Monday, January 19, 2009

Rock Wall Tree

Canon EOS 40d, Canon 17-40mm f/4L
1/800s f/8 at 23mm iso200
Posted by at
Labels:

8 comments:

  1. ChristyJanuary 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM

    is this infared?

    ReplyDelete
  2. RobertJanuary 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM

    Nope not infrared. It's basically what B&W film would see if there were a heavy blue filter on the lens, except created digitally. :) Thanks for the comment. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. andreaJanuary 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM

    Whoaa that is sooo cool!

    (surfer talk courtesy of Crush from Finding Nemo, which I just watched with my brother and cousin)

    ReplyDelete
  4. SendAManToNursingSchoolJanuary 20, 2009 at 5:14 AM

    I really like your work.
    Nice tonal range.

    Do you use The Zone System?

    ReplyDelete
  5. RobertJanuary 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM

    Not sure I've heard of the Zone System, so I'd have to say no, not conciously anyway.

    **clicking to new screen to google The Zone System...

    ReplyDelete
  6. RobertJanuary 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM

    Very cool info. I'm sure it applies to digital as well as film.

    I used to take images and convert them to B&W on a whim, letting cards fall where they may. I've been working to see things in black and white before I take the image.

    I use a channel mixer approach to B&W conversions, playing with saturation and hue in each channel which essentially places color filters in front of the lense.

    In this particular image the deep blue Arizona sky contrasted sharply with the oranges and magentas of the rock. Thus I amplified the blue channel, darkening the sky and lightening the contrasting oranges. This yielded an image that feels high contrast, but still captures a wide tonal range.

    I have to say though, as advanced as my 40d is, my mind's eye has the the range of f-stops more like a large format camera... HDR techniques can approximate that, but it's a pain in the ass to compile without looking too artificial.

    I appreciate your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SendAManToNursingSchoolJanuary 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM

    Years ago I was quite proficient at photography. And then life happened.

    I've recently been looking at digital photography and what it would offer. It seems that celluloid based photography, in particular B&W, has more potential and variables than digital, still. But digital is cheaper, after the initial investment, and "easier" to manipulate.

    My camera is no where near the league of yours, just a Nikon CoolPix 600. I think it will be great rebuilding my "eye" and applying the old methods to the new technology.

    Keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
  8. RobertJanuary 20, 2009 at 9:32 PM

    Haha, I wish I were proficient, I still feel like I'm bumbling along figuring stuff out, LOL.

    I think having a strong background in film photography makes you a better digital photographer. The temptation is to rely on whizzbang technology, simply because it's very easy. A film background emphasizes fundamentals, and cuts down on "spray and pray" style shooting.

    I started with film, shot a little bit of medium format. I agree with your assessment of the strengths and limitations digital vs. film.

    And that Nikon will serve you just fine to ease your way back into things. Soon though, my guess is you'll want a body with true manual mode.

    Post up some scans of your work!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)