> "Real" B&W done anywhere but your own darkroom or "real" pro
> labs has
> been crap for at least 40 years that I know of. If you've got
> negs you
> really want great prints of, check with AG. He does custom
> printing that
> others have praised.
Thanks for the plug, Moose.
> Chromogenic gives good 4x6 results
> because it was
> reverse engineered to give good results with one of the most
> standardized processes on the planet, C-41 processing and
> automated
> consumer printing.
Absolutely correct! The C-41 films do MUCH better in minilab
print machines than silver-based films. They scan better too.
There is substantial gamma adjustment going to to compensate for
the base density and traditional silver films require a more
linear response. Depending on which profile is utilized the
prints will either be dismally flat or horribly skewed. You can
easily mimmick this by wrenching the gamma in photoshop over
plus or minus 30 and then adjusting brightness and contrast back
to "normal" again. What was supposed to be midtone is moved two
or more Zones up or down and the highlights or shadows
(depending on which way you skewed) will either be stretched way
out or squished.
Now, when it comes to custom handprinted B&W prints using
traditional enlarger technology it's very hard to beat the
normal B&W films.
XP-2 is *really* good stuff. It prints pretty well in minilab
machines and it does well under the enlarger too. My only
complaints with the film have to do with higher base density
(longer print exposure time), slightly skewed base color cast
which throws multigrade paper off a half grade (depending on
film wash), and a LONG shoulder with no straightline section.
It's harder to get a print that "sparkles" with XP-2 than TriX.
A paper, such as Forte, will lift the high values some which
does help along with over-fixing, split-grade printing,
underexposure/overdevelopment, localized bleaching, borax in the
developer and a myriad of other techniques.
> For soft and glowing, try a SIMA soft focus lens
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/SIMA/index.htm>. A
> different effect
> than any regular lens designed to be sharp.
The Zuiko 100/2.8 that I have is a most incredible portrait
lens. EXTREMELY sharp, yet not edgy. No other Zuiko in my
harem has the same look. This lens has a characteristic that
I've only seen on a couple other lenses. Night pictures showing
pinpoint light sources will have a small halo around them and
red lightsources (tower marker lights) will kinda form a star
shaped blob.
I suspect that this halo contributes to a localized loss of
contrast which takes the edge off of the picture without
affecting sharpness. The red smear might be effectively raising
the red sensitivity of the film, which with skin tones would
lighten blemishes slightly.
The lens might be technically flawed, but it continues to
produce my best images.
I'm wondering if a similar thing can be accomplished in
photoshop using standard color film (or digital). Apply a tiny
bit of blur to the red channel before converting to B&W?
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|