[pure-silver] Re: Pure Black and Golden.
- From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:35:56 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Badcock <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 1, 2005 9:52 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: photographica@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Pure Black and Golden.
Bill, believe it or not, your response to my dilemma
suggests to me that I may well need to dodge and burn! If
this is the case, then my intention is
NOT to go down that path. I mean I love my dogs 'n all, but
do people think that basically I may not be able to get 4
stop lattitute between zones III and VII with Delta 400?
If that's the case then I'd rather use a film with a much
larger exposure lattitude and test IT to death. Is that what
I need to try?
Is is true then that speed and exposure lattitute tend to be
trade-offs?
regards
Peter Badcock
Speed and latitude are a bit different. Latitude is the measure of the
amount of exposure error on can have and still get good tonal rendition.
Because the current ISO speed method yields about the minimum exposure that
will result in good shadow detail there is practically no underexposure
latitude for B&W negative films. OTOH, there is lots of overexposure latitude,
many stops for most films. Perfectly good prints can be made from the
overexposed negatives but they may require rather long printing times and may
be somewhat grainy compared to a negative with the minimum of exposure.
One can render long scale subjects by lowering either negative or print
contrast but the visual appearance may be unsatisfactory; the eye wants to see
about normal contrast in the mid-tones. It is, however, rather tollerant of
compressed tones in the shadows and highlights.
If there is sufficient detail in the negative the obvious way to print
it is to burn or dodge. If you use VC paper you can also mask so that different
parts of the image are printed with different contrast.
To make multiple prints, or if the dodging is complex, one can make a
dodging mask. There are several approaches to this but probably the simplest
way is to use retouching fluid on the negative and work up a mask by hand using
retouching dye or carbon pencil. The mask can be made on separate media. At one
time Kodak made a material very suitable for this. It was a transparent plastic
with a diffuse surface on one side much like very fine ground glass. I don't
know if similar material is any longer available. The diffuse surface tended
to blend the mask better. you can also try making the mask on transparent
plastic with retouching media on it. The problem with a separate mask is
keeping it in register.
A contast mask, i.e., a low contrast positive image in register with the
negative, is not very profitable here because it is _local_ values you want to
change, not overall contrast, or even the contrast of these areas.
Of course, all this can be done in an image editor like Photo Shop, but
this is, afterall, a list for chemical based photography. Beside which I am not
sure the electronic editing of a scan is really any easier or more
satisfactory.
Another way of accomplishing this kind of adjustment is the paper negative
process. I think this is nearly a lost art despite being a very powerful method
of modifying images and really not too difficult to do.
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Los Angeles, CA, USA
=============================================================================================================
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:
