I’ve photographed the straddle wharf at Victoria Quays on many occasions, but this is the first on 4×5 large format.
I still need to learn more patience with the format as, although this is a picture I’m happy with, there’s still a little softness in the upper part of the image where the front-standard must have had a slight bit of tilt in play. It only affects the roofs of the buildings and the upper branches of the tree, and everything through the middle of the scene is sharp from edge to edge. It would have been preferable had the tilt been reversed and the softeness had affected the water, where it would have had little noticeable effect. The soft focus is only really noticeable at magnification and I doubt you can see it in the smaller res version published here.
I didn’t rush this picture (I have one that I did to show in the next day or so though, so don’t worry, you’re not missing out!), but I also didn’t spend enough time fine tuning the focus. I think I might consider buying a more powerful loupe – the 4x magnification model I have is very good, but perhaps a 6x would better ensure I don’t miss the detail?
As promised yesterday, here are the two large format photographs of Mother Cap, a gristone outcrop on the moorland above Hathersage. Looking at them closely, both have focusing issues, and I’ll leave the yellow filter off the lens until after the shot is composed and focused in future as it did make it more difficult to view the scene, but they both look fine if you don’t investigate them too closely.
I had a day off work yesterday and decided that I would take my Chamonix 045N-1 for a second outing. After my initial test a couple of weeks or so back, I felt confident enough to take a slightly longer trip out into the Peak District. By some miracle, the weather was actually good too – warm, with plenty of sunshine and cloud. There was a risk of rain predicted but not until later in the day.
My initial plan had been to visit a few locations but, in the end, I only went to a single spot as I soon discovered that, despite everything else, there was still sand in the gears (not literally!).
I drove out to Surprise View car park in order to photograph Mother Cap, a large gritstone outcrop, and then to photograph the birch woodland in the same area. Although Mother Cap isnt too far from the car park, it is quite a bit higher and the footpath requires some scrambling over rocks – nothing too challenging, but still enough to work up a sweat when you’re carrying a big tripod and a heavy backpack.
The first two shots went well, I thought, although I found focusing a little difficult because I had fitted a yellow filter to the lens (note to self, focus before fitting the filter enxt time). As it turned out, I managed to get some camera shake on the first shot, probably because the tripod was stood on springy heather covered ground and wasn’t stable enough.
The next shot was taken on firmer ground but the issues with the filter meant that there are a few minor focusing problems where I hadn’t set the camera movements as well as I might. It was at this point that my cable release also broke, the threading on the end somehow coming undone slightly, so the next shot had to be taken using the shutter release on the lens without the benefit of the cable. It was at 1/60sec though, so it came out ok. I’ll post these two pictures tomorrow.
The final shot I took was of the birch woodland. This time the camera was placed in a stable spot, and I managed to finagle the cable release enough that it functioned properly again (although I’ll be using a different one in future AND taking a spare). Despite this, a new problem came to bear…
Because it was a warm day with hot sunshine, and because I was quite hot from hiking around with my gear, I now found that beiing under the darkcloth for more than about ten seconds resulted in my spectacles completely steaming up, rendering any attempt to focus of check the scene nigh on impossible (and made even more difficult by the yellow filter).
I did my best with it, but it wasn’t good enough, and the resultant image has a number of problems with soft focus in various parts of te scene. Thankfully it’s not terrible, but it’s not what I wanted. I do like the resulting picture though and it might be worth another visit to try and get a technically better result.
Here it is. It probably looks fine on a small screen, but it loses a lot of sharpness when viewed large.
Another of the four sheets of film I shot with the Chamonix at the weekend. It’s a location that I’ve featured on the blog a number of times, and seemed a reasonable place to fire off a sheet while testing out the camera.
I’d love to get closer to the old building, but it sits in the middle of crops and the footpath just skirts the edge of the field. I could risk it, I suppose, but I’d not feel comfortable trying to explain that in any way that wouldn’t look self-serving in the event I got found out. I’m h ppy the footpath is there though.
As soon as I pulled this picture’s negative from the developing tank, I knew there was a vignette. It was pretty obvious to see. I’ve cropped in a little and also used some Lightroom wizardy (well, half-assed messing about with sliders) to remove the worst of it, but it’s still plainly apparent in the top corners of the image.
The reason for the vignette is that I used quite a lot of front rise when composing the shot to get the church framed in the centre of the image vertically. My vantage point was from the bottom of the churchyard, which is down a slope, so the front rise allowed me to prevent converging verticals.
Lenses used in 4×5 photogrphy need to have an image circle of 153mm in order to cover the whole sheet of film. As soon as you start to use camera movements, this image circle needs to be larger to accomodate them. My 135mm lens has an image circle of 206mm, which is more than sufficient to cover the film and use a range of movements, but only within certain limits. So, once I use more than around 35mm of front rise (when the front standard where the lens is mounted is raised), the edges of the image circle begin to impinge on the film, leaving an unexposed vignette.
This vignette can be seen on the ground glass, or by other methods, when composing the shot. That is, if you’re paying proper attention. Which I wasn’t.
Another lesson learnt, but the picture isn’t too badly affected, luckily.
If you’ve followed this blog during the past six months, you’ll probably know that I took my first steps into the world of large format photography this year. Just before Christmas I bought a used Chroma 4×5 camera along with a lens and a bunch of film and other accessories. While I’ve had successes with the Chroma, I’ve also had issues in the form of light leaks.
I should note that I don’t believe that this reflects on teh quality of the Chroma camera itself, not the company that produced it – the owner was very kind and helpful when I spoke with him, despite my camera being second-hand and not having been bought direct from him. Rather I think that my own camer has been damaged in some way at some point.
It’s now boxed up unitil such a time that I can try to pin down and rectify the source of the light leak. I’ve made a number of attempts to do so, but without success, and the cost of wasted film, developer, and – perhaps most importantly to me – time, has become too much for the time being.
I’ve not stopped wanting to shoot large format though, so had made enquiries to borrow a camera from someone I know. While that was taking place, I spotted a used Chamonix 045N-1 camera for sale at a specialist retailer, and was tempted. While it was more than I had been considering spending, it was a good price. Plus I should get my bonus this month. And so, worried that someone else would get the jump on me, I took the plunge and bought my second 4×5 camera.
The 045N-1 is, I believe, the entry-level 4×5 camera in Chamonix’s range. It has been superceded by the N-2 camera, but still remains very capable. It’s easy to set up, and while it lacks a couple of features that my Chroma has, it’s a much more solid camera and as a result easier to use. Some things that I found a little fiddy with the Chroma, are notably improved here – as you would expect given the higher cost. The camera feels completely solid, while there was always a bit of wiggle with my Chroma and, given how much difference a tiny amount of movement can make in terms of fine focus, this adds a great deal of confidence that what I see is what I will get when taking pictures. Inserting film holders is also much better with the Chamonix – they slide into the camera back with a buttery smoothness which, again, gives me confidence that I’m not knocking my composition out of whack.
I took the camera out for some test shots yesterday. Not too far from home as I was still slightly paranoid that the light leaks I’d had with the Chroma might not be the camera’s fault and instead produced by one of my film holders or something, so I drove out to photograph a few places I’ve visited before. The camera was pleasant to use, although I’m sure I’ll get more adept at setting it all up as I use it more – I was still a bit fingers-and-thumbs on this outing.
I developed the four sheets I took this morning and it was a great relief to see that, despite using the camera in very bright, direct sunlight, there were no signs of any light leaks when I pulled the negatives from the developing tank.
Here are a couple of the resulting images. Perhaps not prize winners, but I’m happy with them.
This is the last of the four large-format air museum pictures that I was able to salvage. The other four are just too much of a PITA for me to try and remedy the light leaks, This is the only HP5+image that I think passes muster – and it’s the one where the light leak is probably most obvious, despite my attempts to hide it. I still think I somehow managed a pretty good rescue attempt though.
The aircraft in the picture is an Avro Shackleton, a post-WWII aircraft developed for anti-submarine warfare and maritime patrol duties. 185 aircraft were produced.
Another of my rescued 4×5 sheets. Of the eight I shot I’ve managed to recover four to an extent that I’m happy with, or at least happy enought to publish. I only managed to fix one of the HP5+ sheets – the others being beyond the limits of my Photoshop skills or, perhaps more likely, my patience.
The picture today, of a Westland Wessex helicopter is one of the least affected images, but not perfect. This one was affected by the loose tripod as much as by the light-leak. The original image on the ground glass included all of the tarpaulin-covered object that is now partly cut off at the bottom left side of the frame whereas the negative included a lot of additional scenery on the right side which I’ve cropped out. It still works as a picture though.
This version of the Wessex is the HC2 which was designed as a troop transport, able to carry 16 troops.
The Avro Ashton fuselage featured in yesterday’s post can be seen in the background.
Another rescued large format photo. A number of the images were less badly affected by the light leaks than others, this one included, and it’s difficult to see it at all now (although, again, there has been some cropping involved).
The aircraft in the picture is an Avro Ashton Mk 2 jet airliner (or the fuselage of one, at least). The Ashton was developed in the 1950s as an experimental aircraft using the airframes from Avro 689 Tudor II piston-driven airliners and was never intended to go into commercial service. Only six were built. The fuselage here is from the second of the six aircraft.
The photograph presented here today, of a post-war DeHaviland Dove passenger aircraft, is one of the 4×5 frames I shot at Newark Air Museum last Friday.
The eagle-eyed amongst you might have noted that this is not a 4×5 aspect ratio picture. This is because it was affected by the light-leak and the loose tripod column I moaned about the other day. The light leak has been largely recovered using graduated masks in Lightroom. It’s still there, but you’ll prbably only spot it if you look very closely (or know where it is). The composition has been, well, not rcovered, so much as salvaged by way of a significant crop. The full frame has the aircraft nose off-centre by a significant margin and one of the propellers fully in-shot. In the end I decided that this panoramic format was the best option.
It isn’t the picture I envisioned, but it’s better than no picture at all.
Steel City Snapper photography 