[pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
- From: "J.R. Stewart" <jrstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:18:19 -0500
If the negative format is big enough (i.e., at least 120 size), would a
contrast reducing mask help? Wouldn't that bring up the shadows and
accentuate any detail there? In PS, this photo shows lots of detail
everywhere except the computer and the dark dress on the far right. l). So
it looks like there are several areas that would benefit from a mask. It
might require a SCIM to bring the deepest shadows back down... but now I'm
getting complicated.
I work with 6x7 and 4x5, and that's what I would try if nothing else worked.
This looks like it might require a fairly heavy CR mask.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "DarkroomMagic" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "PureSilverNew" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 3:51 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
> 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.
Other related posts:
