[pure-silver] Re: fence row project negatives
- From: Sauerwald Mark <mark_sauerwald@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Shannon
Would a red filter to darken the sky have helped?
I don't know if you had any interesting cloud
formations but use of various coloured filters to
shift the contrast ratios between elements is often
usefull.
As an aside, I am a big sucker for clouds. My teen
age daughter is also a photographer, and a couple of
years ago we did a photo trip to the southwest. Each
day I would set the alarm clock for a bit before
sunrise, and would check what the clouds looked like,
the deal that we had struck was that if there were
'good clouds' then we would get up and go out and
shoot at sunrise, if the sky was flat, then we would
sleep in. My daughter who normally would sleep in got
really into it, and ended up getting really
enthusiatic about some of the clouds in the mornings!
I often select a filter to bring contrast between the
clouds and the sky.
Mark
--- Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> I was working on a project this summer where I
> photographed every fence
> post along a fence row on my road in TN. Then I came
> back to Houston
> and started processing the negatives. Some of them
> look pretty flat;
> that is, the leaves and branches and vines in the
> foreground are all
> the same value. Sometimes the sky is dense on the
> negative, and so
> technically the negative has a normal range, but
> there are no values in
> between the dark leaves in the foreground and the
> bright sky or pasture
> in the background. I think this is because I shot
> the negatives around
> 6 pm on most days, right at sunset. I did this
> mainly because it
> finally cooled off at that time of day, and also
> because I didn't want
> a lot of light effects--cast shadows, dappled light
> etc--interfering
> with the texture of the leaves and branches. I
> wanted a kind of flat
> light. But evidently I went too far. I like this
> time of day for
> photographing, because of this even, flat light; but
> maybe I should
> have gone out an hour earlier? Or tried to stretch
> out the values in
> the leaves a little more? I was using ddx 1+6, and
> I have another box
> that I exposed for processing with ddx 1+4, so maybe
> those will work
> out better.
>
> I sort of knew it wasn't a great idea to meter the
> leaves and then
> meter the sky and not meter anything in between but
> I did it anyway. In
> fact there wasn't anything in between those two
> values usually. I've
> had this problem before in landscapes, where all the
> values "on the
> ground" are compressed and look flat, and the sky is
> perfect, but so
> what? If the main subject of interest is flat, the
> photograph looks
> flat.
>
> What do other people do in this situation? Go out
> earlier in the day?
> Ignore the sky and let it blow out?
>
> --shannon
>
>
=============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to
> www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the
> same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
