Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,766   Posts: 1,484,141   Online: 777
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    689

    Full Circle?

    So it has finally come to this... an ostensibly traditional analog forum must use digital techniques to teach its own techniques?

  2. #22
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,081
    Images
    20
    Well, if we want digital photographers to try film, it makes sense to start from what they know.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #23
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,154
    Images
    1
    I agree with David.

    Photoshop is frequently using analog terminology and combining it with relatively simple statistics. Histograms are a typical example. If using the terminology helps to open the analog doors to digital photographers, why not?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  4. #24
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    Here are two shots. One is a scan of a wet print I made last night and the other is a scan of the negative.
    I guess first question is which do YOU think is a better rendering.
    To me the scan of the negative has more snap and sparkle that the wet print scan. The paper for the wet print is Oriental Seagull VC and I used a 2 1/2 CF. 13 sec @f/16. I developed the print in LPD 1:2 for 3 min.
    This is back to the original question...how to get the wet print have more "sparkle" than it currently does.
    I made several prints at different times. 15 sec is too dark and 10 sec. is not dark enough. Do I need to use more contrast and less time???
    If there are things that I just cannot do in a traditional dark room I want to know that as well.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails img220-neg-scan-fr#11.jpg   scan-of-wet-print_FR11_309.jpg  
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  5. #25
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,154
    Images
    1
    First, you need less exposure. The skin tones are too dark. Shorten the exposure until they are similar to your neg scan. Then, look at the shadows. If they are too dark, use a softer grade or dodge the shadows. If they are to light, use harder grade or burn them in. You may have to slightly adjust the exposure again when you're done with the contrast changes.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  6. #26
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    Thanks Ralph. Now I have something concrete to try and see how it turns out. Oriental Seagull VC is fast paper. As I said that is only a 13 sec. exposure @f/16. My fujinon 90mm enlarging lens is f/5.6-22. Should I avoid f/22?
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  7. #27
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Well, if we want digital photographers to try film, it makes sense to start from what they know.
    Oh, no dispute - just sayin'.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    109
    Lower your exposure half a stop. That will be 9.21 secs. My guess is your darks will still be a bit darker than your neg scan. I would go to grade 2.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    256
    It may be helpful for you to know that, judging by the negative scan, your negative is fairly well exposed (actually it's slightly underexposed, but nothing too serious). This means that given more experience you should, with practice, be able to create a wet print that replicates your neg scan. It's simply a case of consolidating your printing skills.

    Regards
    Jerry

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,040
    Basic levels is the process of getting the highlights and shadows right to the end of the scale. In the darkroom you do this this adjusting contrast. Print to get a proper highlight, then adjust contrast to get proper black.

    Burn/dodge are the function similar to gamma, the center slider, except they are localized.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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