[pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
- From: "Rob Champagne" <app@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:42:58 +0000
Gene,
The neg has full textural detail in the woman on the left of the image. The
problem is that in the exposure they were on zones 2,3,4 instead of 4,5,6 or
thereabouts. The only way I know of to get those to print where they will look
best is to give them less print exposure. Doing that will push the other areas
of the print off the highlight scale so burning them in (which would be very
difficult) or preflashing will bring them back without affecting the low to mid
tones.
Incidentally preflashing is not the same as printing with a softer filter.
Preflashing a print is equivalent to using a compensating developer (or pmk)
to develop a negative. i.e. it affects primarily the highlights with little or
no effect on the mid tones and shadows even if it is done to the whole sheet of
paper.
Personally I suspect that normal contrast (grade 2 or 3) should be OK for the
main exposure and preflashing should bring the highlight detail in. If whites
are not required in the hightlights then slightly overdoing the preflash to
give a very slight veil to the highlights may give even more highlight detail
but may make them look a little flat.
Combining the other method using grade 0 and 5 a la tim rudman and others with
the prelash should also work. Its just another way of getting to the same
point.
rob
At 03/01/2005 06:36 -0800, you wrote:
>I could print this pretty much straight up. The exposure's not that bad and
>it's a nice scene. Your highlights and mids look fine. The "problem" shadow
>areas are a black dress in shadow and the inside of a fireplace in shadow.
>I don't think there's much in those areas to get no matter what you do. For
>me, the hardest part is the face of the woman on the left. Pre-flashing
>might help get more detail there, but it might have an unwanted affect on
>your highlights. i might dodge that area a "little". Not much more than
>about 20% of the overall exposure time or it will get even muddier than it
>already is. That alone might be enough depending on how fussy you want to
>be.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin F. Knotzke" <jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:09 AM
>Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
>
>
>> <quote who=Rob Champagne date=[02/01/05 07:50 PM]/>
>> > Playing around with the image in photoshop shows full textural detail
>throughout the image. I think he meant it is overexposed and such the
>negative is very high contrast.
>> > Selective pre flashing should bring the highlight detail in withou
>overexposing the shadows.
>>
>> Quickly, because I have to get to the office but some have asked for
>> a full rez scan.
>>
>> http://www.shampoo.ca/pics/crop0006.jpg
>>
>> That's 10 megs. I use Vuescan and I set the exposure to 1.
>>
>> Ok, gotta run.
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin F. Knotzke
>> jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.shampoo.ca
>>
>============================================================================
>=================================
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>=============================================================================================================
>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.
=============================================================================================================
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:
