[LRflex] Re: Shots from the archive
- From: Walter Kramer <walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:32:10 +1100
Thanks Richard and Charlie,
I'll try to respond here to the questions raised in both your emails.
Firstly I do some scanning myself when I want higher resolution for
printing, otherwise for posting on the net I am usually happy to use the
lab scans (Fuji Frontier Machine). In terms of mucking around with the
scanned image I have found that there is little one can do to enhance
the impact or detail once you are working with the scanned image file.
Most of the time I will only add contrast with B&W and try levels
adjust, ie., highlights and shadows. With colour scans I will also toy
with white balance, and thats really it. I have found that noise
reduction, sharpening and other processes that work well with the
digital raw image degrade the scanned image most of the time.
I too was treating the scanned image as if it was a digital image ie.,
raw, until I did some research on the net and experimented. I then
noted that the same principles apply as they do in the reproduction of
sound through a Hifi system (One of my interests) Basically, shit in,
means shit out, that translates as one cannot improve the sound if the
incoming signal to the amplifier and speakers is already compromised.
The CD/record player (read, 'scanner') is the single most important
determinant given the specific data source (read, 'developed film')
Heavy processing after scanning may well interfere with those qualities
of the image which make us want to scan and print.
I use a flatbed scanner and the only real advice I can give about this
is to scan at the highest resolution before the image gets 'watery'
Very high res scanning seems to make images soft. I use the scanners
software to add contrast, levels and sharpening although raw scanning
seems to be fine as well. I have found that sharpening at the scanning
phase is better than sharpening later.
Most of the images posted are scanned, some are digital and processed.
When I look through my images I always seem to find the film ones more
attractive. The cricket shot is digital taken with a Sigma SD14, the
ball I think is either about to hit the bat or leaving after being
struck, although it may be possible that the shutter fired on impact.
In my seeking and experimenting I have used various equipment in just
under four years of shooting. Still learning. Charlie, I think you will
find the CHS 50 very good and it scans very well, it is one of my a
preferred B&W films along with the fuji acros 100. The picture you
refer to with the clouds was taken with the Pana G1 and an old Konica
135mm f/3.2. The lens is quite contrasty and that would have helped.
The shot was taken raw and processed but as far as I recall I only added
sharpening, levels for shadows and highlights and some contrast.
Sometimes less is more.
Cheers
Walter
Charlie Falke wrote:
> On 3/5/2010 7:30 AM, Walter Kramer wrote:
>
>> The list seems quiet so here are some outstanding shots from the archive.
>>
>>
>>
> Walter,
> Also agreed about over-processing, especially with "auto-enhance"
> options. When I've done fooling with an image, I try to remember
> to go back to the original image and see what I've lost.
> I like lot of these photos and need to take more time with
> them. I cheated and started walking through the whole stream in
> Flickr, so I could see what they were shot with. You are a very
> adventurous photographer and try lots of different gear and films
> and concepts, some stuff I didn't know existed. And lots of it
> worked out well. 562 is extraordinarily well timed. :-)
> Ditto the cricketers. Is that the ball actually on the bat?
> 546 gives a beautiful sense of the cozy sunny light, and has full
> shadow detail and no burned highlights. I find I can get
> Adox CHS 50 in the states easily, in every size up to 8x10.
> I'm going to try it.
> Quite a surprise when Australia jumps out at you, all that
> traffic going the wrong way, all that lovely catenary over
> the railroads.
> I ran into another photo of yours in your photostream that
> wasn't in the above list, but it's wonderful. It's 3940109261, the
> BW cloud photo in the set "Nature." The gradation and texture of
> the clouds are almost tactile, and when you blow it up it looks
> like very fine grain BW film, but it was shot with a G1.
> Did it come off the sensor like that, or was it done in
> processing?
>
>
--
Walter Krämer
walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bus: 03 9854 2463
Mob: 0414 884 965
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
