Vince Lupo's Mapping the West

Vince Lupo said:
. . .

In some of the shots - like the one of Carson in post #66, it's the middle of the day and everyone is wearing baseball hats. So from the nose up, every person's face disappears into darkness. In that particular shot, I isolated the shadow area of his face and adjusted it so that you could actually see that vacant expression of his hidden under the brim of his cap (I could see, however, that perhaps I overcompensated on that one image). However in the photo of Raimundo in post #65, I chose to let the shadow on his face stay as-is (and ironically that was in the early morning).

Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of shooting only at times of the day out there that photographically suit me (early morning and late in the day like most of us prefer), as I have to defer to their schedule of events (things do often take place in the middle of the day which is, as you know, probably the worst time to take photos). And I'm certainly not about to ask people to take their hats off in that New Mexico sunshine, so I have to work within those parameters and roll with it. I'm just honoured to be allowed into their world and to be trusted that I'll depict them in a respectful manner.

Actually I was wrong -- there is one photo here that has a halo -- a gigantic one, in fact. The last shot in post #65 🙂
Click to expand...


I had a similar reaction as retinax to the same shots. I'm an available light purist myself, but in that kind of lighting even I would resort to fill-flash. When it's that bright, most people wouldn't even notice.


But nice to see these new shots & hope to see them in Baltimore. Keep us in the loop on the November show.
 
furcafe said:
I had a similar reaction as retinax to the same shots. I'm an available light purist myself, but in that kind of lighting even I would resort to fill-flash. When it's that bright, most people wouldn't even notice.


But nice to see these new shots & hope to see them in Baltimore. Keep us in the loop on the November show.
Click to expand...

Retinax and I had further conversation separate from this thread, and there were two shots that were more the result of inadequate burning/dodging, not (in my opinion anyways) anything to do with clarity/structure sliders gone crazy, and the appropriate adjustments have subsequently been made and re-uploaded. I will say, however, that using Dfine to reduce vertical/horizontal banding can impose some weirdness beyond its doing a great job on reducing banding, as I've found a few odd smearing effects from using it when needed. That shot of Carson in the previous post was particularly challenging, and I had to revisit it at least 4 times after I thought it was done.

As far as that corrugated metal wall goes in the picture of José (post #72), I went as far as to check the RAW file, and it is exactly like that: Brighter at the bottom, right side and top, slightly darker in the middle. Part of the reason why I think it's brighter at the bottom is that there is a concrete slab on the ground there and is likely reflecting light back to the fence towards the bottom. The other shots I checked for haloing - and I'm looking at the 300dpi TIFF files on a 27" screen - and it's just not there. So maybe there's something happening in the 72dpi JPEG online conversions that's accentuating something that's ever so subtle in the TIFF files. Plus in the 11"x16" prints it's not showing up.

Sorry I don't use fill flash out there - just not gonna happen. I did actually consider it for a split-second, but decided against it. Plus, the flash sync is 180th of a second on the Monochrom and M-D bodies, and out in the New Mexico and Texas sun I'd have to be shooting at f/16 at my lowest ISO (unless I wanted to shell out money for an HSS flash), which on the Monochrom 246 is ISO 320, and even at that it might not be enough to prevent overexposure (unless I want to start fiddling with ND filters and make it even more confusing for me), and fill flash might also impose other shadows that I wouldn't want. And it's just one more thing for me to carry and I'm sure the Monochrom would revolt and spit it right off its shoe. I could just imagine it saying "What is this unnatural appendage sitting atop me?! Be gone with ye!" It might also be due to the fact that I carry a ton of stuff in my day-to-day operations as a commercial photographer, and being out there is the opportunity to work as diametrically opposed to how I normally work back here. Kinda liberating, actually!

On a separate note, I've discovered from printing this new work is how nice the Epson Legacy Baryta is. I thought that Exhibition Fiber was my go-to paper, but after having tried the Legacy Baryta, I think I'm making the switch. With that shot, The Lettuce Thinners, for example, you can see deep into those shadows and pick out the fine check pattern on the man's shirt in the foreground. I would be curious, however, to try the Legacy Platine, as it's a 100% cotton rag paper and has no OBA's. Supposedly Legacy Baryta has a 'minimal amount' of OBA's, and it's an alpha cellulose paper, though still acid-free and fully archival. Only thing about the Legacy Baryta that I'm not crazy about is that it's $25 more than Exhibition Fiber, and Legacy Platine is $20 more than Legacy Baryta.

I've only been back home a little more than a week and have already sold 7 prints. This is very unusual, as normally I'd be lucky if no more than a couple of prints would sell at any of my exhibitions. Can't explain it!
 
Canyongazer said:
Interested Epson Exhibition printer here, Vince.
Perhaps I missed it, but

Why did you make the switch to Baryta ?
Click to expand...

Actually I just tried it out last week. I had been pretty devoted to Exhibition Fiber, but decided to try Baryta on a whim. It seems to be a much more accurate representation of what's on my computer screen, and requires much less tweaking to get the print to match up. It's a bit thinner than the Exhibition Fiber, but still a good weight. Finish is pretty much the same (like an F-finished fiber paper, so soft gloss), however it is $25 more than Exhibition Fiber. Jury is still out as to whether it's worth the additional expenditure.

I'm still interested in trying the Platine paper, but it's a bit of an expensive experiment ($129 for 25 sheets). It's a cotton rag paper, however, is thicker, and it doesn't have any OBA's. Supposedly the OBA's make the whites a bit brighter. Plus it's slightly warmer than the other two papers, so not sure if I want to take the chance or not. Unfortunately Epson does not have any kind of 'sample pack' so that I could make comparisons without having to shell out $129 for a 13"x19" box. I believe Exhibition Fiber has more OBA's than Baryta, but they're both alpha cellulose papers.

Who knows, I may go back to Exhibition Fiber!
 
Canyongazer said:
Interested Epson Exhibition printer here, Vince.
Perhaps I missed it, but

Why did you make the switch to Baryta ?
Click to expand...

Just a follow-up -- I just made two prints of this image, one with Baryta and one with Exhibition Fiber:


José by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

The only change I made was in the image and printer profile (Baryta vs Exhibition Fiber). The Baryta is more contrasty and, as a result, a bit sharper. Blacks are blacker, and the whites are pretty much the same. However, that little boost in contrast makes it truer to the image on my computer screen. Definitely sharper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom