Crater Lake, OR

S

STM

Senior Member
Ok, this image was taken with my 60 year old Rolleiflex 2.8E and not a Nikon in early spring, but it is still one of my favorites. It was shot using Panatomic-X film. There really is no EXIF data per se, the image was scanned with my Nikon LS-8000 and resized in Photoshop from an 84 MP image. If my memory serves me correctly, I held a 25A filter over the taking lens and the shutter speed was around 1/60. I arrived at the exposure using my Pentax 1º Spot meter and the Zone System. This old dog of a camera can still hunt!

craterlake_zpsa211fcbe.jpg
 
Last edited:
B

Bill16

Senior Member
Great shot! I was born and raised real close to crater lake and been there several times! Thank you for the great memories your photo brings back! :D
 
B

bechdan

Senior Member
Its hard to comment on a film pic as I only really started taking photos when the digital age arrived. To me as a picture its too high contrast and I would have liked the top of the sky to be darker i.e. graduated ND filter effect. Other than that all other aspects are really nice
 
K

Kodiak

Senior Member
"Its hard to comment on a film pic
as I only really started taking photos when the digital age arrived"

Hello Dan,

Maybe you never had to develop a roll or a sheet of film, this is not the point.
Rather here is a picture… how do you feel? …what do you see? …do you think you
got the intent of the photographer? …was there an intent? …does it tell a story? etc.
I could go on like that but I think you got the idea(s)!

The more you look, the more you lear to see… and a Photo-Critique post is, for you,
a free ride in someone else's world like this post from Florida opened to some eyes
down under or anywhere else for that matter!

'cause there is more than the medium, than the technique. As means of communication,
photography is just… another pictorial art! …a two dimension representation of a reality
that carries information, emotions…

Vbrg,
 
N

Nathan Lanni

Senior Member
What a fascinating and breathtaking image.

I absolutely love monochrome as the resolution is incredible. The reflections seem like an absolute mirror!

I love the interesting gradient from the highest point as it fades lighter (?) approaching the crater's perimeter ridge line. Would you say the darker gray was likely bluer sky?

I'm curious: I realize the scanned image is massive, but what is the equivalent negative dimensions as compared to 35mm film?

STM said:
Ok, this image was taken with my 60 year old Rolleiflex 2.8E and not a Nikon in early spring, but it is still one of my favorites. It was shot using Panatomic-X film. There really is no EXIF data per se, the image was scanned with my Nikon LS-8000 and resized in Photoshop from an 84 MP image. If my memory serves me correctly, I held a 25A filter over the taking lens and the shutter speed was around 1/60. I arrived at the exposure using my Pentax 1º Spot meter and the Zone System. This old dog of a camera can still hunt!

craterlake_zpsa211fcbe.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
I love an old dog that can still hunt and especially one that can hunt successfully and your old puppy sure can. i would hang that on my wall any day. So, if you would just happen to have an extra print..... just saying.
 
R

riverside

Senior Member
Having spent many years in the film era, very nice.

I live near Crater Lake and once the snow's gone (normally July) camera density skyrockets. A magnificent setting.
 
W

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
teagueAMX said:
I'm curious: I realize the scanned image is massive, but what is the equivalent negative dimensions as compared to 35mm film?
Click to expand...

I believe that camera shoots 120 film, and creates an 60 mm x 60 mm image on the film. The image size on a full-frame 35 mm DSLR is about 36 mm x 24 mm. So the 120 relative to the Nikon FX (35mm) is 3600 sq mm against 864 sq mm: about 4.2 times larger.

Hope this answers your question
 
N

Nathan Lanni

Senior Member
Whiskeyman said:
I believe that camera shoots 120 film, and creates an 60 mm x 60 mm image on the film. The image size on a full-frame 35 mm DSLR is about 36 mm x 24 mm. So the 120 relative to the Nikon FX (35mm) is 3600 sq mm against 864 sq mm: about 4.2 times larger.

Hope this answers your question
Click to expand...

Yes, that solved my curiosity.

Thanks

Cheers
 
Top