I like it, always have...

[Tim Tucker]

From the back catalogue taken about 10-12 years ago, just re-scanned.

I've always liked this shot, but am not sure anyone else will as it lacks the punch of "modern digital processing". It was shot into the light on a bright but overcast late afternoon with the Marion & Co Half Plate with the 1910 uncoated Tessar. I loved the almost low key light and the low contrast, the deep soft shadows and the hint of depth in the higher acutance of the reflections.
I have revisited this scene with a Sinar and a more modern lens in higher contrast conditions. But the shot did nothing for me, unlike this one.
It's Lake Vyrnwy in mid Wales. I saw the scene and immediately set up the camera, (half an hour later...), carefully positioned under a tree to shade the lens I still had to deal with the excessive flare from the uncoated lens on an already low contrast scene. Consequently the negative is thinner than I would've liked, but still prints well. The problem with the scans is the contrast boost tends to exaggerate the grain, no matter what resolution you scan at the grain is the same size when viewed at 100%. In the end I had to scan at 6400dpi, de-speckle, apply a mild noise reduction, remove dust spots and scratches (yep, I'm no angel in the darkroom), then resize to 2400dpi to edit.
To me it's peace, tranquility and calm against the almost unchanging cycle of erosion and evolution that will be around a lot longer than the Victorian pumping tower.

But what do y'all think? (It looks a bit darker reduced in size, best viewed full).

 

[limr]

Love it. The shot and the camera. I'm slowly working my way up to...that's an 8x10, no? Yeah, that'll take me a while - more about lack of funds and time than lack of courage At the moment, I'm satisfying my LF urge with 2x3 and some 4x5 pinhole.

But back to the picture - it's really beautiful, all those fantastic tones and depth.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Love it. The shot and the camera. I'm slowly working my way up to...that's an 8x10, no? Yeah, that'll take me a while - more about lack of funds and time than lack of courage At the moment, I'm satisfying my LF urge with 2x3 and some 4x5 pinhole.

But back to the picture - it's really beautiful, all those fantastic tones and depth.

It's a half plate which is 4 3/4" x 6 1/2", a chance buy from a friend who was getting rid of some stuff. I still have some film for it which is good as these odd sizes are becoming rarer and more expensive. I plan to switch back to 4 x 5 when the film runs out.
I would only suggest 8 x 10 if you were going to contact print, 4 x 5 is more than adequate for anything else, especially portability and price.

 

[smithdan]

You and that camera caught the mood of that scene.
Camera is in great shape for its age.

Room in my collection for a LF, but sadly, not in my wallet.

 

[weepete]

Koodos for shooting with that beast but for me it's a pretty average image. I do love the rise from the fish you caught on the lhs but IMO the other shots I've seen of yours have had much stronger compositions.

 

[Rick58]

Many young pups don't enjoy the beauty of these vintage lenses which are like an exhale of the hair splitting sharpness and ultra high contrast, of modern lenses. Nicely done.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Many young pups don't enjoy the beauty of these vintage lenses which are like an exhale of the hair splitting sharpness and ultra high contrast, of modern lenses. Nicely done.

Thank you. I agree, but it has to be noted that the amount of flare that these old uncoated lenses produce takes some management. This restricts their use, but they are also capable of rendering great sharpness, contrast and a feel that I cannot duplicate with modern lenses.
The "pre-exposure" effect of the Tessar on film is exquisite and difficult to describe. It was the lens used in the post "Pistyll Rhaeadr (waterfall) Berwyn Mountains North Wales" further down in this sub-forum, and the shadows in the lower left were considerably deepened (not lifted as normal with digital) to give some depth and black to the image as the negative holds a lot more detail. But compared to modern lenses there are many shots where I would hold up my hands and throw in the towel!
That said I still agree with the sentiment. In fact I have moved away from modern lenses as I feel that the never ending chase for apparent sharpness has produced mainstream digital lenses (or possibly just coatings) that are just too harsh for my tastes in landscape.
BTW, the shot of the camera was taken with a 1966 single coated Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 compensating aperture lens on a D600.

Thanks weepete, you comments are appreciated (the rise was pure luck).