Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B. D. wrote: >>> While I almost always agree with Ted on photo issues, I've got to disagree > on this one. Given that the light was theoretically the same where the > photographer was shooting and where the couple was sitting, I'd have gone > for a reflective reading off my hand, and opened up a 1/2 stop to a stop. My > problem with the photo is that it is much too flat.>>>> Hi B. D. I think the "flat look" lack of contrast you don't like might have more to do with the scanner or computer setting or Steve not giving the picture enough contrast during printing rather than how Steve did the meter reading technique. I believe Steve works with a flatbed scanner after making a print to produce his jpg for transmission, so either one of these two may not have sufficient contrast originally. Steve being the only guy who can answer this. When you look at the screen image the overall exposure appears correct and I agree about the lack of contrast, flat look. But as I said, I believe the original film exposure is correct no matter how he achieved the metering and it's the production of the screen image or the original print that's creating the contrast problem. >>>>I looked at the photo and thought, 'okay, that's the inside of > a bar: so what?' But I would guess that had the photo been based on a > reflective reading, there would have been much more light on the couple's > face, much more contrast between highlights and shadows, and the couple > would have drawn much more of my attention - causing me to think, 'Gee, I > wonder who they are and what's going on.' <<<<<<<< But what you're saying here are basically darkroom or computer corrections even with this photograph as it is. I bet if Steve gave you the negative you'd make a print as you describe whether wet darkroom or PhotoShop. I feel what's happening here is different metering techniques to achieve the same kind of effect. It's just the screen image doesn't have the contrast and possibly extra tweaking of dodging, burning you would like if you were to make the print ? >>The same photo, with much more contrast - which would have been obtained with a reflective reading, would, in my opinion - based on my personal taste - have been far more interesting to look at.<<<< The contrast you're referring to due to reflective reading is really a "different exposure" and only more exposure therefore giving you a darker negative, and not necessarily more contrast / detail as you feel the scene requires. But the photograph as we see it is only lacking contrast and with a touch of tweaking can look exactly as you describe. A greater amount of exposure during the initial making of the negative wouldn't necessarily create more contrast, only more exposure. This is something answered by being in the darkroom cranking out a couple of prints or a whizbang computer guy or gal who can show a corrected image and the one we're discussing. This may come out being a more convoluted post than if I'd left it alone. ;-) Damn we're really talking about pictures and photography! Can you believe it? And pictures made with a Leica to boot! :-) ted Ted Grant Photography Limited www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html