Recent Professional Works

[Craig Lamson]

Do you have the final picture of this space to show us?

Yes, using lighting as show in the tutorial, and one with lighting built totally around window light. (different model years)

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Yes, using lighting as show in the tutorial, and one with lighting built totally around window light. (different model years)

The one on left was made using the 4 in 1 technique? Impressive, I am not just talking about the lighting I actually like that picture as is and here is the funny thing it looks more natural than the window lit one. Though the outside view looks too pretty to come across as believable on the second picture.

[Craig Lamson]

The one on left was made using the 4 in 1 technique? Impressive, I am not just talking about the lighting I actually like that picture as is and here is the funny thing it looks more natural than the window lit one. Though the outside view looks too pretty to come across as believable on the second picture.

Yes, the left is the 4 into 1 technique.  I took the background plate for the windows at a National Forest Service campground in Colorado.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

I took the background plate for the windows at a National Forest Service campground in Colorado.

Excuse me for not being clear enough. I meant by "too pretty" colors and saturation looking too pretty for a window view especially in comparison to the strong contrast created by the window light. That is all. The scene it self looks real and a good match for the purpose of the advertisement/product.

[Craig Lamson]

When doing room-sets we would use a large print or even a number of prints, for outside the windows.
Doesn't need to be printed on high quality paper - cheap paper will do.
Doesn't even need to be that sharp neither, as a slightly out-of-focus look is what you're after anyway.

Just hang it up a few feet from the window and Bingo.
Can look pretty real too, especially if you get the right view and light it correctly.

Means you will get the reflection in the glass - which will help add to the realism - and mostly importantly, it will save you having to spend (more) hours in front of the computer later on.

I used to do the same with scenic wallpaper hung on large pvc tubes.  It was a PITA, but worked fine when shooting film and retouching was really costly (think the original sitek..I know I screwed the spelling...I've been shooting these products since the late 80's), or when the client simply did not want to retouch.  Anyways it added many lights to the sets and the scenics were really limited.  

Example of wallpaper windows...most shot film and 4x5...from the wayback machine

[BobDavid]

Here's one I took of a friend that owns a tire store and teaches art classes there at night.

[fredjeang]

An image from a new series that I'm currently working on.

Hasselblad H Series with HCD 4/28 lens.

Great picture Keith.
I like the composition, the colors mastered, the light.
As the rest of your works that I always enjoy, specially how you deal with nature.
I definitely see a painter behind the viewfinder.

[JoeKitchen]

An image from a new series that I'm currently working on.

Hasselblad H Series with HCD 4/28 lens.

Very nice use of such a wide lens.  I like it.

[Rob C]

Nice work, Keith, and welcome home!

Is that Van Gogh's old chair you've been carting around as a prop?

Rob C

[Rob C]

[quote name='KLaban' date='Jun 16 2010, 09:02 PM' post='371477']


"Really, you take your life in your hands when you venture into these ruins."

I have a cousin who, in his youth, was a sailor on the Ark Royal; that's exactly the sort of comment he use to make when telling me about his exploits with the ladies out in Honky Fin... crabs, yes, but I don't think the scorpions ever got him.

Rob C

[bigalbest]

[fredjeang]

Very interesting, really.
I'm also abashed by the sharpness distribution on the bed's pic.
There is a "secret sauce" I would like to know.

Gelatine ointment?

[bigalbest]

Hi bigalbest,

may I ask: format, camera, lens, f-stop, scanner?

I'm irritated by the sharpness distribution in the picture (bed - child - butterfly). I also see some newton-rings.

Good to see some LF-work here. I'm currently working on an 8x10 portrait series too.

Best,
Johannes

8x10 Kodak master w/ 14 inch 6.3 at f6.3, scanned with Epson V750. I am new to film and this was only my second time taking large format pictures so the plane of focus is slightly off what I was going for but don't really mind the effect myself. Still working on my scanning skills but for printing I'll probably have these drum scanned.

[SecondFocus]

Excellent!!

[fredjeang]

8x10 Kodak master w/ 14 inch 6.3 at f6.3, scanned with Epson V750. I am new to film and this was only my second time taking large format pictures so the plane of focus is slightly off what I was going for but don't really mind the effect myself. Still working on my scanning skills but for printing I'll probably have these drum scanned.

What caught my attention in the bed's pic, is that I expected the upper left corner where is located the butterfly's frames to be as defocused as the other corners.
That creates a sort of surreal or "multiples" d.o.f that is interesting. As you are new with LF film, maybe it was not intentional, but that may also confirms the rule of the "blessing of the beginner" (although I know you are not a beginner at all but with this particular medium). Then, the experienced is spending a lot of time later in reproducing these "accidents"  

Anyway, it is a great pic. The LF film is really a class in itself and I really like the colors rendering (in C1 I have an "home-made-setting-style" to get close to these tones. But the most impressive to me is the very narrow D.O.F.
There is a guy who works a lot with narrow D.O.F imagery that I like the works, Mark Tucker: http://www.marktucker.com/2/Artist.asp?Art...p;Akey=MPEGN7AE

Edit: If a LF guru is reading this post, I would like he/she to comment about that differences in defocus on the corners in the bed's picture. Is it common?

[Dick Roadnight]

What caught my attention in the bed's pic, is that I expected the upper left corner where is located the butterfly's frames to be as defocused as the other corners.
That creates a sort of surreal or "multiples" d.o.f that is interesting.

Edit: If a LF guru is reading this post, I would like he/she to comment about that differences in defocus on the corners in the bed's picture. Is it common?

I would not claim to be an LF Guru, but the sharpness of the butterfly picture indicate to me that something is out of line...

You could use movements to produce this effect deliberately,
or one of the standards is out of line,
or the lens is mounted crocked,
or one or more of the lenses is out of position relative to the rest of the lens.

...you could spend some time looking through a magnifier to establish where the plane of sharpest focus is.

Edit... Johannes came to the same conclusion, and our post have exactly the same time!

[fredjeang]

-> Perhaps the lens plane and the film plane are not parallel (tilt). What are the distances (camera-bed, camera-girl, camera-butterfly)

-> Perhaps the plane of the ground glass is not the plane where the film is in the holder.

-> The Epson V750 can produce wonderful LF scans. I work like this: software is silverfast, 3 mm glas on the scanner (Schott mirogard, 3 mm) to meet the plane of focus, emulsion side on the glas, another glas to flatten the negative. This is a lot of surfaces for dust.

-> Working with the maximum apperture is tempting to get shallow depth of field, but sometimes closing the apperture 1 or 2 (perhaps 3) f-stops gives sometimes the better image.

How far where you away from the girl?

Good luck,
Johannes

And for a very affordable price.
Mmmm..........................tempting, tempting.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What caught my attention in the bed's pic, is that I expected the upper left corner where is located the butterfly's frames to be as defocused as the other corners.
That creates a sort of surreal or "multiples" d.o.f that is interesting. As you are new with LF film, maybe it was not intentional, but that may also confirms the rule of the "blessing of the beginner" (although I know you are not a beginner at all but with this particular medium). Then, the experienced is spending a lot of time later in reproducing these "accidents"  

Anyway, it is a great pic. The LF film is really a class in itself and I really like the colors rendering (in C1 I have an "home-made-setting-style" to get close to these tones. But the most impressive to me is the very narrow D.O.F.
There is a guy who works a lot with narrow D.O.F imagery that I like the works, Mark Tucker: http://www.marktucker.com/2/Artist.asp?Art...p;Akey=MPEGN7AE

Edit: If a LF guru is reading this post, I would like he/she to comment about that differences in defocus on the corners in the bed's picture. Is it common?

The plane of focus is indeed a plane (except for slight discrepancies from individual lens characteristics), but in a view camera it is easy to tilt and/or swing it in a variety of diections. 

To me it looks as if the lens was tilted slightly forward so that the near corner of the bed, the girl's face, and the butterfly are all in the plane of focus. Using a smaller aperture would increase sharpness perpendicularly to the plane of focus (i.e., parts of the scene beyond the girl's face but somewhat below and parts closer to the camera but slightly higher would come into sharper focus.


I always found I needed a magnifier on the ground glass (at least 4x magnification) in order to judge sharpness and depth of field on an 8x10.

Eric

[bigalbest]

The plane of focus is indeed a plane (except for slight discrepancies from individual lens characteristics), but in a view camera it is easy to tilt and/or swing it in a variety of diections. 

To me it looks as if the lens was tilted slightly forward so that the near corner of the bed, the girl's face, and the butterfly are all in the plane of focus. Using a smaller aperture would increase sharpness perpendicularly to the plane of focus (i.e., parts of the scene beyond the girl's face but somewhat below and parts closer to the camera but slightly higher would come into sharper focus.


I always found I needed a magnifier on the ground glass (at least 4x magnification) in order to judge sharpness and depth of field on an 8x10.

Eric

You are correct, I did use a forward tilt on the lens. Also I used a 6x loupe but assumed the upper left corner was out of focus without checking.

[Rob C]

You are correct, I did use a forward tilt on the lens. Also I used a 6x loupe but assumed the upper left corner was out of focus without checking.

Well, that's a refreshing technique: normally folks on LF check everything a zillion times and then once more just to make sure!

;-)

Rob C