HOME | DD
richardldixon — Whitby Abbey 2012 IR rld 01
Published: 2012-07-17 17:07:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 905; Favourites: 47; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Whitby Abbey Yorkshire EnglandTaken in Infra Red
Related content
Comments: 44
Thank you 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Richard - this work has been featured in the Infrared-Club (Extra-Visible Imaging) Best of.. Feature here [link]
Cheers
David
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes it does, I am going to have to give it a go
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Give it a go 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yea and it's on the list,
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're very welcome. it's a wonderful capture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have my sights set on Whitby Abbey in IR. I have been saving some EIR and HIE in 4x5 especially for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nice one
took this with my MPP Mk 8 scans not the best but ...its not too bad[link]
My MPP Mk 8 [link]
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Graflex is not really the best 4x5 around, but it does have the advantage of a focal plane shutter, allowing the use of lenses like the aero-etkar f2.5 and various other shutterless lenses.
I'm not a tilt-shift kind of guy, it doesn't really interest me so much, so the movements, or indeed a lack thereof compared to other field camera's is neither here nor there with me.
Velvia 50 negative from a 4x5 beats /everything/, apart from a 8x10+ (naturally) - Indeed, I'm in it for the film, the process and the detail.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have used Fuji slide film in my MPP excellent film
I'm finding i dont use the 4x5 so much at the moment its big heavy and the film is so expensive i use an old SD10 sigma for my IR at the moment ..I find the advantages of Digital so much easiers to use
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not that bad, I mean you can pick up a box of 50 sheets of efke IR 'Aura' 820 quite cheaply, processing can and will vary, but for the most it's quite cheap - the issue is scans, but if budget is an issue, a flat bed can suffice.
With 4x5, it's more for the process, then anything else - a digital person could come, set up, shoot/chimp/shoot and leave while you could be running through the processes, i.e have I removed the dark slide, have I closed the lens, is the aperture set - yet, it doesn't matter, because at the end of it your time, pertinence/diligence is often rewarded. Put another way, it's a completely different approach to digital - I see it that, with LF, you might go out and not shoot a single frame, but if you do, chances are you probably took a good deal of time thinking about it, and that is a good thing - slow and concise, not everything has to be rushed.
That's what digital lacks, I'm not anti-digital, - indeed, I have a 5D, but I don't bother with digital any more, I personally don't find there are many advantages to shooting with it, as I don't do weddings, and I don't shoot to order, meaning I am my own boss - as such I elect to shoot medim and large format, because when all is said and done, digital still has yet to give the same dynamic range, the profiles and indeed, solved the problem of being tangible - I'd rather a negative then a card/HD full of 1's and 0's - of course film can be 'digitalised', making it just as versatile.
Incidentally, I was out in london today shooting some long exposures with my Hasselblad, I can't count the amount of times, men/women - teens, all sporting fancy dancy digital Nikons/Canons - glaring at my camera, intrigued - jealous? I wasn't being ostentatious either, just some film junkie, minding his own business, shooting some film.
I can't remember a time I have ever gone up to a stranger and asked them about their Canon 5-Mark something or other, or a Nikon D-this or that, because (not that it makes a better picture) digitals mirror the format, they look dull, and have no real soul - And for me, that's what matters, I like using a fully mechanical camera, I like using film, I like being limited to 4 or 5 sheets or 12 shots (6x6) and really thinking about an image, rather then hitting the delete button, I like that black and white film looks better then a RAW desaturated image or indeed post processed one, I like that film has grain, not noise - ergo, my avocation for long exposures (reciprocity notwithstanding) is better suited, yes, I like those more then the 'advantages' of Digital.
It's why I choose not to shot with a IR converted 350D, rather then a 120 or 4x5, because images like this: [link] don't come out of a Digital camera. I had this blow up and framed as a gift to someone, and damn it was stunning - I don't usually say that about my work, I make a point of doing so, but when the guy in my local printing shop handed me back the print, it was the concluding of 30 minutes 'work', lugging my 4x5 to the site, taking light readings, taking more readings - checking all the settings, loading the film and releasing the shutter - while it could have been 'captured' on my digital, I don't believe it would have had the same tone, or detail - and frankly I felt and even more so now, that the place had an air of ethereality about it, which I think was picked up perfectly by the HIE film.
Regards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thats a nice photo but i think i have some just as good taken on Digital ....I dont really have the patience for Large format anymore i stil occasionally use mine but mainly for Buildings where the movements are needed
I also take photos of Ancient monuments and since i did my shoulder i cant lug the 4x5 as far as i used to [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a matter of opinion naturally, but I do feel that images captured on film, surpass that of digital, especially when you blow them up and view large. Online, 1000 x pixels, it's easy to hide, but blow up - film still holds it's own, and I find that humbling.
I think the only digital worth bothering with is one of those uber expensive medium format backs, some £14K, and that is too crazy to consider for someone like myself, merely a photography aficionado.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For very large blow ups nothing touches 10" x 8" except for 24" x12"
and we then get into the realms of sillyness
the Sigma SD10 can do A3 easily
but if it was money no object and a team of sherpas to hump the gear about then id be useing 10" x8" al the time .....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, 8x10 is where it is at!
For me, it's the little things, already pointed to especially:
Grain, not noise. It's interesting you mention the SD10, that has a bad, very bad reputation for long exposures, something silly like 8 seconds, it's also bad in low light (according to people I have shared coffees with).
Dynamic range. Shoot for the shadows/mid tones and 8 out of ten, the highlights sort themselves out.
I hauled my 4x5 up and down Snowdon; so while I can still lug it around, I'm enjoying the format immensely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The SD10 might be bad for long exposures but when the IR blocking/ dust cover has been removed and with an IR 720nm filter on the front ..I can hand hold it at 200asa in sunlight exposures at 1/400 sec at F10 so its irrelevant about long exposures
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was just taking about the SD10 in general.
Again, with IR, for me nothing beats the film you can buy,
even the expired (Konica/Kodak) stuff is superlative.
I'll shoot it for as long as it is available and then fall back
on the prosaic digital IR format.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you :0 it is the Classic photo of Whitby Abbey made famous over 100 years ago by Frank Meadows Sutcliffe
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thankies
Not just B&W but Infra Red B&W
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not Quite M&S B&W but best i can do
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is fantastic... love the pure black n white IR style... what kind of wavelength you are using?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I use a 720 nm filter i got on E-bay
I use a Sigma SD10 with the IR blocking filter removed (Very easy to do) the camera only takes photos in Sigma RAW so i get a little leeway with exposure
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay... thank you for the information... may be I have to try...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0