James Royall wrote:
>>No captions yet on anything but the first image, but I'd be interested
>>in comments as a work in progress
>><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Garden04/index.htm>.
>>
>It's great to see both from the scan and processed images together - I
>particularly like the final image you got from frame 26 by cropping in
>hard. The grain really adds to the image.
>
One of the 'advantages' of having to spot scans is that it gives me the
opportunity to see small portions of the frame at 100%. I think my eye
was particularly sensitized to certain kinds of 'look', as I'd just been
to the Art Deco exhibition in SF. This cropped image seems reminiscent
of art deco to me.
>>The first image shows shows the steps to the final image.
>>
>mm. Some slight of hand (or mouse) going on here Moose. Then final
>image shows the bird from a different shot than the others. ;)
>
Yup, you caught me. The caption is going to say how I took the first
shot quick, in case the bird flew away, then a second, where the bird
turned its head away, and then was able to move closer for a third shot
where the bird posed properly before leaving. The small images are the
1st scan, scan adjusted, scan cropped and then shot 3 as adjusted and
cropped. In the captions I plan to account for every frame one way or
another.
>I think that you are getting much better results from your neg film
>than I do from slide, particularly when there is contrast involved. I
>just cannot get the shadow areas right and you avoid this to a great
>extent using the neg film.
>
I think neg film does make it easier simply because it captures a
greater range of brightness, so it has more margin for error. On the
other hand, it sounds like you had a genuine exposure problem. Even
though it gives about a stop more latitude on the under side (and about
3 on the over side), neg also gives best results with correct exposure.
>To show what I mean I've put up a scan here:
>http://homepage.mac.com/royalljames/PhotoAlbum13.html.
>
The histogram on the original is certainly heavily bottom weighted. I
remember you have tried Vuescan and found the lack of profiles for your
Fuji films frustrating, but not what scanner and other software. I know
if I had that problem with my scanner in Vuescan, I would just raise the
brightness to get the 'bump' closer to the center of the histogram. Even
to the extent that tonal differentation in the dark areas might be
lacking, at least the rest of the image would start in roughly the right
brightness range.
>Looking at the slide I have got it fairly close to the density range
>after processing, but it comes out just so dark from the scanner - the
>slide is on the dark side, but definitely shows more in the shadows,
>which are less extreme than the scan. The histogram shows a full range
>all the way to white, but massively weighted to the low end. I have had
>to torture the image, using shadow/ highlight then curves to get it
>anything like it should be.
>
It may have been torture, but I think you have done a wonderful job of
getting a good tonal range and balance out of a very difficult image. If
Shadow and Highlight work that well, I may just upgrade to CS.
>This is why i was asking about the OM2n underexposing with old batteries
>
Could be a problem on Manual, I suppose, although it shouldn't happen
with silver oxide batteries. If they are far enough gone to make the
viewfinder meter misread, they shouldn't operate the shutter and the
camera would lock up. Maybe for a hot or two, but not for long. With
alkaline or lithium, who knows, just say no. I don't think that can be a
problem on Auto, since the camera senses if there is enough voltage
under the load of the shutter magnets to give a proper exposure. If not,
it locks up. I know people often think the lock-up is a failure, but it
is an intentional function of the camera body to avoid improper exposures.
> - was it the bright lights that the center weighted metering adjusted for?
>
Here's another common misunderstanding about the 2N. The viewfinder
metering is center weighted, and thus, so are manual exposures. The TTL
metering for Auto exposures is not center weighted. There is a
historical reason for this from the first OM-2 bodies that I won't go
into, but that's the way it is. So, if this was a manual shot, the
center weighting may indeed be a factor. Even with an Auto shot, a few
very bright lights in an otherwise much darker scene can still throw off
exposure. This is really in effect a back-lit scene and would call for
opening up and/or bracketing. You can always test a scene like this by
moving the camera view up, down and/or sideways away from the lights and
evaluating the effect on the reading, then compensating.
>Your processing task of expanding the histogram to increase contrast
>seems to work so much better.
>
I do often expand the histogram some, but try to do the majority of that
in scanning. Most of my adjustments on this roll involved moving the
center point of the histogram, that is, stretching the tonal range in
one direction and compressing it in the other, and adjusting Curves.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|