Re: OT - So quiet in here
Except for the fact that scanning the neg and editing typically gives FAR better results than scanning a print. Prints typically result in somewhat poor images without much work. But I print digitally too. A nice matte fibre print is much less hassle that way (cheaper too). No 1hr washes. -Adam graywolf wrote: No, no, if you shoot B&W you make a great darkroom print then scan that for web images. If you are going to scan the negative and make digital prints you lose the benefits of the analog process and might as well start with a digital image in the first place. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Fernando Terrazzino wrote: On 3/16/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you have never felt it. Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks Well, the thing is that I know for sure I'll get "hooked" if I start shooting B&W, and then I'll have to scan, get a good negative scaner, even maybe I'll try to setup a darkroom (I don't if you still can easily get chemicals, equipment), buy books, at some point I'll fed up with the whole process and I'll say: Fernando, why don't you shoot digital and try to fake the looks in PS? So, I'm gonna take the shortcut... PS: You see what I mean when I say that I am lazy... ;o)
Re: OT - So quiet in here
No, no, if you shoot B&W you make a great darkroom print then scan that for web images. If you are going to scan the negative and make digital prints you lose the benefits of the analog process and might as well start with a digital image in the first place. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Fernando Terrazzino wrote: On 3/16/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you have never felt it. Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks Well, the thing is that I know for sure I'll get "hooked" if I start shooting B&W, and then I'll have to scan, get a good negative scaner, even maybe I'll try to setup a darkroom (I don't if you still can easily get chemicals, equipment), buy books, at some point I'll fed up with the whole process and I'll say: Fernando, why don't you shoot digital and try to fake the looks in PS? So, I'm gonna take the shortcut... PS: You see what I mean when I say that I am lazy... ;o)
Re: OT - So quiet in here
> Who does shoot and scan B&W, pretty much exclusively these days. I know you do, Adam, and I like the results (always checking your flickr acount ;-) ) On 3/17/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fernando Terrazzino wrote: > > On 3/16/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you > >>have never felt it. > >> > >>Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks > > > > > > Well, the thing is that I know for sure I'll get "hooked" if I start > > shooting B&W, and then I'll have to scan, get a good negative scaner, > > even maybe I'll try to setup a darkroom (I don't if you still can > > easily get chemicals, equipment), buy books, at some point I'll fed up > > with the whole process and I'll say: Fernando, why don't you shoot > > digital and try to fake the looks in PS? So, I'm gonna take the > > shortcut... > > > > PS: You see what I mean when I say that I am lazy... ;o) > > > Getting chemicals and equipement around here in Toronto is simple. I > payed about $85 for my 6x6 enlarger, with lens, and most of the rest > came in a kit henry's sells for about $60-70. > > -Adam > Who does shoot and scan B&W, pretty much exclusively these days. > >
Re: OT - So quiet in here
The image titled 'Detemined' on this page is a copy of an 11x14 that has spent many years on my walls. It is about 40 years old and still looks fine. Taken with Pentax S1a and Soligor 200mm lens on Tri-X. http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/oly.htm Powell At 12:27 AM 17/03/2006 , you wrote: > >On Mar 16, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: > >> But know, out of curiosity, Godfrey, do you have a scan of some of >> this prints that I could see? if not no problem, is just to satisfy >> the curiosity of someone that have never shot B&W film (and I don't >> plan to, too lazy for that) and with some time to maybe try to imitate >> the "looks". > >Somewhere I have scans of some prints from 25 years ago, I am not >sure if I have any scans of my pictures from 40 years ago. If I pull >them out of the archives, I'll scan a couple and post them. Be >warned: I don't think my sophistication as a photographer was >particularly noteworthy when I was 8-9 years old. ;-) > >Godfrey >
Re: OT - So quiet in here
Fernando Terrazzino wrote: On 3/16/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you have never felt it. Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks Well, the thing is that I know for sure I'll get "hooked" if I start shooting B&W, and then I'll have to scan, get a good negative scaner, even maybe I'll try to setup a darkroom (I don't if you still can easily get chemicals, equipment), buy books, at some point I'll fed up with the whole process and I'll say: Fernando, why don't you shoot digital and try to fake the looks in PS? So, I'm gonna take the shortcut... PS: You see what I mean when I say that I am lazy... ;o) Getting chemicals and equipement around here in Toronto is simple. I payed about $85 for my 6x6 enlarger, with lens, and most of the rest came in a kit henry's sells for about $60-70. -Adam Who does shoot and scan B&W, pretty much exclusively these days.
Re: OT - So quiet in here
I'm definitely not one of the "elderly members", but I am in training :-) I scanned a heap of family photos for my father some time ago. Most taken in the late 40's early 50's and I must say none of them looked like that. Here's an example: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/D&G_001.jpg (My father & his grandmother) Your attempts are too yellow IMO. Which is not to say I don't like them, which I do, for all except the first one. Way too yellow. As an attempt at an aged look they don't work for me, but on there own they do. Dave On 3/17/06, Fernando Terrazzino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march > break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect > makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) > > just for fun > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765427/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765423/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765429/ > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765425/ > >
Re: OT - So quiet in here
On 3/16/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you > have never felt it. > > Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks Well, the thing is that I know for sure I'll get "hooked" if I start shooting B&W, and then I'll have to scan, get a good negative scaner, even maybe I'll try to setup a darkroom (I don't if you still can easily get chemicals, equipment), buy books, at some point I'll fed up with the whole process and I'll say: Fernando, why don't you shoot digital and try to fake the looks in PS? So, I'm gonna take the shortcut... PS: You see what I mean when I say that I am lazy... ;o)
Re: OT - So quiet in here
Lucas Rijnders wrote: Op Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:00 +0100 schreef mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: One other thing I notice: Old prints (say, beginning 20th century) often do not have a full tonal range: There's black and dark grey, and a lot of white. The middle to light grays seem to have bleached away. I think this is an ageing effect. You could mimick that to make photo's look 'old and worn'. Not only an ageing effect. It was quite some time after the development of easy access photography before film was developed that reacted equally to all wavelengths of light. Part of the pleasure of interpreting old photographs is working out what is missing. The prints I was thinking of are of ships on a sunny day on a river, and all the blue (sky, river, say 90% of the frame :o) is almost white. I think that makes sense, or should it be just the other way around? It is a pity, though. The ship belonged to my wife's grantparents, and her family would appreciate 'better' copies. The prints are tiny. I tried to scan, clean up and enlarge them, but I think there's just too little information to work with... Even blowing up 'as-is' did not yield useable results. Along these lines: we strongly believe a dutch museum has 'glass negatives' of the ship. Would that be worth pursueing? Can these negatives still be printed (or scanned)? What size would a 'glass negative' have? As they probably aren't "easy access photography": would these negatives have the same tonality problems? Thanks in advance, Orthochromatic film and plates was particularly sensitive to blue, and not sensitive to red, so to get detail in anythng that was green/red you had to massively overexpose the blue. B&W paper is orthochromatic, and ortho film is still available. -Adam
Re: Re: OT - So quiet in here
Op Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:18:54 +0100 schreef mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Along these lines: we strongly believe a dutch museum has 'glass negatives' of the ship. Would that be worth pursueing? Can these negatives still be printed (or scanned)? What size would a 'glass negative' have? As they probably aren't "easy access photography": would these negatives have the same tonality problems? The negatives could be any size up to about an A3 sheet of paper. Most likely size would be around A5. Ah, *large*. Thought so :o) They can still be scanned or printed but would probably have to be done professionally (in this case, the profession having more to do with preservation than photography) so could be expensive. They will have tonality "problems" - but they will also have colour "problems". 8-) None of the above would discourage me from trying to get the work done if it was my ancestors. YMMV. MM probably won't V ;-) Thanks for the information. Time to chase the lead... -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Re: OT - So quiet in here
> > From: "Lucas Rijnders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 09:40:38 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: OT - So quiet in here > > Op Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:00 +0100 schreef mike wilson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> One other thing I notice: Old prints (say, beginning 20th century) often > >> do not have a full tonal range: There's black and dark grey, and a lot > >> of > >> white. The middle to light grays seem to have bleached away. I think > >> this > >> is an ageing effect. You could mimick that to make photo's look 'old and > >> worn'. > > > Not only an ageing effect. It was quite some time after the development > > of easy access photography before film was developed that reacted > > equally to all wavelengths of light. Part of the pleasure of > > interpreting old photographs is working out what is missing. > > The prints I was thinking of are of ships on a sunny day on a river, and > all the blue (sky, river, say 90% of the frame :o) is almost white. I > think that makes sense, or should it be just the other way around? > It is a pity, though. The ship belonged to my wife's grantparents, and her > family would appreciate 'better' copies. The prints are tiny. I tried to > scan, clean up and enlarge them, but I think there's just too little > information to work with... Even blowing up 'as-is' did not yield useable > results. > > Along these lines: we strongly believe a dutch museum has 'glass > negatives' of the ship. Would that be worth pursueing? Can these negatives > still be printed (or scanned)? What size would a 'glass negative' have? As > they probably aren't "easy access photography": would these negatives have > the same tonality problems? The negatives could be any size up to about an A3 sheet of paper. Most likely size would be around A5. They can still be scanned or printed but would probably have to be done professionally (in this case, the profession having more to do with preservation than photography) so could be expensive. They will have tonality "problems" - but they will also have colour "problems". 8-) None of the above would discourage me from trying to get the work done if it was my ancestors. YMMV. > > Thanks in advance, > -- > Regards, Lucas > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT - So quiet in here
Op Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:00 +0100 schreef mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: One other thing I notice: Old prints (say, beginning 20th century) often do not have a full tonal range: There's black and dark grey, and a lot of white. The middle to light grays seem to have bleached away. I think this is an ageing effect. You could mimick that to make photo's look 'old and worn'. Not only an ageing effect. It was quite some time after the development of easy access photography before film was developed that reacted equally to all wavelengths of light. Part of the pleasure of interpreting old photographs is working out what is missing. The prints I was thinking of are of ships on a sunny day on a river, and all the blue (sky, river, say 90% of the frame :o) is almost white. I think that makes sense, or should it be just the other way around? It is a pity, though. The ship belonged to my wife's grantparents, and her family would appreciate 'better' copies. The prints are tiny. I tried to scan, clean up and enlarge them, but I think there's just too little information to work with... Even blowing up 'as-is' did not yield useable results. Along these lines: we strongly believe a dutch museum has 'glass negatives' of the ship. Would that be worth pursueing? Can these negatives still be printed (or scanned)? What size would a 'glass negative' have? As they probably aren't "easy access photography": would these negatives have the same tonality problems? Thanks in advance, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: OT - So quiet in here
> > From: "Lucas Rijnders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 08:21:10 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: OT - So quiet in here > > Op Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:25:37 +0100 schreef Collin R Brendemuehl > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> From: "Fernando Terrazzino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march > >> break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect > >> makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) > > > Want to improve them and really give them the "old" look? > > Take out the blue component first. Then convert. > > Plate and tin type emulsions had little or no blue sensitivity. > > There may be other fixes as well, but that comes to mind first. > > Hi, > > Last time I moved I went to an apartment in a building from the second > half of the 19th century. I wanted the adress card I sent friends and > relatives to have a photo that looked like it was taken when the building > was new. Since no original was available, I took a recent photo, cloned > out the obviously modern bits like cars and lamp-posts, desaturated > (probably would do that differently now) and reduced contrast quite a bit. > As far as I know, old film (or paper?) was not capable of recording lot of > contrast. I wouldn't know if it looked like a new photo from that time > would look, but it certainly fooled everyone I sent the card! > One other thing I notice: Old prints (say, beginning 20th century) often > do not have a full tonal range: There's black and dark grey, and a lot of > white. The middle to light grays seem to have bleached away. I think this > is an ageing effect. You could mimick that to make photo's look 'old and > worn'. Not only an ageing effect. It was quite some time after the development of easy access photography before film was developed that reacted equally to all wavelengths of light. Part of the pleasure of interpreting old photographs is working out what is missing. > > Hope this helps, > -- > Regards, Lucas > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: OT - So quiet in here
On Mar 16, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: But know, out of curiosity, Godfrey, do you have a scan of some of this prints that I could see? if not no problem, is just to satisfy the curiosity of someone that have never shot B&W film (and I don't plan to, too lazy for that) and with some time to maybe try to imitate the "looks". Somewhere I have scans of some prints from 25 years ago, I am not sure if I have any scans of my pictures from 40 years ago. If I pull them out of the archives, I'll scan a couple and post them. Be warned: I don't think my sophistication as a photographer was particularly noteworthy when I was 8-9 years old. ;-) Godfrey
OT - So quiet in here
Op Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:25:37 +0100 schreef Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: From: "Fernando Terrazzino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) Want to improve them and really give them the "old" look? Take out the blue component first. Then convert. Plate and tin type emulsions had little or no blue sensitivity. There may be other fixes as well, but that comes to mind first. Hi, Last time I moved I went to an apartment in a building from the second half of the 19th century. I wanted the adress card I sent friends and relatives to have a photo that looked like it was taken when the building was new. Since no original was available, I took a recent photo, cloned out the obviously modern bits like cars and lamp-posts, desaturated (probably would do that differently now) and reduced contrast quite a bit. As far as I know, old film (or paper?) was not capable of recording lot of contrast. I wouldn't know if it looked like a new photo from that time would look, but it certainly fooled everyone I sent the card! One other thing I notice: Old prints (say, beginning 20th century) often do not have a full tonal range: There's black and dark grey, and a lot of white. The middle to light grays seem to have bleached away. I think this is an ageing effect. You could mimick that to make photo's look 'old and worn'. Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: OT - So quiet in here
Hey Fernando - we're not _that_ old! We had to learn how to do sepia toning from books, just like you! Nice (record) pics, BTW John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Fernando Terrazzino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:36 AM Subject: OT - So quiet in here I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) just for fun http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765427/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765423/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765429/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765425/
Re: OT - So quiet in here
Quoting Fernando Terrazzino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: is just to satisfy the curiosity of someone that have never shot B&W film (and I don't plan to, too lazy for that) You don't know what your missing. Shoot B&W. Blood will flow like you have never felt it. Dave, listeining to Gentle Giant, Brooks
Re: OT - So quiet in here
Well, I was bored playing with PS (obviusly) and I sent this for 2 reasons: 1) I was bored at work (don't tell my boss) 2) wanted to see who classified himself/herself as the (gonna change to more respectful adjective here) "experienced" with longer time living to have a chance to see changes into photography... (uuuhh, that was long) But know, out of curiosity, Godfrey, do you have a scan of some of this prints that I could see? if not no problem, is just to satisfy the curiosity of someone that have never shot B&W film (and I don't plan to, too lazy for that) and with some time to maybe try to imitate the "looks". On 3/16/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. They look oversharpened and overly yellow to me. When I started > doing photography (42 years ago), panchromatic Tri-X was available as > was neutral-black Kodabromide paper and Dektol paper developer. I > still have some of those prints and they don't look anything like > this, although some of the subject matter does. > > Godfrey > > On Mar 16, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: > > > I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march > > break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect > > makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) > > > > just for fun > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765427/ > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765423/ > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765429/ > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765425/ > > > >
Re: OT - So quiet in here
No. They look oversharpened and overly yellow to me. When I started doing photography (42 years ago), panchromatic Tri-X was available as was neutral-black Kodabromide paper and Dektol paper developer. I still have some of those prints and they don't look anything like this, although some of the subject matter does. Godfrey On Mar 16, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Fernando Terrazzino wrote: I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) just for fun http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765427/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765423/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765429/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765425/
Re: OT - So quiet in here
On 16/3/06, Fernando Terrazzino, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march >break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect >makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) > >just for fun >http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765427/ > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765423/ > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765429/ > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765425/ Sepia toning? Did it when I was studying photography back in the late 70s, I'm not sure if that classes me as an elderly member. Back then we were mimicking faded prints. Today it's done for vanity :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
OT - So quiet in here
I have the feeling that today's activity dropped a notch (march break?) so I thought about asking to the eldery members if this effect makes photos look like when you first started photography ;o) just for fun http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765427/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765423/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765429/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/111765425/
