Photographer comments regarding the four B&W images posted so far:
1. Train. I believe that I did use a combination of yellow and
polarizer on this picture. The exposure as presented is probably just
a little on the low side. With a bright monitor, it looks pretty good.
There is actually plenty of tonal separation in the highs on this shot
and I'm quite satisfied with the full range of tones available in the
neg. The stones are a little low only because the exposure as
presented is a little low. It's mostly a gamma situation. Any gripes
with this shot are strictly a result of the presentation, not the
negative itself.
2. Arbor Hill House. Same situation as the previous one where the
presented exposure seems a little low. As to the general flatness of
the shingles and such, this is because of the direct sunlight. If you
notice the shadows, you'll see that the sun is almost exactly behind
me. Not a good situation. Pictures taken from other spots have MUCH
more texture to them. I just happened to like this composition. When
darkroom printed, the sky WILL go dramatic.
3. Bent Trees. There seems to be a very big disconnect between what I
see on the negative and what got scanned. My scanning is NOT doing
this picture justice. The green filter definitely lifted the grass and
softened the shadows. One of my biggest concerns with this shot and
why I used the filter I did was far too much contrast. The subject is
the trees, not the grass. By using the green filter, I lowered the
overall contrast (and lifted it at least a full stop) in relation to
the rest of the scene. This is deliberate. The non-filtered version of
this shot would not work at all. In the darkroom, I'll be able to do
some dodging and burning that will give much more depth and texture to
the trees.
4. Cafe. I don't think there was any filter on this shot. There are
variations where I did use filters, but I think this one was straight.
When using a red filter, the painted front disappeared and the bright
red tree behind the building went nuclear. This may not be the best
implementation of the shot. I realize now, that I may have
misidentified this picture. It very well could have been taken with
the 35-80/2.8 zoom. I hadn't landed yet with my final working
configuration (first shot of the trip) and probably had the zoom on
the camera. This makes sense as I've noted before how the 35-80 just
seems off for some odd reason with B&W films. Oh, who knows....
I look forward to working these and other shots up in the darkroom.
I've got the Presque Isle River shots processed and the negs are
looking really good. But I can also tell at a glance that they just
aren't going to scan well. One of my working scans just wouldn't go,
so I gave it up.
Do note, that these four presented pictures have ZERO dodging and
burning applied. They are straight scans, cropped and tonally adjusted
for top/tail with gamma adjustment.
Ken
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|