Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,551   Posts: 1,544,887   Online: 931
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,734
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Glad he's happy.

    Claiming no manipulation though, is simply wrong.

    It is outside the scope of this forum to discuss the specifics of why. But if one understands how a digital image file is made, then one also understands that digital images are intrinsically manipulated.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,335
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    sharpen unsharpen masks?
    levels?
    contrast+brightness?
    lightroom?
    in scanner software adjustments?
    interpolation?

    certainly something has been done ...
    I scanned them with the standard scan, didn't adjust any levels, then I imported the TIFF image into Lightroom and exported it as a JPEG... It was effectively resized to fit the constraints of APUG's limited file size handling.

    No levels, no brightness, no sharpening, no scanner adjustments...

    Don't be difficult... It's a straight scan...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #13
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,335
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by didjiman View Post
    Please stop. Whatever he is doing, StoneNYC is now happy, so let him continue to do that. We do not need to turn this into another 50+ pages epic.
    Thanks. Why do they goad me? Lol
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #14
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,335
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Glad he's happy.

    Claiming no manipulation though, is simply wrong.

    It is outside the scope of this forum to discuss the specifics of why. But if one understands how a digital image file is made, then one also understands that digital images are intrinsically manipulated.
    I mean that I didn't do any levels adjustments, the scanner did scan at it's own baseline, but effectively I did no adjustments, no contest, no clarity, nothing, no sliders, just made it a readable image instead of a 150mb TIFF file...

    I just mean I didn't "cheat" and do any post scan adjustments at all.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #15
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,893
    I know what they mean. I know what you mean.

    Sigh.

    Glad you found a combo you like and that's cheaper than DD-X. Delta is good and under-appreciated film. I wish they still made Delta 400 in 4x5 sheets! (Hint, Simon...)

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    19
    I like to use DD-X. It gives great results. I recently switched to Xtol. Good as anything else.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    203
    It is outside the scope of this forum to discuss the specifics of why. But if one understands how a digital image file is made, then one also understands that digital images are intrinsically manipulated.
    This applies to any image that is discussed on this forum. On the one hand, what would be a photo forum if we did not discuss images (gear discussions?). On the other hand, because of the rules here, we must pretend that the image on the screen is not d*****l.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,320
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Thanks. Why do they goad me? Lol
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I scanned them with the standard scan, didn't adjust any levels, then I imported the TIFF image into Lightroom and exported it as a JPEG... It was effectively resized to fit the constraints of APUG's limited file size handling.

    No levels, no brightness, no sharpening, no scanner adjustments...

    Don't be difficult... It's a straight scan...
    not being difficult .. not goading you ..
    not really any such thing as a straight scan but that said. ...
    ... whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Glad he's happy.

    Claiming no manipulation though, is simply wrong.

    It is outside the scope of this forum to discuss the specifics of why. But if one understands how a digital image file is made, then one also understands that digital images are intrinsically manipulated.
    +1

    glad you are happy with whatever system you have working for you
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    170
    That's pretty draconian policy. The only film I use regularly is for 4x5 so LFF and various FB groups cover that already. I only visit because of StoneNYC's entertaining threads XD, and I will not contribute fund to the site with this sort of policy.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    721

    Developing using Rodinal

    This is according to an Agfa Manual I have, Rodinal should not be used for rotary processing or other processing where constant agitation is carried out. The reason behind this is it will reduce the 'edge' effect of sharpening the image and a possible increase of grain, although this will not be so clearly defined.

    The recommended developing/agitation for Rodinal, also from this book is :- For the first 30 seconds constant inversion or rotary agitation, then for the remaining time, one inversion only, every 30 seconds

    Rodinal achieves the 'edge' effect, (very similar to unsharp mask in Adobe) by allowing the low rate of agitation to exhaust the developer in the highlight areas (denser part of the negative) which will give a miniscule clear line between a highlight area and one which is not so dense. Thereby giving an apparent increase in sharpness.

    I know that some of the higher dilutions used by Rodinal developer, timings can be excessive, but shortening the times by using constant agitation, even with reduced times will almost certainly dull the effect of the recommendation by Agfa. I know they have been out of the mainstream for a while, but their advice still stands good today.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin