Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Positive or negative
- Thread starter simonpg
- Start date
najobskalf
Member
Removing Trotsky from group photographs?
polypal
Active Member
Jürgen,
It is not a correction but a method to save prints from heavily underexposed negatives.
From seventy year old negatives usefull prints were made in the darkroom with a modified condensor enlarger using short exposure, extra strong developer and hard paper grade 5.
Nominal film sensitivity in those days was about half the given value to begin with.
When underexposed these negatives were useless for printing.
Prints with max corrections in PS did not produce anything worth looking at.
It is not a correction but a method to save prints from heavily underexposed negatives.
From seventy year old negatives usefull prints were made in the darkroom with a modified condensor enlarger using short exposure, extra strong developer and hard paper grade 5.
Nominal film sensitivity in those days was about half the given value to begin with.
When underexposed these negatives were useless for printing.
Prints with max corrections in PS did not produce anything worth looking at.
As long as you have a recording of the densities (a scan) you can perform such tricks digitally as well, of course.
Maybe not via a ready-made filter in PS, but anything you can do in the darkroom, you can do digitally.
This particular ex&le might benefit from a 'histogram equalization', in which tone values are redistributed over the available range.
Maybe not via a ready-made filter in PS, but anything you can do in the darkroom, you can do digitally.
This particular ex&le might benefit from a 'histogram equalization', in which tone values are redistributed over the available range.
I can assure you there is nothing that can be done in the darkroom that cannot be done digitally ... except make a second generation image ( i.e., a silver-print directly from a neg. : -)
PhotoShop is such a deep post program that mastering it is a full time endeavor. When I first began, the Art Director that was teaching me said I would get quite proficient in a year or two, the remainder would take the rest of my life.
Subsequently, I have found that PhotoShop experts often concentrate on certain types of post work. Restoration experts have skill sets, techniques, actions and custom plug-ins that can do things general practioniers wouldn't even dream of.
PhotoShop is such a deep post program that mastering it is a full time endeavor. When I first began, the Art Director that was teaching me said I would get quite proficient in a year or two, the remainder would take the rest of my life.
Subsequently, I have found that PhotoShop experts often concentrate on certain types of post work. Restoration experts have skill sets, techniques, actions and custom plug-ins that can do things general practioniers wouldn't even dream of.
My my, I certainly got somewhat of a rise with the whole 'sloppiness' point
I actually find nothing at all wrong with post-production via Photoshop or any other means -- for instance, there are times despite a bang-on exposure, attention to detail, etc., post-production is necessary to bring-out the best of an image. As we all know, there are times at the point of initial exposure that certain elements may be/are beyond our immediate control and compromises need to be made for any number of technically (and/or artistically) valid reasons. I am sure there are many of us here who at the time of exposure did so with certain post-production techniques in mind as part of their corresponding 'previsualization'.
For ex&le, back in the '80s I used masks, split-toning, hand-colouring and other post-exposure techniques extensively in my personal work -- I love Uelsmann's imagery but worked the techniques in my own way. Despite all this post-production work, its quality depended heavily on equally careful attention to choice of film stock, lighting, exposure, etc. for the stock negatives used within the composite images. More often than not, prints made from the stock negatives could have easily stood -- and often did -- on their own merit with little manipulation apart from light burning/dodging. The point here is that by being the foundation of a composite image, the stock negatives needed to be 'solid' or chances were the final image would not 'hang together' as seamlessly as desired. This is a quality that I often find lacking in many PS-created composites posted on forums such as photo.net, although outstanding ex&les do pop-up on occasion.
More often than not, what separates a person who approaches the medium with a high degree of professionalism from a hack (or one trick wonders) is a solid knowledge of the craft/art and its capabilities, and a corresponding personal ability to control the medium rather than be controlled by it. I shoot most of my personal colour work using transparency film in part because it is so relatively unforgiving, and the corresponding discipline translates quite well whenever I shoot digital
I actually find nothing at all wrong with post-production via Photoshop or any other means -- for instance, there are times despite a bang-on exposure, attention to detail, etc., post-production is necessary to bring-out the best of an image. As we all know, there are times at the point of initial exposure that certain elements may be/are beyond our immediate control and compromises need to be made for any number of technically (and/or artistically) valid reasons. I am sure there are many of us here who at the time of exposure did so with certain post-production techniques in mind as part of their corresponding 'previsualization'.
For ex&le, back in the '80s I used masks, split-toning, hand-colouring and other post-exposure techniques extensively in my personal work -- I love Uelsmann's imagery but worked the techniques in my own way. Despite all this post-production work, its quality depended heavily on equally careful attention to choice of film stock, lighting, exposure, etc. for the stock negatives used within the composite images. More often than not, prints made from the stock negatives could have easily stood -- and often did -- on their own merit with little manipulation apart from light burning/dodging. The point here is that by being the foundation of a composite image, the stock negatives needed to be 'solid' or chances were the final image would not 'hang together' as seamlessly as desired. This is a quality that I often find lacking in many PS-created composites posted on forums such as photo.net, although outstanding ex&les do pop-up on occasion.
More often than not, what separates a person who approaches the medium with a high degree of professionalism from a hack (or one trick wonders) is a solid knowledge of the craft/art and its capabilities, and a corresponding personal ability to control the medium rather than be controlled by it. I shoot most of my personal colour work using transparency film in part because it is so relatively unforgiving, and the corresponding discipline translates quite well whenever I shoot digital
simonpg
Active Member
-- for instance, there are times despite a bang-on exposure, attention to detail, etc., post-production is necessary to bring-out the best of an image.
Wayne, I agree - the horrible rusty old beer can lying unseen in a field and that appeared right at the intersection of "the thirds" in an otherwise perfect frame is a classic ex&le! How often do we experience such an event and have relied upon PS (or the like) to doctor the image and clean up the litter in the scene we loved!
While I am very much a novice who sticks to the basics in PS and always shoot film, I have always believed that I am far better off to begin with a "perfect" frame and that many PS functions I might perform may each be subtly degrading my image's overall quality. Am I wrong?
So my experience is that most of the PS changes I may make to an image are actually to "correct" the digital image scanned to disc at the time the film was developed. The rest are things like cropping, removal of an offending object etc..
Wayne, I agree - the horrible rusty old beer can lying unseen in a field and that appeared right at the intersection of "the thirds" in an otherwise perfect frame is a classic ex&le! How often do we experience such an event and have relied upon PS (or the like) to doctor the image and clean up the litter in the scene we loved!
While I am very much a novice who sticks to the basics in PS and always shoot film, I have always believed that I am far better off to begin with a "perfect" frame and that many PS functions I might perform may each be subtly degrading my image's overall quality. Am I wrong?
So my experience is that most of the PS changes I may make to an image are actually to "correct" the digital image scanned to disc at the time the film was developed. The rest are things like cropping, removal of an offending object etc..
minolta2hassy
New Member
I bought the 500 C/M for two purpose and each purpose requires its own film type. So I shoot both +ve & -ve. I do not shoot B&W very much, but I might begin to shoot more if I can develop a scanning and printing technique that gives me very good contrast control.
Cheers,
Alan
Cheers,
Alan
cs_foto
Member
I must say i am from the "digital" generation, so I shoot only slide film. Why? because is easier to edit (you don't need to print a contact/index sheet) and you can judge the scan quiet easily (just compare it to the slide), also:
is amazing how the colours just explode when you get the right exposure
I would like (at some time) to shoot negative film just because of the possibility to later print "old school", but, at the moment my workflow is to scan and then print digitally, even thou i think the quality of digital prints is not up to the analog ones (i might be wrong)...
all the best,
carlos
is amazing how the colours just explode when you get the right exposure
I would like (at some time) to shoot negative film just because of the possibility to later print "old school", but, at the moment my workflow is to scan and then print digitally, even thou i think the quality of digital prints is not up to the analog ones (i might be wrong)...
all the best,
carlos
Nowadays (if I'm shooting film,rarely), I shoot negative color even if I plan to print b&w. Since my scanner is a flatbed, this is the "called" film. but have to admit, that if the transparency is an easy one, the scanner seems to increase dpi by 30% over a neg.
As for post-processing, I enjoy doing a lot of Photoshop, but mainly in the traditional darkroom content. I call it "turbo darkroom". I used to wet-retouch my color prints and now I use PS various tools for the same tasks.
Here is one pic produced from a Fuji 6X9 color neg
Best
Eduardo
As for post-processing, I enjoy doing a lot of Photoshop, but mainly in the traditional darkroom content. I call it "turbo darkroom". I used to wet-retouch my color prints and now I use PS various tools for the same tasks.
Here is one pic produced from a Fuji 6X9 color neg
Best
Eduardo
