses like the Red Dot Artars and even new lenses like the Nikon 450 M or Fujinon C are possibilities.



Another far less expensive and much more mobile option would be a 5X7 or even 5X8, scannable for inkjet printing, even a decent contact print. The ratio isn't as extreme, nor as intriguing. Film is half a sheet of 8X10 - which is still available in colour. I'm guessing you could even get it processed using 8X10 hangers.

I'd lose focus blending, though exposure blending wouldn't be the same problem.  Perhaps the biggest issue would be losing my 70-200 with which I make a lot of my photographs - could I learn to love modest focal lengths? I'd def. have issues with the limited number of shots I could make - would it even be possible for me to change from my one good shot in one hundred formula I have found about right for the last 10 years, even before digital - simply not practical in this format? It might be too frustrating. I suspect that 5X8 could probably work with my current 4X5 lenses, 90 nikor, 210 Symmar S, doubt the Fuji 400 telephoto would work but I could pick up a 450 non telephoto and it would be a fraction of the size.

As to weight, 7X17 would definitely be more, but I'm horribly overweight and have lost 20 lb. of 100 I need to lose - surely I can lug one third of that in camera gear after the weight comes off?

5X8 with a limited selection of lenses wouldn't weigh a lot more than my 1Ds2 and camera kit when it includes my 300 - even with a modest number of film holders.

No question it would be different - I'm 60, could be I'm going senile - hope not. Last time I took out my 4X5 it reminded me of all the reasons I quit large format. I'd have to make sure I have my kit simple and reliable. I wonder....



It's all just dreams at the moment,

Why Photographs Work - the Book

 I was asked about the upcoming book. As excellent progress has been made and we have a definite list of photographers, I thought I'd bring everyone up to date on this exciting project.

The book is a discussion by me about what makes each of the 51 photographs work, followed by a description by the photographer of making the image (why more than how), a short bio, picture of the photographer, reference to their website and publications and who were their influences.

Photographers include:

Bruce Barnbaum
Charlie Cramer
David Maisel
Beth Moon
George Jerkovich
Sandra C Davis
Hans Strand
Michael Kenna
Carol Hicks
Francois Gillet
Joe Cornish
David Ward
Pete Turner
Larry Louie
Cole Thompson
Susan Burnstine
Kim Kauffman
Louie Palu
Michael Levin
Freeman Patterson
Craig Richards
Elizabeth Opalenik
Bengt Ekelberg
Sven Fennema
Harald Mante
George E. Todd
John Sexton
Roman Loranc
Wayne Levin
Tillman Crane
Christopher Burkett
Shaun O'Boyle
Gordon Lewis
Brigitte Carnochan
Lawrence Chrismas
Dennis Mecham
Charlie Waite
Brian Kosoff
Milan Hristev
Paul Mahder
Blair Polischuk
Billie Mercer
Huntington Witherill
Ryuijie
Joe Lipka
John Wimberley
Mitch Dobrowner
Nick Brandt
Phil Borges
Dan Burkholder
Thomas Holtkoetter



Each photographer has one image in the book. Many of the images are famous but perhaps people don't know why they like the image and therefore can't create similarly great images and the book will help. Some are quite unknown images and will suprise and hopefully delight.

The book will be 10X10 inches. Printing will be good but not coffee table quality (check my previous books for similar quality - very good) but it will also be reasonably priced, some 200+ pages.

The status of the book is it has been written and edited by the publisher (Rockynook) and I am in the process of re-editing. it is hoped to be out before Christmas but it's going to be a close thing.

I should say that each photographer has donated his or her photograph and writing to the project with no compensation other than some free copies of the book and I'm extremely grateful to them for this (the project could not have been done otherwise).

There is a significant variety of photography in the book. 46% is in colour, there are 8 women, photographers from Canada, USA, Britain, Sweden, Germany and Bulgaria. There are nudes, traditional landscapes, manipulations, abstracts, allegories and more. I pushed my middle aged white guy background to select images but love every one of them, in some cases for years.

Not all the photographers are famous, not all have great depth of wonderful work behind them, but each has risen to the occasion to produce a beautiful and or meaninful image.

Even in the time that I have collected photographers and done the writing, some of the least known photographers have been or ar about to be published or have won international awards - I think I have chosen very well, even if I do say so. My writing in the book isn't terribly different from the style used in my blog.

The book is for photographers who want to learn from the greats, and for viewers of photography who want to better appreciate great images, and for everyone to push their taste boundaries a little beyond comfort, while still paying strict attention to traditional print values. None of the images stands on concept over skill, idea over craftsmanship.

George

The Right Light

The right light is critical to good photographs. Both brillant sun with its black shadows and really flat light result in dull boring pictures, especially in black and white. HDR has helped the sunlit images but really flat lighting just plain sucks.

Predicting what light you will have for your photographs can be really difficult. Some photographers will only go out at sunrise but of course sunset lasts just as long and can be every bit as nice. I have found it practical in summer to head out in the afternoon, photograph at sunset, either camp or motel and then go out very early to photograph before and during sunrise, heading home again.

Weather conditions often change though and by not heading out you may be missing on the wonderful light that followed the crap light. A thunderstorm develops and the light is magic. Perhaps you end up photographing something in the shade, with somewhat directional lighting provided by other objects reflecting into the subject area. When photographing the small, local conditions trump overall lighting and even holding up an umbrella, shirt or you can be enough to change the lighting from poor to great.

Box And Pipe Version 2

In keeping with getting the shot quickly into the camera before things change, I made the picture posted on the weekend, but I also then stopped to think about what I was doing. I decided to include more of the curve in the upper left, while at the same time exposing only the lid of the box. Moving back a few inches and adjusting the zoom allowed for what I think is a better composition. Again, Helicon Focus is used for near infinite depth of field, and this time I was careful to consider the framing with the closest focus as the image is slightly magnified (ie. cropped) which means that if you do your framing with the distant part of the image in focus, you may get the framing wrong.

I took advantage of the colour sliders in the black and white conversion layer in photoshop to give the grass just the right tint through adjusting the yellow and green sliders while slightly darkening the beige box by darkening the red slider, none of which affected the relatively neutral concrete. Considerable work was done with curves adjustment layers to get the tonalities right (some 10 layers of adjustment), as well as subtle highlight dodging near the end of the workflow - just as I wrote about in my second book.

I have just realized that the bottom corner of the grass looks a little weak - so before I make my first print, I'll darken that (but have left the problem here for you to see the kind of thing that I adjust to make a good print).