[pure-silver] Re: Under exposed frame
- From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:09:41 +0100
If Justin can part with the neg for a while and send me his 'best' print
along with it, I'll give it a go and try to improve on it.
I've held the original negative of Aas 'Snake River' in my hands once. There
was close to no density in the dark foreground and the print looks great. He
didn't even have VC. But then again, there is only one Ansel Adams.
A localized highlight mask might work, but I need to see the neg. However,
local dodging, burning and bleaching can do wonders, especially in
combination with VC and complex split-grade printing. I wonder what Ansel
would have done if he had used the last two.
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
On 1/3/05 12:13 AM, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin F. Knotzke" <jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "PureSilver Mailing List" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 7:11 AM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Under exposed frame
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin F. Knotzke
>> jknotzke@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.shampoo.ca
>
> I was able to considerably improve the JPG you sent in
> Photoshop by manually adjusting the "levels". One can tailor
> the curve shape at will to compensate for the excessive
> highlight contrast. I think this is the easiest way to
> approach this. You could try a contrast mask on the negative
> but that will require some experimentation. The problem with
> conventional printing is that correcting this sort of image
> requires being able to change the shape of the print curve
> to compensate the variation in contrast with density of the
> negative. The shadows will have very low contrast because
> they are exposed on the toe of the film curve while the
> highlights have much higher contrast because they are will
> up on the straight line part of the curve. As a result if
> you choose the paper contrast so that the mid grays appear
> correct the shadows will have low density. If you print for
> normally deep shadows the mid grays will be compressed and
> the highlights blown out. I don't think any combination of
> printing on variable contrast paper will fix this. VC paper
> has variable overall contast but no way to change the
> relative contrast of different parts of the gray scale. A
> contast filter can improve this but its easier, and I think
> the results will be better, if its done in an image editor
> like Photoshop.
> Again, I could improve the jpg you have posted almost
> instantly so I think the possibilities for improvement of
> the original scan must be even greater.
>
> ---
> 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.
=============================================================================================================
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:
