Post your landscape photos here

[ic-racer]

8x10 enlarged to 11x14 on Ilford MG FB Cooltone

 

[Donald Qualls]

Nice stuff, @ic-racer . Wish I could afford 8x10 (camera, film, and enlarger).

 

[Stephen Benskin]

8x10 enlarged to 11x14 on Ilford MG FB warm tone.
View attachment 285415

Great Image!

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Dun Carloway Broch, Isle of Lewis, Scotland

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Stephen Benskin I wish I had your patience for perfect light & weather. Stephen, your photos need to be uploaded with a higher resolution. Don't be shy!

The skill and patience required at the printing stage are IMHO even greater. Very nice indeed.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Tumacácori National Historical Park, AZ

 

[Moose22]

The skill and patience required at the printing stage are IMHO even greater. Very nice indeed.

Maybe. But at least at printing you don't haul 30 lbs of gear out to a vantage when the light looks like it'll be great, sit for 2 hours and watch the overcast come in and completely F up the shot you saw yesterday and decided to capture. Over, and over, and over again. Or you get up early 5 days in a row and it's cloudy, then on the 6th day you sleep in a bit and the light is PERFECT, but you're still at home. Just from personal experience, I've missed half a dozen shots for every good one I took from being discouraged about hauling a camera out on a day when the light turned out great.

Landscape work really is days of waiting for that one moment of weird light with a dramatic sky. It's a different kind of patience, though printing to perfection is a time consuming process, especially for the person trying to get that last few percent toward a 100% perfect, platonic ideal print.

Stephen has been treating us to a lifetime of projects, here and in the architectural threads.

 

[ic-racer]

More 8x10. All enlarged to 16x20 on either Cooltone or Warmtone Ilford MG.

 

[ic-racer]

 

[ic-racer]

After all those 8x10, this is 35mm Tech Pan enlarged to 16x20. Supposed to be as good as large format.

 

[ic-racer]

One 16x16 from 120 film. I don't do a lot of landscape anymore with my medium format equipment. I recently got an Hy6 but mostly I use it to take pictures of the dog and kids.

 

[GLS]

Linhof Technikardan S45, Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Symmar L 5.6/150, Portra 400.

--- by atomstitcher, on Flickr

 

[Duceman]

Castro, Chiloe, Chile. by D.R. DuFault, on Flickr

Hasselblad 500c/m, Zeiss 80mm Planar, Kodak E100G

 

[Moose22]

First photo taken with the latest acquisition: Bronica GS-1


Woo! No light leaks

I thought you were a 'Blad guy? You're getting a little wider, cheating on the 6x6 format.

6x7 is a good format for landscapes though. Big negatives and a little room to crop if you want. And I'll admit there are a lot of times I'd like an MF with an option for metering and TTL flash. Enjoy it.

 

[MattKing]

It would be interesting to see if your opinion might change if you, like myself and a few others here, worked both in the darkroom, and with a scanner.
6x7 negatives are wonderful in an enlarger.
Partially because 6x7 capable enlargers are such a sweet spot.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing tell me more! What is the difference between enlarging 6x6 and 6x7?

First, if you are printing to a rectangular print, you are working with a much larger negative area 56mm x 69mm vs. ~ 43mm x 54mm.
Which in turn leads to working with less magnification - the 6x7 negative needs 4.35 (linear) magnification to fill a full frame 8"x10" print, whereas the Hasselblad needs 5.55 magnification.
Which has benefits relating to resolution and contrast and a more bright image on the baseboard (when focusing and composing).
And also less obvious issues with dust!
The negatives are easier to evaluate visually, whether or not you make a contact proof print.
It's hard to communicate with text - but here is a scan of a portion of a contact proof sheet of some RB67 negatives, to give you a sense of it. The image size won't be accurate of course, because it will vary with your screen size.

 

[MattKing]

So there aren't any "native" 56x56mm enlargers?

There certainly are enlargers that are restricted to 6x6 or smaller - the Omega B22 and the Durst M600 come to mind.
For whatever reason, the enlargers that were designed for use with 6x7 or smaller tend to be more robust and have more capabilities than many of the 6x6 limited models - possibly because 6x7 cameras are a relatively recent phenomena, whose introduction coincided with a big increase in home darkrooms with colour capability, as well as a big upsurge in professional use of a format that a couple of decades earlier would have been considered too small for a lot of professional use.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing Thank you. Very helpful, as always. Woo-whoo! The value of my GS-1 system just increased!

Well, it only increased if you find you get extra benefit from it.
I know I would - I miss my RB67, which I sold due to space and other constraints in the midst of a downsizing move.

 

[juan]

6x7 used to be marketed as “ideal format” because it enlarged so easily to 8x10.

 

[John Phive]

Here's the latest image from Oct 2020

Image quality may suffered due to image scale reduction in order to fit the forum.
With it being fall once again, one could expect new fall images from me very soon. But this time, I'll be using the Holga 120N camera for long exposures. Then I'm handing over the Canon m6 to my wife.

 

[Moose22]

Here's the latest image from Oct 2020
View attachment 286591
Image quality may suffered due to image scale reduction in order to fit the forum.
.

The bane of my existence. Let's not talk about banding in skies when you shrink an 8000px scan to 1000px for web sharing. Ugh.

The color and composition on this shot are fantastic! I love how the tree trunks become their own subject.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So there aren't any "native" 56x56mm enlargers?

Use a 2 1/4"x 2 1/4" negative holder. If I had a 56mm x 56mm enlarger, I could not enlarge my 4"x5" negatives.

 

[GLS]

Linhof Technikardan S45, Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Symmar L 5.6/210, Portra 160

--- by atomstitcher, on Flickr

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Mono Lake, CA

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Sand Tufa Against Storm, Mono Lake, CA