Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: 10 more film pics

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: 10 more film pics
From: Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:59:11 +0200
Thanks again Moose--I do like both of these better in your latest versions and 
indeed prefer them to my own.

As for the scanner, I am at a loss. When I see the output histogram, I see not 
spikes or cutoffs or holes. I see a normal, smooth histogram. I will try to 
play a bit more with the shadows & highlights tool in PS when processing my 
next batch of negatives. In the past I used it more but then gave it up because 
I found that it gave an unnatural look. But your demonstration is quite 
convincing.

Cheers,
Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog

YNWA







On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Moose wrote:

> On 3/26/2011 12:38 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>> Thanks Moose, I really appreciate the efforts.
> 
> You are very welcome. You already know I don't usually play with an image 
> unless I already like it, or see something I 
> expect to like in it. As to effort, they say if you do what you love, you'll 
> never work a day in your life. :-)
> 
>> You know post processing is not my strength (that's an understatement :-)). 
>> I do not think it is an issue with the scanning software, Epson Scan. 
>> Rather, I just do not like to play with curves etc. in Photoshop. The only 
>> reason I even use Photoshop on these images is that it is easier to clean up 
>> dust spots etc. than with Lightroom.
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1. I think it is an issue with Epson Scan. Simple reasoning points that way:
> 
>    a. Tri-X has been around since 1954.
>    b. XTOL is also a Kodak product that's been around for decades.
>    c. If that combo did weird things like I see in these images, Kodak would 
> have changed the developer.
>    d. If that combo did weird things like I see in these images, everybody 
> would already know it.
>    e. Therefore, the problem isn't in the negatives.
>    f. You say you don't do any post processing work that could do it.
>    g. Therefore, it is happening in the scanning step.
>    h. Tests of that scanner don't show the big highlight spike.
>    i. Therefore, it is happening in the software.
> 
> For reasons I won't bore you with, I have ended up with Canon scanners, Epson 
> photo printers and HP general printers. So 
> I have no experience with EpsonScan. The problem with the above logic is that 
> the B&W and color scans using EpsonScan in 
> Vincent Oliver's extensive review of the V700 on photo-i don't show any such 
> effect. 
> <http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_11.htm>
> 
> Is it possible that at  some point you moved one or more or more settings 
> away from the defaults and they stayed that way?
> 
> 2. I wasn't suggesting that you take up more post processing. I was 
> suggesting that proper scanning results should be a 
> lot closer to what I ended up with than what you are getting now - without 
> post processing beyond what you are already 
> doing.
> 
> Even just a tiny bit of post can work wonders for some problems, though. I've 
> added the first step I did on the first 
> image. This is the result of adjusting two sliders in one tool in PS, only a 
> few seconds. 
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Wajsman/Sometimes_I_Use_Film&image=SIuf_Plaza_deA_ShHi.jpg>
> 
>> Having said all this, there is also the question of preferences--I tend to 
>> lean towards muted tones and dislike overprocessed images (part of the 
>> reason why I have never gotten much into post-processing). Your examples are 
>> not in that category, and I definitely like what you did with the first 
>> image, and to a lesser degree with the couple walking on the pier.
> 
> I didn't do much to the first one. The couple on the pier got quite a lot of 
> attention - a bigger challenge, you see. 
> :-)   You'll probably prefer the 50% solution I added. 
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Wajsman/Sometimes_I_Use_Film&image=SIuf_Playa_de_Postiguet50.jpg>
>  
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz