[pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:25:02 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin F. Knotzke" <jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:06 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
> <quote who=Ryuji Suzuki date=[03/01/05 09:09 AM]/>
>
>> Flashing the paper can only reduce highlight contrast. I
>> don't think
>> you want that, unless your base exposure requires very
>> high contrast
>> to render the main subjects with natural contrast, and it
>> makes
>> highlight too hard. This part is hard to tell because you
>> didn't show
>> the raw image, or explain the details of your photoshop
>> manipulation. So I'm just giving one possibility.
>
> Ryuji,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I posted a full rez jpeg in a earlier post if you want
> to look at it.
>
> As stated, the problem is the prints are too dark. I
> have to really
> stop the lens down and use very low times in order to get
> anything other
> then complete black. When I do get real blacks.. say in
> the middle
> girl's hair, the rest of the image is also near black with
> only the girl
> on the right coming out with any detail.
>
> If I print for her eyes then I can't get any real
> blacks.
>
> That's essentially the problem in a nutshell.
>
> I have saved everyone's responses and I am going to
> try them all
> and give a detailed description of what worked (hopefully)
> and what
> didn't work.
>
> Anyhow, the goal is more to learn different techniques
> then it is
> to get the print. But getting the print would be nice.
>
> I understand everyone has different ways of doing
> things and I
> really don't want to stir up any arguments.. But I will
> definitely try
> your method and I'll let you know how it comes out.
>
>
> Thanks Ryuji,
>
> J
>
>
>
> --
> Justin F. Knotzke
> jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shampoo.ca
>
I downloaded the 10meg file at work, where I am on a T-1.
I don't have Photoshop running there but just in IE the
image looked different: much more shadow detail than in the
small jpg. I am on a dial-up at home so it would take all
day to download the large file. I have no doubt that a
satisfactory print could be made frome the large file, at
least electronically and probably chemically since there is
evidently some detail in the negative. The problem with
severe underexposure is that the darkest parts may not have
registered at all. There is no way of fixing that. It does
not seem to be the case here.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=============================================================================================================
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:
