At 03:37 AM 6/17/03, you wrote:
John Lind wrote:
>http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om151.html
Wow! NIce 3D look to it. I'm curious, John... why Portra 400 NC? Why
not 160, for example? Lighting?
Rich
Thanks Rich,
The lighting is the secret of the "3-D look." BTW, it was done with one
light, and it had been set up to illuminate the flower. Bounce reflection
from it off of ceiling/walls provided sufficient fill that another light
wasn't required..
The 400NC is what was in the camera at the time; half a roll left from
doing some urban night shots using available light in a brightly lit
area. I wish it had been 160NC! In having an 11x14 made, the lab tech and
I looked at the negative using a higher powered, high end loupe for a
while. The primary concern was assessing its density . . . which can
affect apparent graininess in a print if exposure is off (underexposure in
particular).
Thanks,
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|