Not an award winning photo by any means. But it demonstrates a subtle use of tilt/shift. In this case, a Nikon D800 with a Mirex T/S adapter and maybe a Hasselblad 60mm (Zeiss) lens. I say subtle because it doesn’t have a strong ‘miniature’ signature. At first viewing something is fishy about this shot - the close foreground is blurred as are the clouds and sky. The image, to my eye is distinctive but not unnatural. The log certainly draws your attention. Perhaps that’s also due to the log being sat on a rock ‘island’. Replace the log with a model in a low profile pose and I think you would have in interesting image. Since selling my Nikon system, I eventually bought a Fotodiox T/S adapter for some Pentax 6x7 lenses on the GFX. Though not machined quite as nicely, the Fotodiox does the job. I’m looking forward to some more experimentation when time permits.
Large format fantasy
Remains of a wall that I like to think is from the Viking days. But, who knows. It sat on the shoreline on a quiet part of the Icelandic coast. Weather was overcast and somewhat drizzly. Lighting was subtle and very conducive for textural shots like this one. For several years I considered a move to Medium format. Based on what? I always appreciated the fine detail from having such a huge negative. A large print of a beautiful image might justify an investment in MF - if it was done over and over. The above image was from a Nikon D800. There probably remains a discernible difference between film and digital in highlight roll-off to someone with a lot of knowledge and experience in film photography. Which is another factor that drew me towards going back to film and the larger formats in particular. Alas, even many photo journalists and critics can tell the difference between film and digital now. And if you’ve become a half decent editor with the software that’s available now the differences and advantages have slowly dwindled so much as to become a matter of artistic choice… and convenience.
What took this?
Welcome to the crazy world of photography. I think it was around eight or nine years ago I felt that lugging around a Nikon D800 equipped with Hasselblad lenses (adapted) had reached it’s use by date. There were a couple of factors - weight being one of them. The very nice Distagon 40mm was subject to lens flare and I was looking to create a more compact system That’s when my interest was sparked by the diminutive Olympus M4/3 setup. A friend had bought a EM1 and produced admirable results. To cut a long story short, so did the EM5 and 12-24mm f2.8 which I bought shortly after. I sold one of the first photos I took from the location pictured above. Olympus colours for landscape are excellent. Another lens that proved itself with this system was the Sirui 35mm anamorphic lens. Over and over again, YouTubers are touting one or another camera system or lens. So what did I do? I bought into medium format. Hasselblad would have been my first choice with it’s incredible colour science. Financially though, out of reach. Next? Fuji’s GFX 100S. Colour science maybe not quite up there with ‘H’ but pretty darn nice. And yes, the all important IBIS. That was a must. Suddenly weight is not an issue ; ) Looking through the many hundreds of old images now I struggle to know for sure which system I used to take the shots. I won’t lie, photos taken with the Fuji are exceptional. Colours are great and detailed info in the 200-300mb files are very easy to edit (require little work). So, what’s the moral to the story? Well after more that 30 years of photography it’s to be expected that many systems will be explored. I’ve sold off 2 of 3 Nikons as well as the Canons I owned. I still have Sony’s predominantly for videos and well yes, A Mamiya C330 tucked away, which I’m happy to part with. I think most of the attraction of the various systems have romantic or idealistic notions surrounding them. They make us feel better about ourselves and our capabilities as photographers. Sony’s for example are often described as soulless devices but having technical excellence. At the end of the day the camera you love using more frequently is the one that will serve you best.
Serene or....
There were several images of the landscape in Iceland that were less dramatic and rather conveyed a sense of serenity. There can be a strong temptation however to accentuate certain elements such as the sky which in this instance has a very painterly quality about it. If it were to be made dramatic in post to bring the shape of the clouds out more, the whole feeling of the image would be changed and the sense of calm lost. Another habit which often shows up in post is to over saturate everything. Another natural balance would be lost. We can learn a lot through the great artists of the past who in many cases opted for the ‘natural’ look and didn’t want everything to ‘stand out’.
After the storm
This log washed up on the beach like a carcass of some big animal. It would have been good to visit this area during the ‘bomb cyclone’ as it was described. Big seas of course but damaging winds. And with constant rain photography becomes a nightmare. Next best thing - photograph what turns up on the beaches. An interesting project if time permits.
The Shape of things
Coastal areas provide an almost infinite array of designs and features. Photographers often spend a lot of money on travel and capturing scenes that can’t be found in their own neighbourhood. I’m fortunate to live not far from the coast. The cliffs and shores of these beaches offer up plenty of opportunities over the seasons to capture images or textures of an abstract nature.