[pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
- From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:06:51 +0100
Overexposure does not create higher contrast. If overdone, it actually does
the opposite.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
On 1/3/05 1:50 AM, "Rob Champagne" <app@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> rob c
>
>
> At 02/01/2005 21:51 +0100, you wrote:
>> Justin
>>
>> Nice image, worth a try!
>>
>> Underexposed negatives have too small of a density range and need harder
>> than normal paper. Overdeveloped negatives have too much and need softer
>> than normal paper. Underexposed AND overdeveloped negatives are the hardest
>> to print, because they have no shadow detail but a huge contrast.
>>
>> From what you tell us, it might just be just underexposed having trouble
>> with the shadows. In that case, I would start with a fairly hard grade and
>> test-strip until the highlights have the right exposure, ignoring the
>> shadows at first. Then adjust the contrast to get the shadows right, while
>> keeping highlight exposure on track.
>>
>> If you've done that, and your hardest grade was not enough to get the
>> shadows dark enough, then do what Ryuji suggested, and up the exposure with
>> your hardest grade until the shadows improve and bleach the (now too dark)
>> highlights with farmers reducer. This technique simple gives the paper
>> contrast an additional boost. Otherwise, always expose for the highlights
>> and control shadows with paper contrast.
>>
>> Final shadow improvement can be made through selenium toning, but don't
>> expect too much from that.
>>
>> Before I forget, I also recommend to burn-in the front carpet. Tell us how
>> it went through another post.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/2/05 4:11 PM, "Justin F. Knotzke" <jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have the following frame which I would like to print but can't:
>>>
>>> http://www.shampoo.ca/pics/xmas-day-2004.jpg
>>>
>>> I can scan it and with some tuning in photoshop can get what you
>>> see above. But attempting to wet print it is nearly impossible. It's
>>> simply too dark. I didn't have enough light and I didn't want to use a
>>> flash so I underexposed and hoped for the best..
>>>
>>> Can someone send me some tips on how I can coax this image out onto
>>> paper? Every attempt I have made so far yields either too dark an image
>>> or a greyish image with no real blacks.
>>>
>>> How should I go about trying to print this ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>
>> =============================================================================
>> ================================
>> 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:
