Yes, you can do that. Just have a look at Jerry Uelsmann's work, you'll see that all manner of surreal things are possible.
Originally Posted by Steven L
Well, the look from film is far more natural in general, two reasons being the inherent nonlinearity of the tone curve and the compensation that you can get in the developing process. On top of that is the nonlinearity of the paper's tone curve and all the chemical magic that permits us to tune the tones to suit the image. And all of this is done without pushing pixels or jumping from one bit or colour space into another, i.e. the methods are more global and less local.
Originally Posted by Steven L
All that said, if you like the digi-HDR look, you can certainly produce similarly hideous results if you want to I have seen plenty of horrid film results, to be honest! We all start somewhere.
Bottom line is that almost everything you can do with photoshop you can also do in a purely analogue way. I'm not going to say that it's as fast, easy, or convenient... some things are and some things aren't so easy for beginners. But the final results can be very impressive. remember that most of what you have in photoshop was inspired by what was already possible with film. E.g. although few people realize it, the terms "dodge and burn" and "unsharp mask" come from an old film techniques....
Steven, with all respect, you do not understand HDR. (Forgive me this digital digression, APUGers, but it is important here.) HDR takes *selected portions* of two digital images, chosen by a complex algorithm, and combines them into a single image. It does *not* just combine two images.
Originally Posted by Steven L
HDR is not a digital version of an analog technique. HDR is a computationally intensive digital only process. Its purpose is to capture and *interpret* a very wide luminance (brightness) range using cameras and display technologies that do not naturally present such a range. This is complicated stuff in the digital world. But we're not in the digital world here, we're in the (sounds of angels singing) analog world.
Analog has a leg up here. Film (except slide film) can capture quite a wide luminance range. With development "tricks" (different chemicals, different development times, and different ways of "sloshing" the film in the chemistry), one can achieve a number of effects that are now *simulated* with digital tools like Photoshop (contrast, accutance, curves, etc.).
During the printing phase, other analog techniques come to play that are also now simulated in Photoshop (dodging and burning, and unsharp masking, for example).
There are many, many techniques you can do in the analog world to add an artistic touch to your work. In addition to doing your own development, you might eventually want to explore alternative processes for printing (like platinum printing, which doesn't require a darkroom and produces stunning results).
Good luck with your journey. Before trying to make analog "like digital", study a bit, and perhaps you will realize that those digital folks are still trying to catch up to the wonders of the analog world.
You can create a pseudo HDR image my creating three negs one for the mid tones one for the highlights and one for the darker tones and print them on a single paper. HDR is not new and has been used by the LF guys for quite some time in fact you can do it on a single neg. By shooting the image under different lighting conditions (multiple exposure) you get pretty much the same effect. Most HDR stuff I see in the digital realm is a misuse of it they übersharp images you see is not what HDR is about.
Dominik, you are right and I completely forgot about some interesting in camera techniques that are "HDR-like" (though really they are just multiple exposures) especially in the LF world. One in particular is done in architectural photography: shots of buildings in daylight, with beautifully glowing light coming from the lobby windows.
Originally Posted by MDR
(For the original poster's benefit: ) This is typically done (usually with a large format film camera with perspective movements) with two exposures: one at night, when the lights are on but the building is otherwise dark, and the other later, on the same sheet of film, in the morning light (golden hour light of course), to capture the building itself. This is a time consuming and delicate process, because the camera can't move between shots that may be several hours apart. (I've also seen the same technique done with electronic product shots in studio, using multiple exposure to capture the otherwise too dim LEDs.)
A lot of the crazy HDR stuff can't be accomplished this way, and in fact I think the typical HDR software would not get this particular kind of shot right - and it would require pretty much the same effort, taking two widely separated shots in time under different lighting. It's actually easier in the film world with simple multiple exposure, than it would be to try this with the available digital HDR tools.
Not to beat a dead horse, but HDR is an attempt to make up for the poor latitde of digtal sensors by making muliple exposures and combining the results to get the same latitude you could get with any decent color negative film.
I get really tired of current photography magazines being fixated on the HDR thing. Occasionally, I would notice that Popular Photography would have a few great shots taken on Velvia 50 or some other film in one issue. Rest assured that the next issue would be all about HDR after the advertisers came down on them about showing something that didn't push the latest wonder digicam. This is the main reason I dropped all those subscriptions and put that money towards APUG instead.
I read an article once where the author showed that his current "pro" level Canon (Mark II something or other) DSLR could handle about 7 stops latitude while Ektar 100 in a 30 year old AE-1 did 14 with no problem. My K200D handles about the same latitude as garden variety Ektachrome 200 from the 1980s (it was my favorite film at the time) which is OK, but nothing to write home about.
In the end, HDR, well not counting the hideous uses of it, is really all about making today's digital sensor try to do what film already does extremely well.
I feel better having gotten that out. No need to go into any digital vs analog thing. But don't get me started about B/W grain plugins!
Please go off and try any creative analog thing you want to try, this is all about creativity and fun anyway! Maybe you will figure out some really cool analog technique.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Athiril is leading you down the correct path. Choice of film and it's exposure, coupled with appropriate developer and development time will do it on one sheet of film. Then when combined with masking, almost anything is possible in controlling print range.
Originally Posted by Athiril
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]
Haaaa! You need to post more, cracked me up!
Originally Posted by chuck94022
HDR? why don't you read Ansel Adams - The Negative? You'll get the results you're looking for, and better.
I am looking for a parts Synchro Compur for my Rolleiflex T.
Oh man, I really opened up a can of worms. I do appologise for that. It was not my intention. I guess I'll have to get some books to get the proper information and practice, practice, practice.
All those years of digital photography has blinded me. Forgive me, I have sinned.
(I say that with a joke, but it's actually the truth.)
haha no worries. Feel free to ask any and all questions! Most of us are here to be helpful and not just to bash the other thing!