Path: internal1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.tpinternet.pl!news.atman.pl!news.intercom.pl!f124.n480!f127.n480!f112.n480!f200.n2432!f605.n774!f500.n123!f2000.n106!f3.n10!f1324.n202!f300.n202!f801.n202!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: fido.photo
Distribution: fido
From: "WAYNE_B_YOUNG@HOTMAIL.COM"
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 03 14:45:50 +0100
Subject: Re: Photo processing - fume-room and pixel-room
Message-ID:
Organization: Fanciful Online, San Diego, CA
111
Lines: 325
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com fido.photo:471
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.8)
for photo@fanciful.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:46:21 -0800
Received: from ns5.tzo.com ([216.55.16.67]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.8) with SMTP
id 1055953296; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:46:18 -0800
Received: from 207.68.164.202 by saf.tzo.com
id 2003120417472634071 for photo@fanciful.org;
Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:47:26 GMT
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:45:48 -0800
Received: from 24.69.255.236 by sea2-dav67.sea2.hotmail.com with DAV;
Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:45:48 +0000
From: "Wayne Young"
To:
References:
Subject: Re: Photo processing - fume-room and pixel-room
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:45:50 -0800
Message-ID:
FILETIME=[5CBA5510:01C3BAB8]
There is one advantage travellers treasure over the digital cameras - the
physical size and weight. My Canon 28-200mm f.3.5 lens uses a 72mm filter
while the new Sony 28-200mm f2 lens (35mm equivalent) uses a 58mm filter, at
about half the weight...
When hiking in the wilderness for relaxation and as a diversion
from crowded city life, a UV filter is good protection against bugs and
dust. If the lens cap is not screwed on like the filter, I tend to loose it,
which happened too often for my liking...
-Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry N. Bolch"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:38 AM
Subject: Photo processing - fume-room and pixel-room
> Wayne Young wrote:
> > My intent was to encourage the film-based camera users to express
> > their thoughts on this
> > Photo echo because their cameras still have some advantages over the
> > digitals eventhough
> > some people found the digitals totally satisfactory for their uses.
> > And that's all right too.
>
> Interesting, I paused to contemplate what film does better, and I really
can not
> think of much. The product of the Canon 1Ds has been compared directly to
a
> professionally made drum scan of a 6x7 ISO100 chrome, and the 6x7 was
found to
> be somewhat wanting. http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
>
> Drum scans are used for highest possible quality reproduction. Drum
scanners are
> very expensive devices requiring a high level of skill and considerable
training
> to use. Not at all consumer items.
>
> For tabletop in the studio - catalogues, advertising, etc. - the scanning
back
> has long since replaced film in medium and large format cameras. These do
one to
> three passes, essentially scanning the aerial image at the film plane of
the
> camera, and produce image files comparable to drum scans of film - without
the
> film. They are tethered to a computer by a cable, and have no storage
capacity
> themselves. With the highest resolution units, exposures are minutes long
and
> image files of more than half a gig in size. Many shoot at 48-bit and some
are
> even 64-bit. Though the prices run to $30,000+, they pay for themselves
within
> weeks at a busy catalogue studio in time savings.
>
> Since the image is available on the computer screen upon completion of the
> exposure, the art director or client can approve immediately. With film,
the
> sheet has to be processed and returned to the client - a couple of hours
> minimum. In case a reshoot is needed, the tabletop, lighting, camera, etc.
must
> be left in place for this time. When the film-shot is approved, then it
must be
> drum scanned and files provided for the layout people and those doing the
> separations for the press.
>
> With a scanning back, approval or reshoot decisions are made immediately,
and
> the image is already in digital form for layout and press. The table,
camera and
> lights are then free for the next item. A drastic improvement in
production
> efficiency. While these are intended for static set-up shots with no
action,
> backs of 16MP to 22MP are available for a variety of medium format cameras
that
> will shoot action and work on location outside the studio. Again, this is
not
> available in consumer equipment channels for the most part, but rather
from
> dealers supporting the photographic industry.
>
> In case you are curious, Calumet Photo sells several lines of these and
has
> pictures and detail on their web site.
> http://www.calumetphoto.com/
>
> > I found your aurora shot and the lightning shot interesting because
> > not too many digitals
> > can .take "B" shots which any film-based camera can handle with ease.
>
> The Nikon CP5000 is functionally very similar to the F5 film camera -
matrix
> metering and the lot - with the addition of the array of pure digital
functions.
> It is a fully adjustable camera in every way. It can do up to a five
minute shot
> on "B". It is my second camera, and I have yet to run into any situation
too
> extreme for it to handle with grace.
>
> Being a five megapixel camera, large prints or extreme cropping is not a
> problem. It was by no means an impulse buy. I took lots of time to compare
and
> check out the competition. One of the biggest selling points was the
> availability of the magnificent 19mm equivalent lens component that
transforms
> the built-in 28mm -> 85mm equivalent lens to the equivalent of a 19mm ->
58mm
> zoom. While it offers program, aperture priority and shutter priority
> automation, auto-focus, etc., it can be used as a purely manual camera in
every
> way. The shooter has total control over every aspect of its operation, if
so
> desired.
>
> Of course, this capability comes with a substantial learning curve. The
camera
> is not difficult to use. However, the capability is so immense that it can
be
> daunting to approach, specially for someone who is not fluent in
photography. It
> can be used as a point and shoot, but that squanders most of the camera's
> potential.
>
> > The "Children" shot looked more like art work, but nicely done.
>
> I have been working on a "Pseudo-Aquatint" technique since early spring.
By the
> way Jasc used the shot in their Paint Shop Pro newsletter - July if I
recollect.
> I now mainly use Photoshop for this technique.
>
> > On the rocket shots, I was wondering why you didn't show more than 2
> > sequential shots since your camera can handle 3 shots per second.
> > Of course personal choice prevails.
>
> These are very powerful rockets, and I only got a few sequences with three
> shots. Most were the rocket igniting and then leaving the second frame.
They
> really haul. That is to say, from ignition to out of the frame in 2/3 of a
> second.
>
> In one of the forums, someone was bitching that the camera was incapable
of
> shooting action, and since I had just spent two days shooting very fast
action,
> I selected a few examples quickly to disprove what he wrote. I just
grabbed a
> few representative shots upon arriving home, without really reviewing the
whole
> shoot - mega-numbers of exposures.
>
> > The other sequency shots of car and people are attention getters. I
> > can imagine the hard work
> > involved...
>
> In the fume-room, it would be a daunting task involving creation of a mask
for
> each instance and would require an enlarger with pin registration. Very
> exacting. With Photoshop, it is pretty much the same technique, but
registering
> layers on a pixel level is quite easy. View at 100% or greater, set the
top
> layer to "Difference" mode and use the cursor keys to nudge it into
perfect
> register. When set to difference, any differences show up as bright lines
or
> pixels against darkness. When the whole image goes dark, then it is in
perfect
> register. These were shot off a substantial tripod, but they still were
out by a
> pixel or two.
>
> Once in register, set the mode back to Normal, add a layer mask and use
the
> airbrush to paint with transparency to show the guy in the layer below.
Merge
> the layers and do the next one. With the layer mask, the colour black
paints
> transparency and white paints opacity. Thus if you wipe out some detail,
you can
> switch to white and paint it back again.
>
> It takes a bit of time, but is really fun and not at all difficult. The
results
> seem to be quite mind-blowing to people when they first see them. I love
to
> watch people's reactions to my prints.
>
> Another BIG advantage of digital is detailed at
> http://www.larry-bolch.com/layers.htm
>
> This too could be done in the fume-room, but again with great difficulty.
> Shooting digital is like shooting Kodachrome. There is not a whole lot of
> latitude, and when confronted by subject matter with a long range between
the
> darkest and lightest, it is very difficult to find an exposure that does
not
> result in opaque shadows and blown highlights. Like Kodachrome, one
exposes to
> preserve highlights. There is no way in either the fume-room or the
digital
> darkroom to recover highlight detail, once blown.
>
> My camera has a feature that allows a sequence of up to five exposures at
> intervals of your choice of 0.3EV, 0.7EV or full stops. Starting with the
> darkest exposure as a background layer, one layers the next lightest. The
> darkest layer, of course has the maximum highlight detail while the next
> lightest one will have some blown highlights. Using layer masks as above,
one
> renders the blown highlights transparent, showing the detail in the layer
below.
> Merge the layers and go to the next lightest, continuing until the final
> exposure provides rich shadow detail. This can add an extra 4.0EV to the
dynamic
> range that can be captured, without ending up with a muddy, low contrast
image.
> Prints of interiors absolutely glow!
>
> I might add that precise exposure is made much easier by the histogram
function.
> A test shot and a glance at the histogram tells me exactly where my
density
> lies - if there is under or over exposure or if the dynamic range of the
subject
> overwhelms the ability to capture it. It is far more sophisticated than
any
> light meter one can buy. At the minimum, I can then dial in whatever
exposure
> compensation needed for perfect exposure or if the dynamic range is too
great,
> use the technique above to extend it.
http://www.larry-bolch.com/histogram/
>
> On the rocket shoot, I also brought my magnificent Plaubel Makina 67, and
shot a
> couple of rolls of the prairie landscape. I have barely looked at the
negs, and
> not even begun to scan them, even though nearly half a year has passed.
Unless I
> find a bunch of money someplace to buy a medium format film scanner, the
direct
> output of my camera beats the quality of 6x7 scanned on my high-end
flatbed. At
> the moment, the local store has a Nikon 8000 scanner for $3300 Canadian. I
> neither have, nor could justify this amount. I have not had the space to
set up
> a fume-room in nearly two decades, so that is simply not an option.
>
> Nor is it desired - my average run of the mill snapshot from the digital
> darkroom is the equivalent or better than my best portfolio prints from
the
> fume-room. Back then, I would spend a day or two and a box of paper and
> attendent chemistry to get a single print of the quality I wanted. Now I
nail it
> the first time every time. The expected longevity of my digitally
processed
> prints is comparable to the colour from the fume-room.
>
> I rarely work in monochrome. The newspaper I worked at in the USA through
the
> 1960s and 1970s was a pioneer in daily colour, with the most advanced
colour
> press in the world when I arrived. The whole culture was one of colour and
I
> found it very much to my taste. I had planned to stay little more than two
> years, but ended up working there for over 13! Colour is my natural
medium.
>
> larry!
> ICQ 76620504
> http://www.larry-bolch.com/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve@fanciful.org with
> UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
> To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens@fanciful.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
|