Washington, ConnecticutJust click on the picture for a larger version. I'm not sure how well that will show the sense of detail and texture of this large format negative after passing through the intertubes, but thought I'd give it a try. As an aside, for a picture like this I will probably prefer a contact print (7x17 inches) in platinum/palladium, or maybe a modest amount of enlargement for a pigment ink print, rather than pushing the print size to the max.
3 comments:
Hmm, hmmm ... yes, the internet does no good to this format :-). Nevertheless one can try to imagine how gorgeous this must be as a print. I try!
That reminds me of how much I miss winter (late fall?) woods in the mid-Atlantic states. This is lovely at 1400 pixels wide; zooming to my 1900 pixels degrades it. For the cinema screen folks, would you consider putting a 2300 pixels wide version behind the 1400, so that clicking on the 1400 gets you the 2300? That would be awesome.
A technical question -- what is your lens focal length? The perspective looks a little more relaxed than with a 45mm lens on an Xpan, but I can't be sure. And do you have to do anything special to get so little light falloff in the corners?`
scott
Hi Scott, glad you're enjoying these, and you are right about late fall for that one. Blogger is quick and easy to use, but not very adaptable on display options. I'll look into whether a deeper stack is possible.
The focal length (for most of my 717s) is 305mm. Clearly that's wide for the 16" long dimension, but actually longer than normal for the vertical dimension. For some reason this, combined with the skinny shape, feels reasonably comfortable in my universal preference for modest-to-moderately-wide lenses.
There is some fall-off, especially if I try to work with a wider aperture than f/64, but it seldom shows in the smooth tonality of a platinum print. For scanned versions if there's something like a broad expanse of smooth sky I may need to use the PS Lens Correction filter to even things out.
Post a Comment