Good afternoon, /p/
I've gotten a lot of questions from here and elsewhere over the years about how I meter for certain scenes and different film types so I finally made a detailed blog post about it. It's especially helpful for those crazy backlit Ektar photos as well as some other situations. It's a long one but I hope you guys find some good info in there. Here's the link: http://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2016/3/28/metering-and-exposing-color-film
I don't have a ton of new images to post but I may as well dump them here while I'm at it. Here's one that's older but I just recently had it drum scanned by some guy I met on Flickr.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NewcolorV2 3.0424957275 1.0424956083 3.5649912357 3.5649912357 0.3317155242 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 19467 Image Height 15456 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 120 dpcm Vertical Resolution 120 dpcm Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:02:23 10:44:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 798
Great pictures you've got on that article, really really good.
>>2807430
god bless your soul, alex. youre a saint and a bro.
>>2807432
>>2807433
Glad to help, fellas.
I also went to White Sands a month ago so I've got a couple from there and more that I need to scan and whatnot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 11176 Image Height 9026 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:08 08:17:07 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 817
>>2807436
that velvia / ektar comparison in the page is impressive, theyre so very different (at least the inverted negative is so far away from the velvia image), do you have the processed negative?
>>2807446
I never did edit that negative one because right away I didn't like it as much as the Velvia version. If I remember right it retained a tad more shadow detail but I just didn't care for the colors nearly as much. After the scanner auto corrects an inverted negative you often end up with a mess that you have to carefully correct. At this point, I would have to rescan the negative so I doubt I would get to that.
Here's a recent Ektar shot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 11138 Image Height 8798 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:05 15:34:06 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 810 Image Height 1024
>>2807446
>>2807447
Actually, I take that back completely. I found the old Ektar scan and just gave it a real quick crack as I've gotten a tad better and correcting the colors with curves over the last couple years. I think I actually much prefer the Ektar version now that I revisit it. Thanks for bringing it up, anon.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:03 14:32:07 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 810 Image Height 1024
>>2807430
>http://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2016/3/28/metering-and-exposing-color-film
>B A S E D
>A
>S
>E
>D
Thx Alex, you are a lord.
I can use a light meter, but it was still a great read, and little tips like where to place snow in an exposure or what to do about reflections are great to keep in the back of your mind when it's not something you do everyday.
I was actually checking out your site the other day, had a look through the best shots that poor little travelling Olympus ever got to take.
>>2807491
Awesome!! I'm glad you found it helpful. Also good thing I fixed that traveling camera blog post the other day, the transition to squarespace was not easy on some of my posts and there's still more that I need to fix or delete. I really enjoyed the traveling camera, it was such a blast to use for a fall trip like that.
Here's a new one from last week.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5610 Image Height 16193 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:04:03 15:03:27 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 400
And another fairly recent one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5496 Image Height 16193 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:14 09:34:51 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 400
>>2807430
legendary
>>2807430
good shit man. Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning? sorry if its in the blog but im in uni, no time to read through the whole thing
>>2807522
>Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning?
>Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning?
>Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning?
>Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning?
>Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning?
>Do you do any pp in Lr or Ps after scanning?
>>2807522
Easily the worst new trip.
I'm surprised you didn't ask if any of these were taken with a 40mm.
>based god alex doesn't trip, he lets his photos speak for themselves
>be like alex
>>2807430
Damn thx brej, how much post do you think you do on an avg image in terms of hours
>>2807522
>im in uni, no time to read through the whole thing
Please quit. You're taking someone else's spot.
>>2807562
OK.
You're not very intelligent, so you don't belong in a university. It would be better if you stopped attending now so that someone more capable and deserving could take your position there. It would be better for you as well, because it's not likely that you'll be able to go very far. You'd save yourself time if you started looking for an unskilled career now.
>>2807565
> this makes me feel bad
>>2807506
>the transition to squarespace was not easy
What was your previous system, wordpress? What's the special purpose of sqarespace? I assume you are still the person that has to manage every shop request
>>2807522
Yes I most certainly post process the images. Scanners make film look like poo.
>>2807542
It depends. Like honestly it depends. The biggest chunk of time is wasted on dust removal, then it's just some curves layers and luminosity masks.
>>2808147
Yeah I was using wordpress before. The problem was that with all the various plugins and themes being developed by different parties, my website developed some sort of memory leak that just couldn't be fixed and it was routinely overloading the server and crashing. I actually quite liked the look of my wordpress site but the squarespace one is growing on me. Also, my wordpress site didn't have any ecommerce capabilities so I'm curious to see if having real shopping options helps. I don't think it's common to sell prints through websites anyway, I do all that face to face.
Here's another from White Sands.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 11335 Image Height 9068 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:14 08:52:41 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 812 Image Height 1024
That's really a great work. Instruction are very clear. Even if I don't shot with film; it will be helpful.
>>2808168
Glad to help! Very true, the metering tips should help with film or digital. I just hope to help people get it right in one shot even with the uncertainties of film.
It looks like I don't have many more new photos to post without some more editing and I'm short on time today so I'll just bump with one from last fall.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:12 20:51:57 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 811 Image Height 1024
Here's a new one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 11176 Image Height 9026 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:04:04 15:54:34 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 827
>>2807506
tfw the traveling camera is missing in action. I never even got to hold it.
>>2807430
do you have instagram by any chance?
>>2807436
>>2808158
>>2808259
When you go to White Sands do camp there? I keep reading that you have to walk in but you can still park a car at the front where the visitors center is, right?
I was also wondering if you know about what time you photograph some of the more blue and purple White Sands photos to see if it's possible to be in the park at that time if I'm unable to camp there.
>>2808354
White Sands is totally awesome, but being next to a missile range means there is a lot of red tape as far as spending the night goes. And if you want to get good photos you pretty much have to spend the night as the crazy colors tend to happen while the sun is below the horizon, up to 45 minutes after sunset or before sunrise.
First of all, the park doesn't open til an hour after sunrise so there's no chance of driving up and getting some good sunrise shots. It is, however open until one hour after sunset. But you have to be back to your car in time because they lock the gates and I'd imagine you'd be in a good bit of trouble if you missed the closure. That does give you just a bit of time to take some sunset shots and get out of there. We arrived late and couldn't get a backpacking permit so we had to do this one night and it sucked running back to the car after sunset.
The absolute best way to see the park is by backpacking in one of the 11 sites. The permit is only $3 a person, but they cannot be reserved which means they may sell out by 11am on a Saturday in the spring. Other days should be fine. You have to start from the backpacking trailhead about a 9 mile drive into the park, but all of the sites are at most about a mile out so it's super easy. There are some benefits to a park that closes at night, it's so incredibly quiet and peaceful. At most, there will be just 11 small groups of people spread throughout the backpacking loop so it's not going to be crowded and you can explore the park for miles in any direction. Highly recommended, and that way you can get both the crazy sunrise and sunset colors along with the blue hour. This place is all about the blue hour. Here's an older image take after the sun set.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2000 dpi Vertical Resolution 2000 dpi Image Created 2014:03:09 20:48:14 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 480
Thanks for the tips on
EKTAR
K
T
A
R
>>2807430
>you can experiment with dodging a dark item in front of the lens over the sky area for a portion of the exposure time. You could use a black cloth (or glove), but I like to use the dark slides that come out of the 4x5 film holder while I'm shooting. Whatever you use, just make sure to wiggle and move it continuously to keep it from showing up as an obvious edge in the image.
Simply genius.
>>2808406
Glad to help
>>2808426
It's a great trick, I really use it more than you'd think. Especially a lot on the wide pano camera if the sunrise is particularly bright on one side compared to another so I'll even use it for the sides of the image. And I use the corner of the darkslide often in mountain valleys.
Here's a recently edited scan. I spent three mornings at this spot but only once did the peaks really come out.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5454 Image Height 16187 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:04:04 21:48:01 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 400
>>2808444
Do you have any advice about tripods? Is it worth it to get an expensive one if I plan to own it for a long time? I feel uncomfortable with expensive gear because I would hate to lose or break it. Then again I don't want to buy something cheap and have to worry about when it's going to break.
Is it true you should get a tripod with double the load capacity of what you plan to put on it?
>>2808463
A tripod is a tool that I totally beat to hell. People often ask me what model my tripod is and I honestly couldn't tell them because all the numbering is completely gone. That said, it still works well so I can't complain. It's some Gitzo thing I bought 7 years ago now and I've been happy with it. It might be time to replace the little plastic bushings if I can even find the right kit.
I would say it's worth spending enough money to get a reasonable tripod. One that lets you move the legs around in all directions and not one of those junk ones you buy at department stores. You aren't going to be purchasing many tripods in your life so you might as well start with a good one.
I don't really know about the whole load rating thing. I've heard people say that you should get one that holds double what you plan on putting on it, but it all depends on what you're doing. If you're going to hike a lot it sucks to have a heavy one. I honestly think I could get away with a smaller tripod for backpacking even though it's got a 4x5 on it.
>>2808466
I want to get a gitzo but they are pricey. I might just buy a used one and put some ball head on it. Thanks for the advice.
>>2808475
+1 for Gitzo.
Mine is the tits.
A good tripod does more to improve the sharpness of your images than a lense upgrade ever will, and can be used with every camera system there is.
Also it's pretty easy to see where the money goes as soon as you use it back to back with an inferior make, like a Manfrotto.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:09:24 23:03:51 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 539 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2808475
Tripods are essentially a once-a-lifetime investment. Good ones are ridiculously overbuilt (rated to support a 3lb camera, can support a 150lb man) and you'll pass it down to your grandkids.
If you really think you need one, save your pennies and make it happen. You won't have to do it again.
>>2808158
>It depends. Like honestly it depends. The biggest chunk of time is wasted on dust removal, then it's just some curves layers and luminosity masks.
Thanks for the info brej, one day i'll be slightly good. I think over-processing is killing me right now.
remind me why you shoot film alex? seems to me like you could get equal quality photos with much less of a hassle if you shot with a d800 or some other high end digicam. it's not like you're doing wet printing or anything that can only be done with film
>>2808517
How do you know he's not wet printing? I know for sure he's offered some wet printed B&Ws before, I don't know about color or if he's doing anything different now. And I'm sure in a bigass landscape print a large format photo would still blow the fuck out of any small format digital.
Plus his workflow is obviously working well for him so why bother trying to tell other people what gear to use?
>>2808517
Movements, m8. Also a gorillion megapixels of resolution, should he need it.
>>2808517
I own a D800 and can tell you from firsthand experience that it would never match what you can achieve with 4x5.
also, as the other guy also noted, it takes some serious chutzpah to tell a photographer like Alex (who has his shit down, and is frankly on another plane of technique compared to anyone else on this board) that he should be doing things differently to please you.
>>2808517
>>2808525
>D800
I bet one aspect is sloooow shutter speeds to correct many things during the actual shot, for mf cameras this is just the normal case. Maybe also the feel of actually elaborate photographing instead of post-processing does another aspect.
I mean, what does a landscape particularly? That it is perfect.
I've already considered that a digital back must be more favorable if you shoot so much film, however, then Alex loses decisions that can be made with film, as he pointed out in the linked article.
>>2807430
Your work is truly inspiring and impressive. For someone who shoots digital and has zero knowledge of the large format world but wants to get into it, what would you suggest? Readings and whatnot. Also ebay, for instance, is overwhelmed with large format cameras and I have no idea what could be a good investment to learn and step forward.
Thing is, while >>2808525 is absolutely right that no digital camera can match 5x4 without doing some shitarse stitching (not to speak of the other qualities in colour and detail you sacrifice with digital sensors), people who use medium and large format film do so because they want absolute control over the plane/s of focus. You want to be able to tilt or shift in ways that a simple perspective control lens simply cannot.
and then there's really MAKING an image, rather than taking it. Handling it and physically changing how it appears through agitation, dev time etc is a real privilege
>>2808517
>remind me why you have sex alex? seems to me like you could get equal amount of cum out of your body with much less of a hassle if you just fapped or simply got it extracted directly out of your balls with a syringe. it's not like you're doing porn acting or anything that can only be done with sex
>>2808547
well said
>>2808554
Why don't you shoot film anon?
>>2808559
because he's happy with digital and it does what he wants it to for him and that's okay anon
>>2808563
keep buying megapixels and shooting them, I couldn't care less. just stop being so fucking obnoxiously defensive about it
>>2808565
mate I'm 4x5 anon I agree it's a waste of money to constantly upgrade your digi
but you cunts get so het up about gear rather than looking at the pictures
>>2808444
Unrelated question: what do you plan to do once sheet film has ceased production? It probably won't be for another 10+ years, but I'd imagine there will probably come a time when Kodak and Fujifilm no longer produce sheet film. Would you wait for independent companies to pick up the slack? Buy a large format digital back (assuming they exist in the proper capacity by then)? Move to medium format film? Move to a digital medium / large format system?
As much as I love large format I can't see it being around for that much of the foreseeable future
>>2808559
I actually do. medium format and 35mm along with digital. I just think for the look Alex is going for, digital makes more sense, so I'm curious why he prefers film.
>>2808565
pic related
>>2808584
>I just think for the look Alex is going for, digital makes more sense
Anon, I really think you've jumped the shark now. It was a valiant trolling attempt, but it's just getting silly at this point.
Whew, good thing I went to bed early and missed the bickering.
Why do I shoot film? It's actually a question I get a lot, from both other photographers and customers that honestly thought film didn't exist anymore. There's a lot of reasons, but mostly it just comes down to the fact that the workflow is what I have experience with and it works for me. Also wide angles don't have that awful distortion of smaller cameras, which I know can be "fixed" but it's never quite the same. I also don't like keeping up with gear so I'm very content using a crappy old beat-up camera and not desiring the latest pixelblaster9000.
And honestly I'm just too damn hard on gear. I would destroy anything with electronics or little buttons or zoom and focus rings so damn fast, I'm completely horrible at treating my gear nicely. Not kidding, I'd be buying a new body every year at the rate I trash stuff. I guess I just focus on the moment when the light is good and tend to toss shit around.
Pic related, from a hike this morning.
>>2808583
Also a very reasonable question, but one I try not to think too hard about. I would probably stockpile a small amount of film (a year or two worth) but I think I would take it as a sign to try something new. Anytime I've made a major decision with photography, there's always been two paths I could take: a reasonable one and a crazy one. Most the time I've taken the crazy path and that's how I've gotten to where I am today. So while I could certainly be reasonable and start shooting medium format digital, it would also be a perfect opportunity to be some crazy guy who lives in a delivery truck that's been converted into a camera where I smear wet emulsions onto 48x60" boards of beetle-kill pine and photograph
that way. Who knows where it will go. I will take the changes in stride.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-G900V Camera Software G900VVRU2BPB1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:04:05 06:47:14 Exposure Time 1/228 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 40 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 6.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.80 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID F16QLHF01SB
>>2808545
>and then there's really MAKING an image, rather than taking it
Uh oh guys, we've got a makefag here.
>>2808373
>national parks costs money to enter
>national parks have closing hours
>muh freedoms
alex, youre the best at what you do. dont ever stop shooting man.
>>2808517
>equal quality photos
Eh, I'm not so sure that's the case. Aside from differences like movements, being able to use much smaller apertures without diffraction problems, and other aspects of large format you just can't replicate with digital yet unless you're going to spend literally retarded amounts of money to have someone custom make you a lf digital back, the workflow to come close to lf quality would be ridiculously annoying.
Here's a an ETTR(ish) RAW snapshit from a D810:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3Sn6QNDm1INcXN4LVFqY1VndzQ
Feel free to play with it and see what levels of clarity and detail you can squeeze out of this RAW. I know it's not the greatest image in the world, but there's no clipping and no crushed blacks, so you should be able to squeeze a shitton out of it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2808857
>Also wide angles don't have that awful distortion of smaller cameras
OK, but isn't this actually a myth? Perceived distortion w/ rectilinear wide-angle lenses is due to excessive proximity to the subject, not the lens itself, isn't it?
>>2809176
It's an inherent limitation of retrofocal designs.
>>2809176
>actually a myth
Yes and no
>excessive proximity not the lens itself
Recall that you have to move to get equivalent framing, so you're not talking about an apples to apples comparison.
>>2809181
If you have a 100mm lens on 4x5 and a 24mm lens on 35mm you ought to have the same field if view, which means you'd be standing in exactly the same place.
>>2809168
holy fuck im impressed with this thing. killed the sky while bassically pushing very button in ps, it seems like it stores way too fucking much information. now i want one.
>>2809187
doooh
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:05 22:45:25 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 1001
>>2809189
You pig
>>2809190
;;)))
Generic postcard shots with okay framing but not a whole lot more. 5/10 would look at once online and never again.
>>2808857
>it would also be a perfect opportunity to be some crazy guy who lives in a delivery truck that's been converted into a camera where I smear wet emulsions onto 48x60" boards of beetle-kill pine and photograph
>that way
>tfw this will never happen
Bumping with a pano.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:05 21:17:15 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 400
>>2809753
Well that's just fine. Brings a tear to my New Mexican eye.
>>2808426
>>2808444
Tony Prower has a few tutorials on doing a similar technique he calls the "magic cloth"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxCPvKJ4mEHbhxLee8ELewEN1Kmvan5_Q
He even does a reverse GND effect using only shit shirt sleeve. I imagine that would be hard to perfect using film though, not being able to see the exposure result.
>>2809753
anywhere where I can get this fullsize for my wallpaper?
>>2810071
New Mexico.
>>2810074
TFW euro/p/fag
>>2810071
http://www.alexburkephoto.com/desktop-wallpapers/
>>2810394
sell your unused gear and acquire trip, poor ass.
Good thread.
Thanks for sharing this stuff, and, I found the blog post very useful even though I don't shoot film
>>2809753
really new fag here with a shitty camera
how do you place your camera for panoramas? Do you measure out in a line and move your tripod and keep the same level each time? It's eluding the shit outta me
>>2816060
He has a very expensive panorama camera that does it in one shot.
>>2816060
>>2816113
pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Version 2.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:03:16 19:18:59 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/13 sec F-Number f/3.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 14.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2048 Image Height 1536 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2816060
For basic panoramas, you can just rotate the camera around the tripod center axis and snap away. You will get some parallax errors, but for basic use it's good enough and software are pretty good about them these days.
If you really get into panos though, get a nodal mount for your tripod which will help compensate/remove that issue.
Or you can do it like Alex, and use a dedicated 6x17 panorama film camera.
>>2816113
>He has a very expensive panorama camera that does it in one shot.
Eh, 1500ish isn't all that bad.
>>2816506
For a film camera? Yeah, pretty expensive. You can get three D3300's for that, and take as many photos as you want to be part of your panorama, since you'll never have to buy film.
Obviously Alex prefers film, but to claim it's inexpensive for what it is is a bit strange.
>>2816514
For a panoramic medium format camera? No, it's not.
You can easily spend that much putting together a regular Hassy 500 series camera with backs, viewfinders, and a good lens.
We're not talking about 35mm where you can wallpaper your house with bodies for less than a top end digital system, we're talking a highly specialized system that there is no digital equivalent for.
>>2816528
>no digital equivalent for
Yeah this is a bummer
>>2816528
>For a panoramic medium format camera? No, it's not.
And point of fact, it's actually the cheap option for shooting 6x17.
As for your "shoot as many shots as you want then stitch" that shit doesn't work when you're in rapidly changing conditions like during a sunrise/sunset or if there's even a modicum of wind moving detailed clouds.
There's a reason Alex is making money with that camera and you're jerking off on 4chan.
>>2816534
r-rude ;_;
>>2816528
>A film camera that almost certainly won't depreciate.
Beyond the basic stupidity of the comparison you're introducint, depreciation is something worht considering. That's one of the beautiful things about film cameras. Most of their prices are very stable. You can buy, shoot, and flip film cameras and never really take a hit financially beyond your initial investment.
I bought a Mamiya 6, shot with it for 4 years, and sold it for a profit. I also bought a DSLR, shot with it for 4 years, and sold it for 25% of it's original purchase price.
>>2816985
Holy crap typing on my phone sucks.
I also bought my Bronica SQ-A almost 10 years ago and have sunk ~$800 total into the kit. It would cost me about the same in today's dollars so your only loss is due to inflation inflation (about $150).
ttt
Some tips for scanning 35mm film? Software and a scanner to invest in?
>>2820875
DSLR and quality macro lens or Plustek 8100
How was your transition from digital to 135 to large format Alex?
I read this on one of the posts from your website but would like to know more.
How was your experience with 135 format?
Idk if it makes you happy or proud, but I just wanted to say that every time someone asks me for "a photographer you like a lot", I always come up with your name, you're my favourite landscape photographer. I love your stuff.
NO HOMO BRO
- an Italian fan
>>2816060
It looks like everyone chimed in for me on that question. I really enjoy getting panoramas in one frame, stitching just doesn't seem like it would be much fun to me and I don't how you'd compose as well as having an actual viewfinder.
>>2820875
I don't really have an gear recommendations. I use an epson v700 but that's really not great for 35mm. The next guy made a good recommendation to be honest. Here's some tips for you though: http://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/06/02/scanning-and-editing-color-negative-film
>>2823132
I just found that 35mm was so soft and wasn't going to give me the results I wanted for landscapes. But I absolutely loved the look of slide film and didn't mind the film workflow. After finally having about a grand in spare cash about 9 years ago I had a choice in front of me: get a used 5d and go digital, or make the less reasonable choice and go 4x5. The rest is history.
>>2823138
Glad to hear it! Makes me smile anon.
Here's an image I totally forgot about until I found the scan a few days ago.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 11100 Image Height 8836 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:04:13 06:42:02 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 817
>>2823347
Is this Velvia or something? The saturation in those foreground trees is mental.
>>2823507
Ektar
>>2823507
Yep it's Ektar, >>2823507 knows the truth. Those trees have insane color against the rest of the scene.
Since the thread got bumped, here's another one. I'm working on a new black and white darkroom printing process that is proving to be a big challenge but I think it should be very exciting when I'm done. Hopefully I'll be able to share it before my art show season starts up.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 11252 Image Height 9026 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:04:19 21:44:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 820
