Sutters Fort Oak and Cart

Bravo Ned. Pls. excuse a bit of tongue tied expression. I don't like fuzzy in a photo. But when considered as art apart from a photo, its not hard. The ingenuity it took to make this is impressive, and it has the look of an almost lost (from age) photo from antiquity. I was dumbfounded last wk, speaking w/ a photo instructor who was selling me on an Ikonta. There was about a 14x18 print of a cathedral ceiling (color) that looked quite nice. When he told me it was his shot & done w/ a pinhole, I couldn't believe it. He claimed that pinhole sharpness was within reach, but did depend on some fairly precise relations of hole size to film plane. I look at pinhole a bit differently now.

taking about cool !
this is in a league by its own ,,,
john

Thank you! When I showed my wife this print about an hour ago, that was her exact reaction: she said it looked like it was "from a long long time ago, very old". * If you look at my blog post called "5th oil print" there is a scan of this negative, and while it is definitely pinhole, it's not terribly fuzzy. The way I applied the ink on this one made it much softer looking. If you roll the ink on instead of dabbing it like I did here, it is a much more "photographic" result, and in earlier attempts with a brayer I was able to see the detail in the bark on the tree. * I am going through a kind of transition right now. In the past month I've looked through every one of Gene Laughter's photos in the apug gallery several times. The more I look at his bromoils the more I appreciate them, and every time I go back again it seems like I find something new to like. When I started this project to make an oil print, I envisioned something more photographic, but looking at Gene's work is changing my whole idea of what I want to do!

Very cool, Ned! I'm happy you stuck with it.

A lovely image - camera and process matched perfectly. Neil.

Fascinating stuff, nicely done.

spellbinding. bravo!!!

Very different - I really like it!