Gear and Gadgets: Questions on choice of the tool for the job and the lke! Schlepp Factor.

Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic MCC 111VC Fb, image area 16.2cm X 21.5cm, from a Tmax 100 negative exposed in a Mamiya RB67 camera with a 127mm lens and a #25 red filter plus a polarising filter. Exposure was 1 second at f32.

It seems that the camera gear that you schlepp both prompts and limits the photographs you make. To put it orotundly: As ye schlepp so shall ye see.

While I was resting near the Wombat Pool in Tasmania I watched several travellers carrying point 'n shoot cameras step in or over the rivulet. They either "pointed and shot" or just hurried on further uphill. I was the only one with a tripod and made an exposure the results of which you see. My first ten years in photography were tripod-free exclusively hand-held camera work. The delightful swirl of the rivulet would have been beyond me both technically - no tripod, and mentally - no concept. Schlepp factor indeed!

Maris,

I like the motif. the picture is very well made - the only suggestion I could make would be to crop the top inch or so ...

cheers

Mark Hampton said:

Maris,

I like the motif. the picture is very well made - the only suggestion I could make would be to crop the top inch or so ...

cheers

Click to expand...

Mark, a very apposite comment indeed.

I'm stuck with the top inch because the water flows down from the top left, across the swirl, and out the bottom right edge. That's the easy excuse. The real excuse is more confessional.

Because the camera was on a tripod I had several minutes to look through the big viewfinder and think and re-think about the arrangement of forms within it. If the framing was wrong I could have changed it. In the end I "mortgaged my soul" for the framing you see including the top inch. But that doesn't mean I am right.

Consider an opposite case. If I shot a version of this on auto-everything digital; no thought, no work, no expense, and no consequences, there would be no practical value in a critique. Nothing would change. But because you suggest an improvement in my very deliberately cast photograph you, in effect, suggest an improvement in me as a photographer. This I want very much and I thank you for it.

Hi, Maris,

Yes, I would hate to see the top inch lost.


Best regards,

Doug

Maris Rusis said:

Because the camera was on a tripod I had several minutes to look through the big viewfinder and think and re-think about the arrangement of forms within it. If the framing was wrong I could have changed it. In the end I "mortgaged my soul" for the framing you see including the top inch. But that doesn't mean I am right.

Click to expand...

With so few films in a pack, (mine have 10) one has few shots to waste in LF. It's true that with digital one can do more at no extra expense. however, a photographer cannot expect to get great pictures with any film or silicon without careful planning and composition, except in the case of candid street photography or the wedding photographer who have a system of fast grabbing a lot of the time and have, no doubt, new pathways for this in the brain.

My best work with digital is planned, sometimes for months ahead. Every nuance over every inch of the frame has been considered, weighted, designed or modified so the whole image works. Then I will shoot the real picture. It is not dependent on the recording, (film or digital), rather the mindset and preparation. The more one takes pains and uses one's imagination, the more the fingerprints of the photographer dominate the photograph. Otherwise it can indeed be an almost mindless snap!

Just with film, if one makes a poorly planned snap and repeats that just 10 times with 8x10 film that's $100 in film, (color film price) lost. Also the subsequent processing is just money and chemicals down the sink for no benefit! So unless the LF photographer is really quite oddly foolish, the chances are that the composition will be made with care or else interest in LF work would stop with the first mindless waste of film. So, I agree, digital does accommodate more waste, chance taking, options and alternates. Still, in the end, either one has designed well or not. Slow methodology can help refine design but also, equally, rapid choices and multiple shots allows fast iterative and fluid improvements.

Maris Rusis said:

But because you suggest an improvement in my very deliberately cast photograph you, in effect, suggest an improvement in me as a photographer. This I want very much and I thank you for it.

Click to expand...

I always believe folk here who present work they are proud of are generally careful. With you I'm certain of it!

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Maris,

Yes, I would hate to see the top inch lost.

Maris Rusis: Rivulet, Wombat Pool, Tasmania
Marked for potential edit by Douglas A. Kerr​

Click to expand...

Doug,

How do you get such a heavy one inch out of a 4x5 size print?

Maris,

I think what's meant is less than half of the area Doug indicates! Now I know for sure that you planned this entire frame. Still, I'd suggest that for this picture, which started from 6x7, to an alternate format which sacrifices a tad of the top dark rocks, that would still cover the swirling pool more effectively, providing a more energized composition, where the the water draws us in.

So while your framing must be considered "right", since it matches your vision, it also collects many other unexpressed incidental thoughts you must have had, but that, for them, there was no time to act on right then and there. That's why Ansel Adams, for one, returned to long-put-away-prints and found treasures he'd overlooked.

In brief, no matter how good we are at composition, no matter how careful we plan, some images do not fit a standard film frame! So we should, albeit reluctantly, allow for cropping to be part of our regular set of choices.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

With so few films in a pack, (mine have 10) one has few shots to waste in LF. It's true that with digital one can do more at no extra expense. however, a photographer cannot expect to get great pictures with any film or silicon without careful planning and composition, except in the case of candid street photography or the wedding photographer who have a system of fast grabbing a lot of the time and have, no doubt, new pathways for this in the brain.

Click to expand...

That's such an interesting way of thinking about it. I primarily learned photography at a newspaper. The candid, fast moving subjects seem more normal than the thought out process. About 12 years ago I got into LF. The slower, more studied approach was very enjoyable. Unfortunately I lost the darkroom before I gained any real skill processing the negatives.

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Doug,

How do you get such a heavy one inch out of a 4x5 size print?

Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't have a print here - sorry. I only have a 1024 x 780 px digital image.

Its resolution indicator(s) is set to 300 px/inch.

That would be 3.45 x 2.60 inches if it was in a context in which an inch size was meaningful.

Did you mean to suggest cropping about 300 px from the top of the image?

Or maybe about 110 px (that might be an inch on your display)?

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Or maybe about 110 px (that might be an inch on your display)?

Click to expand...

More likely, LOL! That's in the ballpark, even though I have only Macs!

As far as the crop is concerned it was an outrageous notion knowing how Maris works to make pictures. Still, I admit, I did indeed harbor such thoughts and only in the light of the current discussion would I venture to try out what one might actually do differently. After all this is Maris' art and not a community project.

Maris, thanks for your forbearance!

Maris Rusis: Rivulet, Wombat Pool, Tasmania

Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic MCC 111VC Fb, image area 16.2cm X 21.5cm, from a Tmax 100 negative exposed
in a Mamiya RB67 camera with a 127mm lens and a #25 red filter plus a polarising filter. Exposure was 1 second at f32.

Original​

Dear Maris,

Having made an honest effort, really don't think I've added anything of value. I tried to make the lines n the water clearer, but not lose the giant blobs of white. This does not satisfy me. Yes, starting again, might do better. I don't "un-crop", just take forward steps. If it doesn't work, then I'd restart. There's a gestalt of the film that seems to get's lost in too much Photoshop and for this, if I wanted to do more, I'd take that adventure into the real darkroom! Really I'd have to take my own B&W picture n the first place so understand what I'm aiming for. Someone else, might do a simple crop and have a far better image. So far, I have not done that!

So there we are, I lost 39 minutes and thought more about my film. My 8x10 B&W is Tropical Professional Efke PL 25 M. That and Portra 400 NC for color in perfect light. So if I'm stimulated to shoot my LF film, at least I have done something positive!

Asher

Maris Rusis said:

Mark, a very apposite comment indeed.

I'm stuck with the top inch because the water flows down from the top left, across the swirl, and out the bottom right edge. That's the easy excuse. The real excuse is more confessional.

Because the camera was on a tripod I had several minutes to look through the big viewfinder and think and re-think about the arrangement of forms within it. If the framing was wrong I could have changed it. In the end I "mortgaged my soul" for the framing you see including the top inch. But that doesn't mean I am right.

Consider an opposite case. If I shot a version of this on auto-everything digital; no thought, no work, no expense, and no consequences, there would be no practical value in a critique. Nothing would change. But because you suggest an improvement in my very deliberately cast photograph you, in effect, suggest an improvement in me as a photographer. This I want very much and I thank you for it.

Click to expand...

Maris,
thanks for the reply, I guess I was using your expression - As ye schlepp so shall ye see. scrolled the image down and hey presto cropped.

- i do think image of this in relation to the wave image you posted some time ago - is there a connection?

cheers

Mark Hampton said:

Maris,
thanks for the reply, I guess I was using your expression - As ye schlepp so shall ye see. scrolled the image down and hey presto cropped.

- i do think image of this in relation to the wave image you posted some time ago - is there a connection?

cheers

Click to expand...

The connection between Wombat Pool photograph and the Wave Break photograph is that they are instances of a static camera gazing at moving subject matter. Almost all camera work done in the modern world is the opposite; a hand-held camera pointed at static things.

With vibration reduction technology or a fast enough shutter speed hand held pictures can be sharp but that's not the challenge. The hard part is trapping the viewfinder image still enough, long enough, to look intensely at all parts of it. How are the edges, what's in the corners, do the forms balance, will the moving subject cast an elegant blur or an ugly one, what will come into focus when I stop down, and so on. Holding a Mamiya RB67 up to my face dead still for even thirty seconds means my arms ache and my brow sweats. In a moment of weakness I might fire the shutter just to get the ordeal over. A camera on a tripod is a truly comfortable experience in comparison.

And yes, obsessing over a viewfinder image for several minutes is sometimes enough to fall in love with it; even if it's wrong.

Maris, I've been watching this thread for a bit and as such have viewed the image several times now. I like it full frame.
I'm also a big fan of movement of water juxtaposed with stillness of rock and I have to admit with a few of your posts I've looked at the image and thought " ****! I've got a really similar one" and have been tempted to post it but have resisted for fear of feeling like I'd posting one-upmanship style which I won't do (and you'd have clearly won the one-upmanship battle anyway).

One of the things I love about water (specifically foam) movement is the latent surprises in the shapes of the water (foam). I have images in which I see faces or penguins or ghosts or koori spirits and thankfully a few of my family indulge me and claim to see the same shapes.

In the centre of your swirl I love the central spot at the apex and I do love the shaggy dog face, top right (about 1:00 O'clock) and I certainly don't mean this in a flippant way.