Manuel Viet wrote:
> I dug this last year film out of the shoebox to practice a bit my scanning
> skill. It was shot before I convinced myself that I needed a set of filters.
> Now I know better, and wouldn't wash out the sky as I did consistently.
> Anyway, I somehow like the mood of thoses pictures, so here they are for your
> viewing pleasure, and sharp criticisms. I tried to especially emulate Moose's
> techniques of postprocessing on the last 3.
>
I'm flattered.
The images give a wonderful sense of place.
> .... the film is too hard, and I somehow messed the exposure. I don't
> remember (it's been a long time ago), but I very well may have left the
> exposure dial on a wrong iso setting. Pictures are equally hard to enlarge in
> a conventional wet lab.
>
I don't think the exposures are off in general. Somewhere in the process
of film choice, development, processing and scanning, the contrast has
gotten out of hand. So the middle tones are stretched out very thin and
everything else is piled up at the ends of the histogram, sort of an
inverse histogram. If exposures were off, everything would be piled up
at one end or the other, not both.
This is harder to deal with in post than where the histogram is too
narrow, but the whole range is there. Here, lots of highlight and shadow
detail has simply gone to pure white and black. Nonetheless, the
distribution of what is still there can be rearranged to present a more
normal distribution of tonality.
Here are some modest efforts to tame them. I couldn't do much for
Clothilde, though <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/VietParis/>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|