Manuel Viet wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Got it. That makes sense. I must check back everything, but I think my
> negatives may be overcontrasted, because that's easier to enlarge. I think my
> scanner don't like it at all, so now I'm facing a choice : should I keep
> making "hard" negatives in the event of chemical processing of "THE" good
> picture worth a FB sheet of paper, or should I start making "dull" negatives
> because most of my production will anyway go through digital scanning ?
>
As a matter of logic, you would need to determine that scanning is not
causing the trouble before concluding that processing needs to be
different. It's been a very long time since I did any wet darkroom work,
but it seems that a straight print on normal contrast paper should
answer that question. If such prints are have a smooth, normal tonal
graduation, it could be something in the scanner/software that is set
wrong. Even if the negs are contrasty, it may be possible to compensate
for that in scanning. It's not uncommon for scans not properly done to
lose highlight and/or shadow detail that is actually there on the film.
>> 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/>.
>>
> I'm voiceless. It's so much better, considering you used files I already
> messed with. I understand you couldn't do much to the poor Clothilde, because
> I made layers (one on the pilar, one around the figure and one for the rest),
> and applied various contrast corrections and filters before blending those
> layers together. I'm sure you noticed the square around the head when playing
> with contrast ! I did the same with the base of the bastille column (and
> moreover I corrected the geometry by enlarging the top of the picture). I'm
> sure you could have done wonders with the original raw files.
>
My turn to blush again. There is no accounting for what people enjoy.
Nowadays, I find great pleasure in searching for the best image that is
hiding in photographs that catch my interest. As a result of practice,
I've gained a certain facility with the tools, although there is still a
great deal to learn. I enjoy doing my own shots, but also find interest
in working with shots that I would never have taken. I take special
pleasure when a shot that looks lost can be greatly improved.
It's also very freeing when taking photos to be able to take a less than
ideal shot, that I would otherwise just skip, knowing that I will be
able to turn it into what I want later. These are classic examples
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Frescos/pages/FR05.htm>,
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Frescos/pages/FR03.htm>. In
this sense, learning post processing has broadened my photographic horizons.
> Well, learning is a neverending journey, that's all the fun of it.
Indeed!
> Thank you very much for this masterful demonstration. Now, I've got to check
> how your curves compare to mine...
A few clues: With normal situations, my Curves adjustments are generally
a smooth S curve. With a couple of these, the curve looked more like a
worm, wiggly, with more than three control points. I never use the
Contrast control for anything but to compress the whole histogram to
leave room at top and/or bottom for other adjustments. Contrast is
adjusted with Curves and LCE, although I did little of that here.
Central gray point and black and white points are set in Levels.
The most significant tool used for your images was the Shadow/Highlight
tool in PS. There are other ways to do what it does, but they are WAY
harder, and probably never quite as good. I always work in 16 bit. The
kind of major changes I did to these shots would probably look pretty
odd, if not simply bad, if done in 8 bit. You can't push things around
that much in 8 bit without getting stacks and holes in the histogram.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|