The Rapa delta

[Alex_B]

The delta of the Rapa river seen from Skierffe

 

[tb2]

A very nice shot Alex. I like the strong contrast and the viewpoint.

Regards, Tony

 

[Alex_B]

Thanks Tony I spent actually two days on that mountain since it was so nice up there!

 

[invisible]

I saw the colour images you took of this place and I liked them all, but the B&W version kicks their collective asses in a major way.

 

[Alex_B]

Thanks, in fact as I spent 2 days up on that mountain, I have so many image, that I am not even sure I posted the best ones on here

 

[Arch]

very nice b+w :thumbup:

 

[DRATOM]

Good conversion, nice and contrasty

 

[Alex_B]

Thanks ! appreciated

 

[Alpha]

http://www.footprintsequipment.com/images/photos/25462/2965/Durst.jpg
+
http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/newpaper.html

 

[Alex_B]

you really think it would be worth it?

Hmm, I know I should do some things from this photographic trip large scale
...

 

[pm63]

This latest stuff is without a doubt the best I have ever seen from you Alex. Amazing textures on the bottom.

 

[Alpha]

I have seem some fantastic things done with an inkjet printer. The example I always give is Nick Brandt's prints. But after talking to him a little bit it's clear he has such a painstaking attention to detail and perfection that it could hardly be rivaled by any pro lab I know of. There are others here who will disagree with me about the efficacy of inkjet prints.

That said, my personal bias towards traditional black and white papers for black and white photos is not derived from a love of organic (or in this case inorganic) chemical processes, or nostalgia, or love of craft, but from what I've seen with my eyes. If you spent some time looking at truly incredible darkroom prints and then look at the vast majority of inkjet prints, the difference is plain as day in nearly all cases. Nevermind the laser/LED printing options like a lightjet or lambda or chromira. They print on color papers. And nevermind that Ilford has a black and white paper made for them. On the scale of black and white papers most master printers will agree Ilford's papers are relatively far down on the list. As far as I'm concerned, the quality of the image, and the range of tones, is basically unparalleled in comparison to most "modern" printing techniques.

If I had a truly great image I wanted to make a truly great black and white print from, I would have a large Tri-X negative made and contact printed onto a slow, traditional paper, or have a 4x5 neg made and enlarged. I have done this once, with a black and white negative that needed intensive work in photoshop. I later had a 4x5 neg made so it could be enlarged, and I couldn't be happier with the results. Expensive? Perhaps. $50 or so to have the neg made and then the cost of printing. But I can say with near absolute certainty, according to my personal tastes, that I couldn't be more pleased with any other kind of print.

 

[Alex_B]

I actually thought of producing a black and white series in larger print formats. I just did not dare to start this since I am a bit scared of all the work involved. But I guess the the result is worth the effort. Just give me some time ...

 

[Alpha]

Well, if you go the route of having a negative made you'd have to pay a lab to do it anyway since you couldn't do it on your own unless you wanna cough up $6k for a Durst Rhino.

I try not to concern myself too much with the craft element of printing, as much as I love it. Remember that there are more than enough famous photographers who had others do their printing for them. Richard Avedon has someone else do many of his prints, Liebowitz has other people do her retouching and printing, etc etc. As much as I love working in a darkroom I don't feel any shame in having a competent lab do my prints under careful instruction. The only material difference is cost.

 

[DoshKel]

Awesome!