> At least Moose cannot say anything about the bokeh in this image! ;-)
Hmm. Not so sure about that. There is that "cloud bokeh" and "mountain
bokeh" to worry about. Oh, and don't forget "desolation bokeh".
Honestly, the picture doesn't do much for me, yet. The problem I see
is intended display size. This is a picture that I think would look
very nice if printed huge. But in a small post-card sized on-line
presentation it just puts me into snooze mode.
Another issue, which I've been seeing with recent B&W scans on this
list is the unfortunate muddy Zones II-IV. This is something I've been
fighting too, so I can't be critical of others. That results in images
on-screen which just fall flat and lack the sparkle which B&W is
capable of. I'm not sure of the cause, yet, but will continue to work
my own scanning techniques to find a way to idealize the tonal
response for the scans.
What it comes down to, I think, is that the specific gamma of the
negatives and the gamma of the printing paper complement each other
and neutralize the misaligned tones. However, when scanning negatives,
we don't have the gamma correction which the printing paper gives.
Therefore, we are forced to create a pretend gamma curve in Photoshop
to shove tones where they are really intended to land. Unfortunately,
I haven't gotten that figured out yet and have rarely seen others get
it either. This particular landscape photograph is a case in point and
I see exactly the same thing in Chris' photograph as I see in mine.
The images, as presented looks exactly like Ilford Delta 100
(Processed DD-X) with yellow filter. That combination seems to lose a
lot of tonal separation in Zones II-IV.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|