Chris Crawford wrote:
> Jim,
>
> The contrast is due to the lighting. It was an extremely harsh sunny day and
> many of the things I shot were backlit or were in the shade with bright
> sunlit areas in the background. I also as a rule like my images to have some
> contrast. 99% of the black and white photos I see online look like muddy crap
> to me because people scan their negs and accept the flat muddy file that
> comes out of a film scanner by default. YUCK. My scans from film look
> the same as the darkroom prints I made in the old pre-allergy days.
>
I enjoyed the people shots, but I think #2 is the best of the bunch.
As to dynamic range and contrast, I have no idea what can or can't be
done in the wet darkroom. After scanning, though, there is a lot that
can be done to recover balance without losing contrast. This is done
quick and dirty on a laptop screen. I would not consider it as a
finished image; access to the original scan in a larger size and perhaps
even the neg would be necessary for that. There are halos both roughly
corrected and uncorrected, I may have gone overboard to prove a point, etc.
Nevertheless, I think it shows that there is much more tonal detail
available in the data than is visible in the original post.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Crawford&image=leica4a.jpg>
I accept that the original may be a fairly accurate representation of
the actual light levels. However, when the human vision scans a scene,
it dynamically adjusts to brightness so that the bright areas aren't
blown out and detail is seen.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
