Boudhanath Stupa, Kathmandu
Now I’m back shooting film, I’m certainly not going to even consider digital for the foreseeable future. It’s just been such a painful process for me to have to try to get the colours I like out of a digital system.
Here’s a picture of Boudhanath Stupa, the largest Stupa outside of Tibet.
I shot this one evening as the light was beginning to fade, while I was perched at the top of a cafe right across from it. This stupa is incredibly busy, and because of the white wash on it, it can be extremely hard to shoot properly.
I’m always looking for atmosphere in what I do, so I knew I had to shoot this at a time when no one is around. Mornings were ruled out, because quite frankly, I couldn’t seem to get there before the local Tibetans started to circumnavigate the Stupa as part of their daily ritual.
It is like a motorway, a congested one, in the small hours. So I shot this in the evening with a deliberate long exposure so I could get motion in the prayer flags.
Hi bruce,
I absolutely love this image. Could you please talk about how you determined exposure for this shot? I’m guessing you metered off of the gray in the steps?
Thanks,
Mark Olwick
Comment by olwick — 26 April, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Hi Mark,
When I meter, I tend to make spot readings of the entire scene to see how wide the dynamic range is. I will also look at what I think should be ‘mid-grey’ in the scene and take a spot reading of that to see where it sits within the dynamic range.
Often though, I tend to use a reading from the ground somewhere to work out what my mid-grey point will be.
At dusk, as in this shot, the dynamic range between shadow and highlight gets easier…. I was aware of shooting in a square such as this that anything in shadow would be too dark compared to the brilliant whiteness of the Stupa, hence why I hung around and waited for the evening light. I think this was shot well after the sun was down, so everything was pretty even. I tend to find that some of the best shooting conditions are after the sun has gone down, or before the sun has come up because there is no direct light on anything to drastically increase dynamic range. I’m looking for a negative which has all the detail in shadows and detail in highlights, then I’ll do my ‘darkroom’ work on it.
As for dark room work on this image, I deliberately put some light fall of on the shot. It’s just an artistic input from myself. But the light has to be right, and as you can see, there are some of those magenta colours you often get in a winter sunset.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 26 April, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Hi Bruce,
Congratulations for all your work. You have stunning images (both landscapes and portraits) and I like the way you use film and the 6×7 format. I’d like to comment about your remark above: “Now I’m back shooting film, I’m certainly not going to even consider digital for the foreseeable future. It’s just been such a painful process for me to have to try to get the colours I like out of a digital system.”
I totally agree on some points but disagree on others. I personally shoot (as a professional photographer) 6×7 cm, 6×17 cm (nearly always Velvia) and also digital (with a Nikon D3). I have used both film and digital for my last trip in the Faroes islands and Iceland in 2008 and for the first time I have found digital usable and efficient in many cases. I still much prefer the superb slides I get from my Pentax 67 II (heavier than your Mamiya but I feel I need the reflex system), but this full-frame digital is much much better to my eyes than the 5D you just -rightly – let go. In fact I had one 5D in the past and like you I was constantly struggling to get real colors out of it. Colors were so special and the look so “digital” that I sold it after two or three months trying to get something right out of it.
It is a different story with the D3 (D700 is just the same I think). I set it to RAW and neutral and the colors are good from the start. It doesn’t react to very good light exactly like film, that’s why I prefer using film with “soft” light, but it is sometimes better or as good in less than perfect conditions. I use also Capture One (Phase One) and not Adobe Photoshop to develop RAW files, I find it more adapted to nature or landscape photography.
Do not take me wrong, I am not a Nikon guy against Canon or sthing like that – I much prefer film anyway – but if you have an opportunity to test these last full frame cameras and associated lenses (the new 24-70 is a gem) you may slightly change your mind and perhaps get more flexibility on some occasions (long lenses, action- at a cost though).
But never loose faith in film and 6×7 slides, they are still vastly superior for landscape work (in fact I dream of 4×5 inches at night, but the cost of it on top of all my other gear would be a bit too much at present)
By the way, the rendition of Kodak Portra 160 on your portraits is simply amazing. What a superb film !
Keep the good work !
Patrick Dieudonné, France
http://www.patrickdieudonne.com
Comment by Patrick Dieudonne — 28 May, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Hello Patrick,
Thanks for the very kind reply about my work.
I had the priviledge recently of trying out a Nikon D3 and I was impressed with the dynamic range of the camera. It is superb, but I haven’t been able to view the results myself to see how it compares in terms of ‘look and feel’. I also agree with you regarding digital being beneficial…. there are shots I cannot get with film alone, whereas digital I would be able to. However, it’s not possible to get everything I see and I’ve settled on knowing that not one camera system out there will cover everything I need. And I hate carrying too many systems. So I’ve accepted that I will miss shots from time to time.
I had a look at your site and you have some lovely images there, and have been to some places I would love to go to – Harris Lewis, Faroe islands…. to name a few. Perhaps this summer I will make it up there.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 28 May, 2009 @ 9:51 pm