> 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.
When it is used to mislead, that's where I have a problem. For example, if I
posted a picture and implied either through words or lack of words "this is
a Tri-X picture" but the grain/tones were achieved through post-processing,
That would be wrong. However, if I said "this is an illustration of what
Tri-X looks like", that would be OK. The line is kinda blurred (grainy?)
where you cross over from one side to the other. I know I'm equally as
guilty of crossing the line as anybody.
As used to achieve a final product, such as a portrait print for a customer,
it matters not how the effect is achieved. Choose the best tool for the job.
Sometimes that is film, sometimes it's digital, sometimes hybrid. Who cares.
As long as the customer is happy with the results I'm pretty good with it.
They really don't want to know what shenagigans we went through. Do you
think I'm going to tell that mother how I made those three art prints? No
way. She doesn't care. In fact, if I say too much, it would probably ruin it
for her.
So, to this guy's B&W pictures. When he took a Tri-X negative shot in a
Leica M7 and digital post-processed the image to hold the "Tri-X Look", even
though it is a false exaggeration, it is still valid because it is used to
present on-screen what we expected to see if we closely examimed a
print. However, a picture from an M9 processed to achieve exactly the same
look is false because it implies something that would never have been true
in the first place.
This is a sticky topic, though, and I know that I'm just as guilty of
breaking these rules with everybody else. I seem to have no problem bending
my digital files to look like Velvia--why would an M9 picture processed to
look like a Tri-X neg shot in an M7 be any different? So, I shrug my
shoulders and try not to be too critical either way.
> 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?
The Nikons definitely make it worse, but once you adjust contrast and curves
of the diffuse light source scanners, the difference minimizes quite a bit.
The parallel is in the darkroom we have a choice of two types of enlargers.
Personally, I prefer the diffuse light source not necessarily for the grain,
because I have to go to a harder grade, anyway, but because I have less
problems with dust, fingerprints and scratches. Also, I like the highlight
transitions better as I rarely have to flash the paper like I do with
condensor enlargers.
Remember the dreaded "pepper grain" problem with Fujichromes? Turns out that
there wasn't any grain, artifacts or anything in the film. This was a result
of prismatic redirection of the light path. As the highly directional light
source passed through the film base, microscopic air pockets or surface
imperfections caused the light to change directions and miss the CCD. The
specific base used in Provia and Velvia had this problem. The latest
versions of these films have a different base which has largely corrected
this problem. Anyway, it was recognized that some scanners were much worse
at pepper grain than others. The Nikons definitely being quite horrid.
On a totally related note, another reason why grain is accentuated by a
non-diffuse light source is refraction. A condensor enlarger projects a
highly direction light through the negative. As the light passes by grain
clump there is a bit of refraction of the light beam. This refracted light
casts does two things--it slightly blurs the image and it also causes the
redirected light to increase contrast of the grain.
> 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.
We've been doing a bunch of house-hunting lately. One of the points of
entertainment for me is seeing wedding pictures on the walls. Most of the
houses we've looked at have the big "trophy pictures" which somehow are to
remind them that they overspent on their wedding. Anyway, it is quite
interesting because these pictures were the "state of the art" in their day.
Do I dare say it? Most of them are downright creepy today. Mullets and
teased hair I can handle. But a 24x30 with inset pictures of the bride and
groom looking down on the wedding ceremony in approval is just too much.
Somehow we thought it was "cool" at that time and EVERY wedding photographer
did it. I shudder at the stuff we're producing today will be just as creepy
25 years from now. (That's why I always try to sell straight, "normalized"
prints so they "age" well).
> 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.
The center portion of a pinhole image will be of the best quality. But
unfortunately, I don't think the "telephoto pinhole" pictures look all that
good. To me, a pinhole shot works if there is one of two things present:
Bold directional lines, or bbjects that dominate the dimensional space. In
otherwords, give me guiding lines that move the eye through the picture, or
a subject that stands out from the background. Guiding lines can be achieved
through a longer focal length, but dimensional placement usually requires a
short focal length.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|