# Chasing the Light



## bulldurham (Jun 10, 2015)

5:56am CST ISO 32, F:/22, 9 min 45 sec Lee Big Stopper


----------



## sscarmack (Jun 10, 2015)

Lovely BW.....however I'd love to see some color on this.


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 10, 2015)

I have a ton of color shots but I can assure you the B&W just blows the color right out the door.


----------



## timor (Jun 10, 2015)

Holga lens would give you this effect for the fraction of the cost of Lee filter and without 9 min exposure. 
Holga Lens for Digital Cameras


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 10, 2015)

I have a holga lens and it doesn't even get close. There is a huge difference between a internet jpeg at 72dpi and a 20x30 on metal at 300dpi.


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 10, 2015)

I am curious, Timor, but have you ever actually posted a photograph anywhere in the Photoforum? I've looked pretty extensively and most especially in the B&W section and while I see a lot of responses, I don't see personal work. So...why not?


----------



## timor (Jun 10, 2015)

bulldurham said:


> I have a holga lens and it doesn't even get close. There is a huge difference between a internet jpeg at 72dpi and a 20x30 on metal at 300dpi.


 The resolution thing it might be a factor.
I shoot only film and "wet print". I don't scan negatives as it is pointless, similar to showing RAW files. My scans from prints are not too good with my scanner plus most is anyway too big for it. In addition I am not very talented photographer (in sens of art  ) nor I have opportunity to go to interesting places so there is not much to show to the wide public. If here and there in threads are some of my scans, they are only for learning purposes. You might find them in film or darkroom sections...
Something of my lo-fi snaps:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/attachments/user1878_pic3621_1384274771-jpg.60135/


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 11, 2015)

Why do you feel scanning negatives is pointless? I do it all the time for my alternative processes work and get beautiful results. Jon Cone scans negatives from the National Archives of artists like Cunningham, Callahan, Dorothea Lange (I have two prints of his from Lange) at very high resolutions and gets stuff even the original artists never were able to pull from their negatives. As far as wet printing, I am not sure if there is a correlation between the two as I "wet" print in the same sense whilst doing Pt/Pd and have never had issue one.  (As a newspaper photographer years ago, I did enough wet printing to last several lifetimes and I have yet to see an advantage when a dry negative print is always far superior. We wet printed because we were on tight deadlines, breaking stories, or whatnot and since they were going to be reshot through an 80-100 point screen, precise imagery wasn't at the top of the needs list.)

As to not being a "_not very talented photographer (in sens of art  )" _what makes your critiques so "expert" as you seem to think everything you say has this wonderful experienced advice. Frankly, most of what you say is what I'd call, "Seat of the Pants Critiquing"  sans the experience of an actual pilot. You live in Toronto and can't find anything of interest to shoot??? Really? I might suggest a few more forays into the field with your camera, Holga or whatever and learn to scan negatives or prints properly then relate your own experiences first hand and not vicariously as the armchair quarterback. Until such time, please refrain from making comments to my work.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jun 11, 2015)

Beautiful photo which is positively oozing with mood.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 11, 2015)

I like the ooz. If this was my image, (I wish it was), I'd dodge out the berm a bit, kick up the contrast (I'm a contrast freak). But to my eye, the lack of contrast, where I would want/expect contrast, builds up a tension ... I appreciate this self-generated contradiction. I am surprised with the motionless character of the grasses after a nine minute 45 second exposure. I'd love to see this in print.


----------



## timor (Jun 11, 2015)

bulldurham said:


> Why do you feel scanning negatives is pointless? I do it all the time for my alternative processes work and get beautiful results. Jon Cone scans negatives from the National Archives of artists like Cunningham, Callahan, Dorothea Lange (I have two prints of his from Lange) at very high resolutions and gets stuff even the original artists never were able to pull from their negatives. As far as wet printing, I am not sure if there is a correlation between the two as I "wet" print in the same sense whilst doing Pt/Pd and have never had issue one.  (As a newspaper photographer years ago, I did enough wet printing to last several lifetimes and I have yet to see an advantage when a dry negative print is always far superior. We wet printed because we were on tight deadlines, breaking stories, or whatnot and since they were going to be reshot through an 80-100 point screen, precise imagery wasn't at the top of the needs list.)
> 
> As to not being a "_not very talented photographer (in sens of art  )" _what makes your critiques so "expert" as you seem to think everything you say has this wonderful experienced advice. Frankly, most of what you say is what I'd call, "Seat of the Pants Critiquing"  sans the experience of an actual pilot. You live in Toronto and can't find anything of interest to shoot??? Really? I might suggest a few more forays into the field with your camera, Holga or whatever and learn to scan negatives or prints properly then relate your own experiences first hand and not vicariously as the armchair quarterback. Until such time, please refrain from making comments to my work.


Your attitude duly noted. Especially the quickness in judging people. For that I owe you a case of equally cheap beer. You don't know me enough. Beside, this is a forum about photography only. If you don't like negative comments about your pictures, avoid them.


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 11, 2015)

QUOTE]Your attitude duly noted. Especially the quickness in judging people. For that I owe you a case of equally cheap beer. You don't know me enough. Beside, this is a forum about photography only. If you don't like negative comments about your pictures, avoid them.[/QUOTE]

My attitude should not be in question, thus you should have only responded to the request. I don't mind negative comments from those I feel are working photographers who understand why an image works or does not because they've experienced the same issues. I don't always agree but I do respect the opinion. Of course it is a forum about photography - eh? Quick judgement...naw, I've read your palaver for a long time; I just now decided I wanted to know more about you as a photographer and discovered nothing. I think it is time for you to man a camera and show us what you know instead of telling us what you think. You do as you like, just leave me out of further comments until you we can all have a crack at your work. Fair is fair.


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 11, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> I like the ooz. If this was my image, (I wish it was), I'd dodge out the berm a bit, kick up the contrast (I'm a contrast freak). But to my eye, the lack of contrast, where I would want/expect contrast, builds up a tension ... I appreciate this self-generated contradiction. I am surprised with the motionless character of the grasses after a nine minute 45 second exposure. I'd love to see this in print.



I would appreciate an edit showing me what you mean. I did knock down the brightness in the middle-ground berm by about 15% and burned in the foreground by almost 25% with a bit of contrast in each area. I too am a contrast freak and have been trying to tone it down a bit as sometimes I tend to go overboard.


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 11, 2015)

Thanks, Fred. I've had some other comments on other forums questioning the use of the Big Stopper and long exposures (and this one should have gone another minute to compensate for the rain which was rapidly approaching) but I cannot get this kind of melding any other way.


----------



## timor (Jun 11, 2015)

Fair is fair ? We not in any sort of competition. You just ignore the comments you don't like.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 11, 2015)

Gotta tell ya Chris. I am impressed and jealous of your image to the point where I just ordered a wide angle lens for my M/F camera. If you keep posting this stuff ... you'll drive me to the poor house. (Make that the poorer ... poorier ... poverty ... living on the street ... house.)


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2015)

I wish that distant lighting strike were a bit more visible...

Like Gary A, I too was surprised at how still the grasses appear to be with such a long exposure! And although I am not as big a contrast freak as Gary, I do think a grade more worth of SNAP! might help.,..or even just a few well-placed bits of dodging to sort of break things up a little...and maybe get that lighting bolt to be 3x brighter by zooming in on it to 300% and selecting it and almost blowing it out to 255?


----------



## bulldurham (Jun 11, 2015)

I'll try on the lightning but it was the last strike of many during that long exposure and not so clearly defined. The stillness of the grass was because there wasn't a breath of air until about two minutes after the exposure was made and the rain front caught up to where I was set up. I'll work on the snap aspect and I think I can get that to work in the foreground grasses. I think you'll like the new version when I post.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2015)

bulldurham said:
			
		

> I'll try on the lightning but it was the last strike of many during that long exposure and not so clearly defined. The stillness of the grass was because there wasn't a breath of air until about two minutes after the exposure was made and the rain front caught up to where I was set up. I'll work on the snap aspect and I think I can get that to work in the foreground grasses. I think you'll like the new version when I post.



YES!!!! I just came from the Chasing The Light Redux post, and I must say, the increased emphasis on the lighting strike is every bit as good as I had thought it might be--it REALLY elevates the picture. Even though it's just a teeny-tiny object within the frame, having the lighting strike be very clear reallllly boosts the shot.

Chasing the Light Redux Photography Forum


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 13, 2015)

bulldurham said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I like the ooz. If this was my image, (I wish it was), I'd dodge out the berm a bit, kick up the contrast (I'm a contrast freak). But to my eye, the lack of contrast, where I would want/expect contrast, builds up a tension ... I appreciate this self-generated contradiction. I am surprised with the motionless character of the grasses after a nine minute 45 second exposure. I'd love to see this in print.
> ...



Okay, this is a very rough take of a bit of dodging mainly on the berm but also on some parts of the water.





For my tastes, I think the hot spot in the clouds is a tad too hot. I like the lightning in the redux. But by bringing up the berm ... I think you lose a lot of that sullen, overcast moodiness which really grabbed me tightly in the original.

I initially did some global manipulations, which was a mistake ... I should have left your original clouds alone and just screwed around with the part below the horizon line.


----------

