Shadowy Man
Contributor
I think maybe I should return to film so that I can be honestly pretentious.
Even the best film prints have had a lot of work in the dark room.
- - - Updated - - -
No. It's more than that.
-
Features
Photo Critique
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
Even the best film prints have had a lot of work in the dark room.
- - - Updated - - -
No. It's more than that.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Really? I didn't know that. Kind of figured it was what it was. Though I suppose it should be a bit obvious that National Geographic didn't go to CVS to get their film printed.
Malintent
Veteran Member
Many of the basic photoshop tools come from common darkroom "modification' techniques for exposing negative.
In fact, darkroom techniques is half of what photography was. There are two completely separate and independent exposures that, together, produce the final work. the original exposure that creates the negative is the first half... Then, in the darkroom, you project your negative through a filter that prevent exposure of the paper to focus it, and inspect it. You then have to calculate (its more a feel, and trial and error) the exposure time of the negative onto the paper.
For under-exposed regions of the negative, you mask off the other areas of the exposure, and give more time for the areas you want to have more exposure. this is called "burning"... and in photoshop, to this day, the "burn tool" is used the same way.
For over-exposed regions of the negative, you mask off that area to decrease exposure. A common method for that was to literally wave your hand in front of the paper to intermittently block some of the exposure.. it's like painting with light, with your hands. That process is called "dashing". And, to this day, in photoshop, the "dashing tool" does just that.
In fact, darkroom techniques is half of what photography was. There are two completely separate and independent exposures that, together, produce the final work. the original exposure that creates the negative is the first half... Then, in the darkroom, you project your negative through a filter that prevent exposure of the paper to focus it, and inspect it. You then have to calculate (its more a feel, and trial and error) the exposure time of the negative onto the paper.
For under-exposed regions of the negative, you mask off the other areas of the exposure, and give more time for the areas you want to have more exposure. this is called "burning"... and in photoshop, to this day, the "burn tool" is used the same way.
For over-exposed regions of the negative, you mask off that area to decrease exposure. A common method for that was to literally wave your hand in front of the paper to intermittently block some of the exposure.. it's like painting with light, with your hands. That process is called "dashing". And, to this day, in photoshop, the "dashing tool" does just that.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Gosh I'm ignorant.
Thanks for the info.I've obviously never done development before. For mass produced photo development, were these tools used or was it just all blindly done?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
This is off topic a bit, but there is the one other issue, the big one with digital photos. The color.
Just what does a photo look like? Is there an actual way of knowing. Monitors, laptops, television screens all have different ways of showing color. This makes darker images, in my experience, a bit of risk to blow up or print on canvas because you aren't sure just how the final print product is going to look like.
Just what does a photo look like? Is there an actual way of knowing. Monitors, laptops, television screens all have different ways of showing color. This makes darker images, in my experience, a bit of risk to blow up or print on canvas because you aren't sure just how the final print product is going to look like.
Malintent
Veteran Member
Good question about mass production in the 'old days'... I don't know about commercial processes. I would imagine (guessing here) that a second negative is made by hand using the original negative... and then that touched up negative acts as the master for reproduction. Like taking a picture of a picture and then modifying that. Just guessing, though.
Great question about color calibration. google "monitor color calibration".
There are two ways to achieve the "standard" color representation on a screen.
1) display a color calibrating image on the screen, and then manually adjust your settings until the image appears as the instructions indicate (like in gaming, when you adjust your gamma so that the "second to last line all but disappears and the last line is invisible" - which is the darkness setting).
2) purchase a color calibrating tool for like $200. This is a little webcam-like-thing that literally sticks to the face of your screen. Software (prolly included) runs that quickly displays test patterns and images that the device picks up and relates back to the software (USB connection). The software then makes tiny tweaks to your settings and displays the images again and again until it is displaying like the software thinks it should.
If you buy a super-expensive hi-tech monitor (or TV, or whatever).. like 10k+ range. Most likely it will include (or be an available add-on) professional calibration. Someone comes to your house and uses a $1,000 version of that calibrating device that 'talks' to your new TV through a serial port and does that calibration at infentesimally detailed levels. They can also do similar tweaks to the audio settings in the same way, but with a microphone dangling from your ceiling such that it is suspended in the exact center of the room... and it works more or less the same way with test tones.
Great question about color calibration. google "monitor color calibration".
There are two ways to achieve the "standard" color representation on a screen.
1) display a color calibrating image on the screen, and then manually adjust your settings until the image appears as the instructions indicate (like in gaming, when you adjust your gamma so that the "second to last line all but disappears and the last line is invisible" - which is the darkness setting).
2) purchase a color calibrating tool for like $200. This is a little webcam-like-thing that literally sticks to the face of your screen. Software (prolly included) runs that quickly displays test patterns and images that the device picks up and relates back to the software (USB connection). The software then makes tiny tweaks to your settings and displays the images again and again until it is displaying like the software thinks it should.
If you buy a super-expensive hi-tech monitor (or TV, or whatever).. like 10k+ range. Most likely it will include (or be an available add-on) professional calibration. Someone comes to your house and uses a $1,000 version of that calibrating device that 'talks' to your new TV through a serial port and does that calibration at infentesimally detailed levels. They can also do similar tweaks to the audio settings in the same way, but with a microphone dangling from your ceiling such that it is suspended in the exact center of the room... and it works more or less the same way with test tones.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Well, I was looking things over and thought maybe one issue is that the aperture may have been too open. So I concentrated on apertures instead of aiming for a particular shutter time, so apertures were closer to 11 and 14 range. The filter seems to definitely have a little softness added, but not quite as bad now with a smaller aperture.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,421
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Well, I was looking things over and thought maybe one issue is that the aperture may have been too open. So I concentrated on apertures instead of aiming for a particular shutter time, so apertures were closer to 11 and 14 range. The filter seems to definitely have a little softness added, but not quite as bad now with a smaller aperture.
That's a dam fine photo.
Since we are evaluating photos:
A tripod would have helped so I could increase the depth of field and a more cooperative sky would have been nice.
A tripod would have helped so I could increase the depth of field and a more cooperative sky would have been nice.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
Given the distance to the subject, I wouldn't expect depth of field to be an issue.
Perhaps it's just the air but note how the more distant trees aren't as sharp as the ones nearby (the focal point was on the nearby ones. This was shot with borrowed equipment that I couldn't figure out how to set up bracketing on.) There is a moderate amount of zoom being used, I was standing on the opposite side of the lake you see part of.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Just to be clear, you aren't standing on the far side of that lake, correct?
Shadowy Man
Contributor
HDR will help with this. Bracket the exposure and then combine in some software.
If I had had my gear (and tripod) that's what I would have done. Even with the overcast the sky is burned out.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
Looks like atmospheric haze. What filter did you use?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,568
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Do they make a filter that deals with haze? I always thought about a potential algorithm that could eliminate the haze, but I think someone already developed it.
Just the UV filter that was on it.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
I find that overcast skies are brighter than blue skies and thus more easily burn out. If you took a short exposure to keep the sky from being saturated you could combine that with the longer exposure on the rest of the scene and get a nice balance.
Borrowed gear, no tripod.