Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I didn't think with that quality of imagery, that the printing was poor at the exhibition, I reckoned it was something to do with the digitizing, my wife wants me to put my old work up (what little remains as a) I destroyed a lot of it b) I worked for agencies that retained the images) but I found it easy to shoot fresh on digital than to struggle trying to reproduce the range of tones I have in the prints. Daniel Ridings wrote: > I should probably explain. > > These are the tiff:s after they have been 1) resized and 2) sharpened > for printing ... > > At the time I was printing with Paul Roarke's process for MIS > Associate's carbon pigment (black) inks and an Epson printer. > > I didn't want to lock the tiffs into that particular setup, so There > was one more step before the actual prints were made. I would load > them into Photoshop and apply a customized curve for Epson Archival > Matte Paper (in this particular case, there were other curves for > Hahnem?hle Photo Rag and yet other curves for paper I didn't consider > using). > > When I was goofing around with the Netgear NAS (2 terabyte disks in a > RAID (redundant) configuration) I ran across a directory for > "exhibit". > > I just let Lightroom import that directory and upload the selection > directly to my web-server (Lightroom login in and transfers the files > unattended). > > So all of the files would have been tweaked a final time before the > actually prints were made. At that point the contrast would have been > finally adjusted and the relevant curves would have been applied. That > wasn't done for this web-upload. > > That's also why there are some duplicates. Some of the duplicates were > for the exhibit while the other half was for a little pamphlet > (differently sized tiffs for two different purposes). > > The ease of uploading to a server through Lightroom is amazing. > > The Nun (from Zimbabwe, not Malawi) is in color. Those didn't need > final curves before printing. Only the black and white shots did. > > Most of them can be seen in my previous years' PAW:s, and then, even > with correct contrast and levels. This was just done for the fun of > it. At the time someone asked me if I had the exhibit on-line, and I > didn't. Lightroom wasn't around back then. > > Best, > Daniel > > PS: Thanks all! > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Philip Clarke <nod at bouncing.org> > wrote: > >> No because the night time ones and the tree on the first page are >> spot-on. Pages 3 and 4 also all tend to be better (in my opinion with >> regards to "printing") than 1 and 2, I do like quite hard images though, >> I used to use Neopan 400 processed in ID-11 or Rodinal (if it was >> pushed) and I'd be printing at grade 4, and Neopan had an exceptionally >> good tonal range . I don't have a recent version of photoshop but one >> thing that always surprised me was that there was no "hard/ soft" button >> so that you could knock and image up and down the scale rather than >> fiddling with contrast. In my vesion (7.0) you can adjust a colour cast >> separately (with a slider) for the highlight, mid-tones and shadows, but >> not the contrast, although I admit I may not have found the right button >> or menu as I can work with curves. >> >> Also photoshop is "wrong", in that if I were in a darkroom I'd have a >> neg that would take 15 seconds for and overall print, maybe 7 second >> holding back some shadow detail and an extra 15 secs burning in the >> highlight. So that would be 50% of the shadows and 100% on the >> highlights. Although photoshop was supposed to ease the conversion from >> the darkroom to digital if you ever burn in 100% on the highlight and >> doge the shadows by 50% it looks abysmal. I believe this maybe that >> digital is a straight line even if you have bumpy levels whereas paper >> had an exposure curve so could be pre-flashed to make it act in a more >> linear fashion. Also intensity of light from a darkroom enlarger works >> that the intensity drops off in a 1/r squared fashion (buggered if I can >> remember the would might be /reciprocal///)// as you move the head up >> (with r being the radius of a projected circle). Digital is a strange >> beast but then so is analogue, you half the amount of light by stopping >> down which is turning the aperture dial to the next value in a >> progresion of doubling root 2 (1.4.1, 2, 2.82, 4 etc...), sorry >> wittering now. >> >> Anyway the Missionary Nurse in Malawi in colour, she is spot on on my >> monitor, the habit is white and detailed, she is "black", but the man >> sitting in the bar, he is dark grey almost "black", yet the night and >> snow shots are certainly "black", so I think my monitor is pretty good >> and it maybe personal preference. >> >> >> Robert D. Baron wrote: >> >>> ===On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Philip Clarke <nod at bouncing.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> These are very good a little lacking in contrast for my personal taste >>>> but that may be the conversion. >>>> >>>> >>> I wonder if your monitor could be a bit off. They are spot on for me. >>> >>> Excellent work. >>> >>> --Bob >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >