6x7 Boathouses

I have a fascination for the many old boathouses that are situated all along the Norwegian coastline, and also in the fjords. These are images of boathouses along the Trondheimsfjord, most of the photos taken during the last few months.

Pentax 67ii + SMC 45mm f4 and SMC 55-100mm f4.5. Scanned on an Epson V750 at 2400ppi

Comments and critique is welcome!

1. Kodak Porta 400



2. Ilford FP4 Plus 125



3. Ilford SFX200 (semi-infrared film)



4. Kodak Ektar 100



Regards
Bjørn

These are great. Not sure whether I prefer the monochrome or colour shots, they're both very northern and sharp in feel. I too am drawn to vernacular architecture, Bjørn. You'd love the stone barns in the Yorkshire Dales, for example.

I'm particularly drawn to #3, which I think is a really strong image. The Norwegian coast is truly magnificent.

Simply beautiful images, in a wonderful landscape.

Regards
David

I love 2 and 3...but I'm a sucker for mono.

Nicely done.

Photographically, the first shot is quite without drama, it is so simple but it justifies pause for thought. It has a very strong sense of place, even belonging. Is there a river on the other side of the shed, leading into the sea? Is a boat, as it were, still out at sea? The shed seems to be looking out over the water, the tree casting a soft shadow over the timber wall appears to be offering some sort of reassurance - the boat might yet return. Clearly I am reading too much into the photograph, but it is the sort of image that invites you in. It’s not prefect, not outstanding, one might even say its nothing special, but I find it inviting and persuasive. For me it really works, it has genus loci. The colour is nicely muted but still has a warmth (foreground) and coolth (sea and sky) about it.

The second and third work well as a couple, rich in contrast, strong on context, the theme of boat shed is a good one, nice that people cared so much for their boats, that they built houses for them, no doubt for working boats that deserved a winter’s rest. The second: The withdrawn tide gives rich foreground, the simple roof and wall form is powerful against the sky, if a cloud is necessary to add something to the sky, nice that it touches the roof. Perhaps the low camera angle is what enables the strong profile, but it does conceal much of what is on land, a bit like a seal’s view of our habitat.
The third is a very likeable picture, again distinct forms include a dinghy whose profile is articulated by the shadow of the shed, buildings point out to sea, but the dinghy seems to have other ideas. Both shore lines, near and far, have different edges, one varied, the other level and distinct. Whispy clouds have shed their stuff on snow capped mountains, this is such a good shot, but I wonder if it needed quite as much foreground grass – did you try cropping it to allow the focus to be more of the sheds and their aspect?

The fourth has such a stillness about it, it is another of those pictures that makes me want to be there. North west light is mystical – we call it the gloaming in the NW Highlands. Not sure what the two dark cylinders are in the foreground, maybe something to tie mooring lines to, but I do wish you had kicked the orange buoy out of sight – it is just a tad to vibrant and constantly catches the eye. The relationship these dinghies have with each other may lead to some tenders in the spring, ha. Seriously though, it is a beautiful picture, however I think the question about how much foreground is needed is worth asking – I might prefer it with half as much snow, allowing the focus of attention to drift further into the distant space.

All are excellent examples of how much we can enjoy spending a little time looking into photographs. Thank you for posting, it's really appreciated.

I wonder if something like these could have been captured in a digital camera, clearly you know how to handle film.

Thanks Andrew! I lived a year in early childhood in Newcastle, and have also spent many summer vactions in the south of England (Devon and Cornwall). I would love to travel more in the UK, and when I do I will remember your suggestion about the Yorkshire Dales.

Thank you very much John! My favourite is also number 3. The Ilford SFX200 film can produce some remarkebly contrasty images, if one has enough light (and nails the exposure).

Thank you David!

Thanks Steve!

These are wonderful, I like them all but the 3rd really appeals to me.

Thank you Ronnie for studying my images and writing such detailed comments! It is very rewarding to learn how other people react to ones images.

Here in my region of Norway, the Trøndelag region, the landscape is mostly flat, except for the Trollheimen and Sylan mountainous plateaus. If this image had been taken in similar settings, but in Lofoten, for instance, one could have found a boathouse, a fjord, and a spectacular mountain at the distance, which would have resulted in a much more dramatic image. Ian Cameron, for instance, has travelled to Lofoten and also arranges photo grouptravels/workshops to Lofoten every year. The Trondheimsfjord does not have dramatic mountains, but there is a very special kind of light in this region, revered by photographers and painters. So I understand perfectly your response to my first image, it is not spectacular nor very dramatic, but has some tranquill and inviting qualities.

Your suggestion about cropping the foreground in no. 3 is something I will try. I have taken a rather lazy approach with my 6x7 images. When I have attained a successful scan, I often crop the image in 70x56, so that the black film base is cropped. One could possibly argue that one was a follower of Henri Cartier Bresson, but I guess I am just lazy...

In the fourth image you mention the orange buoy, I agree that it is too prominent. I will try to clone (:shock it out of the image. The two dark metall cylinders could possibly be part of a winch system for lowering boats onto the fjord, or like you suggest, to tie mooring lines to. I do not really know.

Thank you again for such comprehensive feedback! Most appreciated.

Bjørn

Thanks Andrew!

Wow, I will now get all my camera kit and bin it, Great talent, Superb images,

The first I think is my favorite closely followed by the rest of them, I have a 645n getting dusty I may just invest in some film this week.

I particularly like one and three Lovely shots and nice subjects

Thank you both!


Good idea! The 645n needs some attention, feed it some film and go shooting

Bjørn

I missed these originally for some reason - glad I saw them now ... love them! Really wonderful clarity & depth. The medium format film is giving our top DSLRs a run for the money! I'm especially impressed with the contrast quality from the scans. Do you use 'Epson Scan' software or something more sophisticated?

Sharpness is obviously not a problem here ... i'd be interested in your thoughts on the best sharpening approach. Is it better to apply a fair whack of sharpening to the scan itself, or leave it until editing later?

Thanks for showing these great examples.

Thank you Nigel! Glad you like my photos.

Based on what other film users write, and my own experience, digitalization (scanning) of film is the bottleneck for the film users who want to bring their film images onto a computer and maybe also print them. It is still possible to purchase a wide range of films, there are many labs that develop films, but there are no real widespread solutions for high quality scanning. By high quality I refer to scanning that captures most of the information that can be found on the film negative or transparency. Film users who are really devoted to film may know about and use Tim Parkin's drum scanning (cheapdrumscanning.com), where you end up with files that surpass many digital cameras, depending on what filmtype you use: 35mm, medium format, large format, etc. So, it is acknowledged by most film shooters that scanning is the most problematic area in the whole film experience.

One solution to this is to scan yourself. Scanning film can be quite time consuming and cumbersome. But when I read about how much time many RAW shooters spend in front of their computers, scanning may in fact be less time consuming. ( When purchasing my Epson V750 scanner, I read about scanners and scanning on the net for at least a year, and came to the concluson that I would prefer to have a new scanner with a warranty, than a second hand Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000, which are possibly better also with medium format, but cost twice as much as a new Epson, and are mostly non-repairable. All in all I am very satisfied with my Epson. The main thing is to keep the film flat, and aim at a neutral scan. I use Epson scan, turn off sharpening and other auto-options. It is very important to make sure that the scan does not clip the image on either side of the histogram. So my scans look very much like a digital RAW file. I then import the scan into Apple Aperture 3, where I fine adjust white balance, apply curves for contrast, and the at the end apply Apple's "edge sharpening". The scan from the Epson can take a lot of sharpening before the image starts becoming edgy and strange. If one spends some time with the Epson one can get results that are very good, especially with medium format and larger film sizes. Films like Kodak Porta 400 scan especially well on the Epson flatbed, I doubt one would get a better result with a dedicated film scanner (Coolscan 9000). Fuji Velvia 50, on the hand, is quite problematic, only well exposed/bright transperencies scan well. Dark/underexposed Velvia 50 is mostly non success. Having said this, dark Velvia 50 is difficult to scan even on the best Hasselblad Imacons and drum scanners.

Well Nigel, here is a rather long answer to your question, I hope it makes sense

Bjørn