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 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 >