Moose,
Tmax 400 negs (that's what I shot) can hold an amazing tonal range but
getting it all on paper is just not possible, and I do know what can be done
in the darkroom as I did that for 15 yrs. I could get a little better detail
with some doging and burning...these are straight prints, so to speak. I did
them quick to show what the camera was capable of. Scanning has let me get
more tonal range in the final file than I could ever get in the darkroom,
but I haven't gone to that trouble yet with these, I have 100 pages of
reading to finish by tomorrow for class, and its like that every day :( So,
the finished, good, version of these have gotta wait till school's over. I
have 120 rolls of film waiting to just be scanned now, I am that far behind
:( I scanned these just to show what I was doing with the M4 since Ken
mentioned that I had it (we're friends on facebook so he saw when I was
talking about it there). I carry a camera everywhere and make myself find
time to take pictures so that I don't forget that I am an artist and a
photographer, but school has gotten so demanding of my time that I never
have time to finish any of my images anymore. It sucks.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-424-0897
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
On 9/23/09 10:51 PM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Crawford wrote:
>> Jim,
>>
>> The contrast is due to the lighting. It was an extremely harsh sunny day and
>> many of the things I shot were backlit or were in the shade with bright
>> sunlit areas in the background. I also as a rule like my images to have some
>> contrast. 99% of the black and white photos I see online look like muddy crap
>> to me because people scan their negs and accept the flat muddy file that
>> comes out of a film scanner by default. YUCK. My scans from film look
>> the same as the darkroom prints I made in the old pre-allergy days.
>>
>
> I enjoyed the people shots, but I think #2 is the best of the bunch.
>
> As to dynamic range and contrast, I have no idea what can or can't be
> done in the wet darkroom. After scanning, though, there is a lot that
> can be done to recover balance without losing contrast. This is done
> quick and dirty on a laptop screen. I would not consider it as a
> finished image; access to the original scan in a larger size and perhaps
> even the neg would be necessary for that. There are halos both roughly
> corrected and uncorrected, I may have gone overboard to prove a point, etc.
>
> Nevertheless, I think it shows that there is much more tonal detail
> available in the data than is visible in the original post.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Crawford&;
> image=leica4a.jpg>
>
> I accept that the original may be a fairly accurate representation of
> the actual light levels. However, when the human vision scans a scene,
> it dynamically adjusts to brightness so that the bright areas aren't
> blown out and detail is seen.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|