On 7/19/2011 5:52 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I'll disagree with the Moose for a second here.
Oh my!
Now that I've picked myself up off the floor . . .
> The evident grain in those pictures may be entirely legitimate. There are
> ways to process
> Tri-x which will result in baseball sized grain clumps.
As I said, "It also looks to me like he must have done his own, custom film
processing or post scanning work to get the
sort of contrast and grain in #3." Note that the first option I mentioned is
special processing of the film.
As to whether special processing of the film is more legitimate than post
processing, I tend to say that all's fair in
getting the desired effect, but I know others will differ.
> Also, when digitized, most BW film stocks will end up with greatly
> exaggerated grain effects.
I have not encountered that. But the only B&W I've scanned has been very old,
although it's included some Tri-X. Diffuse
light source Canon vs. semi-coherent light source Nikon?
> Resizing for web display only seems to make it worse
> unless pre-blurring (creating a fake antialiasing characteristic) is
> applied to the image prior to downsizing,
>
> As to the current aesthetic of ultra-fine details, I'm agreeing with both
> Views. There has been for the past dozen years an unhealthy emphasis on mega
> detail in mega sized prints.
Don't people usually experiment with what is newly possible - until it starts
to take its place in perspective? It also
sort of seems to me that maybe HDR mania, with vastly overdone examples, may be
on the decline. Each new technical
possibility tends to lead to excess in the process of making it a useful tool.
> However, there seems to be a healthy backlash with LOMA and pinhole style
> photography being rather popular. But that has been somewhat fleeting.
> Anybody used their LensBaby lately?
I'm personally still trying to find a way to get something I like out of that
direction. My first effort, a Holga lens
on the 5D, was just useless, as far as I'm concerned, technically crappy images
with no upside.
A pinhole on the 5D is more promising, but I have yet to figure out when it
will work and when (more often) it won't. My
first round with the Diana F was frustrating at least in part because
automation and digital have spoiled me.
Remembering both to check all the settings and to accurately note them down
turned out to be quite a challenge. On the
other hand, the best image of the roll was an unintentional multiple exposure.
:-) I suppose that may be part of what
LOMO is about?
I do think it is probably true that pinhole simply works better with longer
'focal lengths', and thus larger film/sensor
sizes. I worked out a theory about that that I probably posted some time ago.
Had to do with the average amount of focal
plane displacement of diffracted rays, or some such, I think.
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/
|