This is a church I’ve photographed on a few occasions. While Cuckney hasn’t been a particular destination, it’s a place that I drive through occasionally and the church stands out. It’s a Grade I listed building dating to the 12th Century, although it has been restored a number of times since then. I think it has a pleasingly angular shape. It is also largely unobscured by anything blocking it’s view – many churches tending to be stood amongst trees that can make photographing the entire structure more difficult.
I drove past this place on my way home aftert a day out and turned the car around to stop and get a picture. It would have been good to get closer, but there was a sign warning about trespassing which I didn’t feel like disobeying.
After yesterday’s post where I spoke about missing the focus slightly on a 4×5 large format photo, despite not rushing, here is a picture where I did exxactly the same thing, although this time I was rushing.
When I say rushing, that’s relative. You can’t really rush a picture with a field camera in the same way you can with 35mm or medium format (or, I guess, large format press cameras to an extent). There is still a lot of setting up to do before you get to the nitty gritty of finessing the focus etc.
At the time I took this picture there was no-one in the frame and my intent was to photograph the building, with the canoes and the front of tha canal boat. However, I was concious that there was a sizeable group of young people along with an instructor who was prepping them for going in the canoes. As I was setting up the shot, I heard him say something along the lines of “Right, follow me.” and the group headed towards my field of view.
I didn’t really want a big crowd of kids in the shot, so took this picture quickly when just two people were in the frame (one obscured by the other) and, because I was rushing, I didn’t check focus properly. The centre of the frame (horizontally) is fine, but the sharpness drop steadily towards the top of the building. Again, had this been reversed so that the lower part of the frame was softer, it wouldn’t have mattered because that’s just water and distorted reflections.
To make matters worse, the group of people then proceeded to walk right through the frame, exiting to the right, meaning I could have waited and got a better shot anyway!
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?
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.
I thought I’d throw in another air museum photo before moving onto something new tomorrow.
Today it’s the back end of a DeHaviland Sea Vixen, a twin-boom carrier-based fleet defense aircraft that was introduced in the 1950s and saw service into the 1970s before being replaced by McDonnel Douglas Phantoms.
The asymetric cockpit is an interesting feature.
Today I went for a drive out to Rufford Abbey (although most of my time was spent wandering the surrounding Rufford Country Park). It was a nice day and the place was very busy, but I shot a couple of rolls of film with my Texas Leica (the Fujica GW690). The first roll was a little loosely wound when I removed it from the camera, so I’m expecting there may be some light leaks, but I took care to ensure the second roll was tightly wound on the takeup spool before closing the camera back and that came out fine. I shot half the second roll at Rufford Country Park, and the remaining frames at a couple of places I stopped off at on the way home. Pictures to come at some point (although I’ve got loads of other stuff before then!).
Steel City Snapper photography 