Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,794   Online: 678
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,651
    Images
    14
    I should add the filter is in your hands or on a card and you are leaving the colour balance for the couples skin where it is on the enlarger head.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    I'd settle for B....the human eye is very adaptive when it comes to lighting, the same colors look natural to the eye in daylight or tungsten light, yet we know how different they will appear on film. It may well be that the shadows of the dress picked up a blue cast from the skylight, especially if it as slight as you say, and the faces and grass look OK.

    What people do notice on a photo, however, is whether the skin tones appear correct...or at least flattering.

    The point about optical brighteners in fabric is also very valid.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    I should add the filter is in your hands or on a card and you are leaving the colour balance for the couples skin where it is on the enlarger head.
    Thanks for the tip. I think I'd need to construct something like a dodge tool but with a warming filter, otherwise I was thinking of using the Kodak print viewing filter, but I'd need to mask the print.

  4. #14
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,651
    Images
    14
    I am not sure a kodak colour viewing filter would work. I used Cibachrome 5inch x 5inch colour printing filters as my dodging and burning tools..You could make a dodging tool on a thin wire by cutting out the basic shape of the dress.
    A little bit tricky as I said earlier but after a few prints its a piece of cake.
    BTW this trick can be used for colour enhancement on a print or desaturating local areas as well... Now I just use photoshop.

    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    Thanks for the tip. I think I'd need to construct something like a dodge tool but with a warming filter, otherwise I was thinking of using the Kodak print viewing filter, but I'd need to mask the print.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,184
    The print is probably destined for my Grandmother's wall and I doubt she'll see the faint blue hue in the folds of the dress, but I'd like to nail it anyway. It's been a fun few evenings playing with this negative so far and it's been a good exercise - kept my mind on photography as I don't shoot much during the winter. I'm going to keep an eye out for a filter set I can adapt into dodge/burn tools. I doubt if I'll ever shoot another formal wedding like this, I've got one planned for next year but that'll be far more 'bohemian' in nature and should be easier to print (I hope!).

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    178
    "got a pro lab to make little 6x4 proof prints"

    Can you remember if these had a slightly blue cast on the wedding dress as I doubt any wedding dress shaped mask was made for the printer!

    Cheers Dave (who has probably fallen off the learning curve !!!)

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1
    If you would filter your flash and lens for UV, you will minimize this problem. The most electronic flash causes the brighteners previously mentioned to fluoresce causing the blue tint you describe. Just tape the plastic filter over the flash head.

    The warming filter solution does not resolve the fluorescence but will give a pleasing result.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,184
    Dave - unfortunately I can't remember although I think a cast would have stood out. The lab I took the negs to do this 'pro' service:

    All prints are individually assessed and then corrected to produce optimum results
    What I do remember was thinking "Pro400H doesn't normally look like this". The prints were quite saturated (especially the grass - deep green) although skin was looking normal. My hand prints show a far mellower colour. The lab scans, adjusts, and prints digitally.

    Spyder2000 - Thanks for the tip. I used flash just to put pricks of light into the subject's eyes, I never thought that it could also make the dress glow with a blue cast.

  9. #19
    Alex Bishop-Thorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,455
    Images
    29
    You can ask for uncorrected prints, my local 1 hour lab will do that for me. When you intend to make a print by hand, an uncorrected print can give you a better idea what to aim for, as well as a better indication of the individual qualities of the film you've chosen. I find all film tends to look the same once you crank the saturation right up and run it all through the same digital filters before printing, which is a bit depressing...
    The Analogue Laboratory, or 'so you built a darkroom in an old factory in the industrial zone'.
    Blog thing!.

    Worry less. Photograph more.

  10. #20
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Unfortunately when you cut costs with color printing you get crap. This isn't a "i'll save money by reusing chemistry and using old paper" hobby unfortunately. It took me my first year of printing to discover this. I currently get good results with supra endura in Kodak Ektacolor RT replenisher solution at room temperature (68F? i never really check.) I'm not going to be changing it anytime soon. Back when I was using Fuji paper I got the nastiest crossover you could imagine. I thought it was my bad printing at first but I was wrong. The moral is "I got a good deal on two rolls of Edge from Jessops and I'm using it to practice on." combined with whatever chemistry will get you images with crossover and there's nothing you can do about that. I, however, have not used Edge so take my opinion with a grain of salt but if the negative is good, the problem lies in your paper/processing. Try Kodak Chems and/or switch to Supra Endura. I would avoid random chemicals like the plague. It's too high of a risk for valuable work.
    Last edited by tiberiustibz; 12-06-2009 at 11:02 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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