# Jokkmokk wooden church



## Alex_B (Jul 10, 2007)

The wooden Church in Jokkmokk, a Sami town in Lapland.


----------



## nealjpage (Jul 10, 2007)

Cool.  If only my Laplander grandmother were still alive:  she'd love this one.


----------



## Meysha (Jul 10, 2007)

Great sky. I always love those nice black skies.


----------



## Mohain (Jul 11, 2007)

OOo very nice indeed!


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 11, 2007)

If this is a conversion, it is among the best I have seen of late!
How did you do it.
Is there any trick?

I tried my hands on a conversion once again only yesterday and am not convinced of my own results, but this one is just GOOD. 

Therefore I am curious!

And I am curious to hear where you are right now?
Still up there?


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 11, 2007)

Thanks all 



LaFoto said:


> If this is a conversion, it is among the best I have seen of late!
> How did you do it.
> Is there any trick?



Thanks  Yes, there is a trick ...

Select the B&W film, select the paper, select a filter, select an exposure  .... oh, and the paper has a slight colour cast, so the final print is not really B&W, but you don't really see it.

Oh, and all this was done in my RAW converter 



> And I am curious to hear where you are right now?
> Still up there?



No, just got back


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 11, 2007)

Just checked it now. .. set it to Fomapan 100, grade Microphen 11 min 68F, then on paper: MultiContrast Premium from Agfa


----------



## Antarctican (Jul 11, 2007)

Beautifully detailed shot...nice tones.

(Welcome back.)


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 11, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> Just checked it now. .. set it to Fomapan 100, grade Microphen 11 min 68F, then on paper: MultiContrast Premium from Agfa


 
Oh. Cool. Thanks, will try that - in my next life or so - probably. (No darkroom anywhere near nor far from me).


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 11, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> Oh. Cool. Thanks, will try that - in my next life or so - probably. (No darkroom anywhere near nor far from me).



did you read my other post? those were all just the settings in my RAW converter ...


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 11, 2007)

OK, which RAW converter, I think we all want one. Any lack of detail in this regard and we'll all be on a plane to Lapland to retrieve yours OK....


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 11, 2007)

Chris of Arabia said:


> OK, which RAW converter, I think we all want one. Any lack of detail in this regard and we'll all be on a plane to Lapland to retrieve yours OK....



LOL, this is no secret, I mainly use Bibble Pro, latest version.


----------



## tranceplant (Jul 12, 2007)

good exposure I think


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 12, 2007)

tranceplant said:


> good exposure I think



thanks


----------



## Alpha (Jul 12, 2007)

I hate to be a party pooper, but:

1) That doesn't look at all like Foma.

2) My main criterion for deciding whether a conversion is good or not it if I can tell whether it was taken with a digital camera. In this case, it was very obvious.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 13, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I hate to be a party pooper, but:
> 
> 1) That doesn't look at all like Foma.
> 
> 2) My main criterion for deciding whether a conversion is good or not it if I can tell whether it was taken with a digital camera. In this case, it was very obvious.



Well, you are not ruining the party, but you are pointing at something here! First of all, I never used Foma, so I cannot really judge. 

So now I wonder if I maybe messed up the conversion since I had my standard settings for RAW to JPG, and on top of those I used the conversion tool.

1. Maybe that ruined the Foma characteristics? Could be ...

2. The light was non-standard

3. Or is it not graduations/contrast but something else which ruins the impression?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 13, 2007)

Well, Foma is an older style emulsion. It even has that blue tinge to it if you don't pre-wash, sort of like plus-x. As such, it's a fair bit grainier, and would have shown much stronger highlighting on the building itself, even under non-standard lighting. 

I suppose what tipped me off to the fact that it's digital was the flatness of the light on the building, and the grain character or lack thereof. I _might_ believe it was shot on film if you told me it was ortho lith. It's just really austere in way that's pretty uncharacteristic of most film.


----------



## InTheViewFinder (Jul 17, 2007)

Very nice photograph!


----------



## gordon77 (Jul 20, 2007)

i really like this too. loving the sky!!


----------



## Christina (Jul 21, 2007)

cant respond negative at all. I love it.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 23, 2007)

thanks  .... As for your comments Max, I will try to convert again if I find the time. this time without any foreplay.


----------

