Not Sure Where to Post This...

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 30, 2019

I've given up getting back into large format wet process analog imagery. I just can't physically do it anymore. That makes me sad but I'm reinvigorated by the lesser physical demands and precision of digital.

Eric Rose · Jan 30, 2019

Those are nice shots. You can post them to the gallery just tick off digital. Or the landscape thread.

Richard Man · Jan 30, 2019

You have to give up your APUG membership and join the Photrio Digital ghetto

Eric Rose · Jan 31, 2019

Richard Man said:
You have to give up your APUG membership and join the Photrio Digital ghetto

Ghetto??!! Really???

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 31, 2019

Very nice work! Absolutely NOTHING wrong shooting digitally.

removed account4 · Jan 31, 2019

Mike:

Great to see your photography again ! I'm stoked you are shooting again, LF is heavy to drag around and as far as I am concerned Photographs are Phoyographs.
Don't pay any attention to the comments of have nothing better to do than to be negative.

john

lantau · Jan 31, 2019

Always nice to see some activity in the digital section! BTW, large format digital sensors have been around for a long time.They are used in X-Ray diffractometry to analyse single crystals. The sensor is typically hidden behind a beryllium window, so you can't just take it and do normal photography with it. The cost is probably six figures, the whole machine should be seven figures. But maybe prices have come down since I last head people talk about grant applications, about 15 years ago.

I wonder if imaging satellites are using large format digital colour sensors.

A digital photo of mine, converted to b/w and printed larger than anything I'll ever do in the darkroom was one reason why decided to try (b/w) film back in 2015.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 31, 2019

Thank you for the kind words... as undeserved as they are.

winger · Jan 31, 2019

The first one is excellent! Great timing on the bird! The others are very good, too, but my favorite is the tree and bird.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 31, 2019

I wish I could take credit for the bird placement but it was added to the tree silhouette.

Richard Man · Jan 31, 2019

Eric Rose said:
Ghetto??!! Really???

I shoot plenty digital, still have my beat-up Leica M9 to prove it.

I am just reflecting on the prevailing sentiment on the forums ;-)

removed account4 · Jan 31, 2019

Richard Man said:
I shoot plenty digital, still have my beat-up Leica M9 to prove it.

I am just reflecting on the prevailing sentiment on the forums ;-)

LOL
Most every discussion on this website is film or analog related, most every image uploaded to the gallery is from film or paper.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 31, 2019

Why did the images of the cross and door come out fuzzy? The tree with raven seems a bit soft too. The leaning shack seems okay. What did I do wrong?

Richard Man · Jan 31, 2019

Old-N-Feeble said:
Why did the images of the cross and door come out fuzzy?

They look quite sharp to me. So maybe something about your monitor or graphic card settings?

Old-N-Feeble · Feb 1, 2019

Thanks Richard. It seems the website is fitting all the images to 1080x1920 pixels. Since these were all sized to 1600px on the longest side, they're being stretch to varying degrees.

Mick Fagan · Feb 1, 2019

Old-N-Feeble said:
Thanks Richard. It seems the website is fitting all the images to 1080x1920 pixels. Since these were all sized to 1600px on the longest side, they're being stretch to varying degrees.

Some time ago, maybe last year, perhaps even longer, there was discussion with regard to the miniscule size of uploaded images to this site. Some tooing and froing happened and as best as I can remember, Sean settled on 2048 x whatever the other side of the image worked out. Regardless, the maximum was 2048 on the longest side. In a landscape format this works well on this site and with most monitors these days as they are basically in a landscape format, as opposed to being a square format not that many years ago.

Since then I have uploaded my scanned film at 2048 pixels on the longest side since, seems to work reasonably well. That said, this site still does some compression. This image was uploaded at 2048 x 1298, and was scaled by the site to 1297 x 810. This does seem to work quite well, perhaps you could try uploading at that bigger size?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/creswick-uniting-church.58326/

Mick.

Edit: Maybe, just maybe, that image size has changed a bit since we moved to another server

Old-N-Feeble · Feb 2, 2019

Thanks Mick. Next time I post an image I'll try sizing it to fit 2048x???? and 1920x1080 to determine if one of those works better.

Old-N-Feeble · Feb 2, 2019

I tried both sizes in this post and indeed the forum resizes to 1080p. They looked about the same so I deleted the larger one. This shot is with a Porst 55m f/1.2 wide open, not reversed, with approximately 100mm of extension tubes.

Fitted to 1080p

Old-N-Feeble · Feb 2, 2019

This one was taken with a Wollensak 75mm f/1.9 Oscillo-Raptar, wide open. I had to hold the lens against the camera body because I've not properly adapted it.

Not Sure Where to Post This...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency