Re: Black & White 103
Thanks for the look and comments Godfrey. I have see all types of photos labeled abstract lately. In this case I was looking for a photo that rendered itself to a strong black and white tones without a recognizable location or subject. I have been working on a series of landscapes with this process which I will be adding to the blog. If you have the time I hope you will revisit in the future. pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: Message: 5 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 20:25:28 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Black & White 103 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lovely tone and rendering. I'm not sure the photo works for me, but it is beautifully rendered. The meta-question in this case is "what do you mean by abstract?" G On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Don Guthrie wrote: >Seems I am in a black & white mood or mode and I am distracted or in this case abstract. > >Comments etc. welcomed. > >http://donguthriephotos.com/2013/08/13/black-and-white-mood-103/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Black & White 103
Lovely tone and rendering. I'm not sure the photo works for me, but it is beautifully rendered. The meta-question in this case is "what do you mean by abstract?" G On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Don Guthrie wrote: > Seems I am in a black & white mood or mode and I am distracted or in this > case abstract. > > Comments etc. welcomed. > > http://donguthriephotos.com/2013/08/13/black-and-white-mood-103/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Black & White Metering
Thanks to all for the many replies. The pun tree got dangerous. Has anyone noticed that all good puns are bad! Maybe the answer is to do both. Work on the digital & exercise the (dare I say the "L" word) to keep it up. Hope all had as nice a Thanksgiving as we did. -- John Graves WA1JG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Black & White Conversion w/FA 24 f2.0
Thanks Jay for the compliment! For the record: the base of what I do with my pictures are the actions by Suleman Petteri, available in his website: http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html I do a bit of dodging and burning to every image, and make them a little bit warmer than the "set up darkroom" action makes them. But I don't take all the PS credit... Cheers, j On 9/22/05, Jay Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After admiring the awesome photoblog of Juan (Water Molotov) and great > images from Godfrey, I have been wanting to explore different BW > conversion processes in Photoshop CS. This one involves dual > Hue/Saturation adjustment layers. Not even close to dynamic range shown > in Juan's work, but here is an example: > > http://i.pbase.com/v3/87/63987/1/49629765.DuwamishBW.jpg > > I'm really begining to appreciate the optical quality of the higher end > Pentax glass. And yeah, LBA is starting to come into full effect. > > Comments and suggestions welcome, > Jay > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Black & White Conversion w/FA 24 f2.0
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sep 22, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Jay Taylor wrote: > >> ... This one involves dual Hue/Saturation adjustment layers. Not >> even close to dynamic range shown in Juan's work, but here is an >> example: >> >> http://i.pbase.com/v3/87/63987/1/49629765.DuwamishBW.jpg > >Very nice! The rendering is well done with excellent tonalities. > >> I'm really begining to appreciate the optical quality of the higher >> end Pentax glass. And yeah, LBA is starting to come into full effect. > >Good lenses are worth the money. Regarding the 24/2.0 - even when I shot film I felt that this lens was at its best with B&W, rather than color. Oh yeah: Godders is right on with regards to the tonality. Nice work. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Black & White Conversion w/FA 24 f2.0
On Sep 22, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Jay Taylor wrote: ... This one involves dual Hue/Saturation adjustment layers. Not even close to dynamic range shown in Juan's work, but here is an example: http://i.pbase.com/v3/87/63987/1/49629765.DuwamishBW.jpg Very nice! The rendering is well done with excellent tonalities. I'm really begining to appreciate the optical quality of the higher end Pentax glass. And yeah, LBA is starting to come into full effect. Good lenses are worth the money. Godfrey
Re: Black & White Conversion w/FA 24 f2.0
Thanks for the compliment, Jay! Haven't got time to look at pictures right now, but I'll take a look later on. Godfrey On Sep 22, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Jay Taylor wrote: After admiring the awesome photoblog of Juan (Water Molotov) and great images from Godfrey, I have been wanting to explore different BW conversion processes in Photoshop CS. This one involves dual Hue/Saturation adjustment layers. Not even close to dynamic range shown in Juan's work, but here is an example: http://i.pbase.com/v3/87/63987/1/49629765.DuwamishBW.jpg I'm really begining to appreciate the optical quality of the higher end Pentax glass. And yeah, LBA is starting to come into full effect.
RE: black & white
You cant conrol exposure latitude and contrast with C41 like you can with BW if you develop/expose your own BW negs. JCO -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: black & white So what has color photography, and more specifically, color digital photography, got to do with learning conventional B&W processing, printing, and photographic techniques? Why can't one have a close relationship with a color lab? I do. Some of my colleagues do. We know everyone who works at the various labs, know exactly how the equipment is calibrated, have their color profiles, and I've worked with Chris on the computer to best determine the results on some specific prints, have spenbt hours with Kevin discussing scanning techniques, as has my friend Bill with the people at a different lab. Are you suggesting that color does not afford complete control? Shel From: Mark Stringer Subject: RE: black & white Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:46:55 -0700 The photographer will learn about his equipment, film and lab by doing photography and will adjust his processes to get better results. Is the question whether it is better to do so conciously or subconciously? I think a lot of good photographers respond to their results without hands on testing, souping and printing. B&W has always offered complete control. Doing your own is the shortest route to your desired results. However for color most of us do not have a relationship with a color lab. Now comes digital. More color photographers can have control over their result and will find it easier to have a relationship with a lab. "Hey Lab, last week my print looked like this and this week my print looks like this, I need consistent results." The lab will respond or we will find another with more consistent results. But we don't have to give detailed instructions to the lab. We crop, adjust and produce a proof at home. Hopefully the lab (printer) only has to print the photo equally well from week to week. Digital photography is the best thing to happen to the amateur color photographer.
RE: black & white
So what has color photography, and more specifically, color digital photography, got to do with learning conventional B&W processing, printing, and photographic techniques? Why can't one have a close relationship with a color lab? I do. Some of my colleagues do. We know everyone who works at the various labs, know exactly how the equipment is calibrated, have their color profiles, and I've worked with Chris on the computer to best determine the results on some specific prints, have spenbt hours with Kevin discussing scanning techniques, as has my friend Bill with the people at a different lab. Are you suggesting that color does not afford complete control? Shel From: Mark Stringer Subject: RE: black & white Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:46:55 -0700 The photographer will learn about his equipment, film and lab by doing photography and will adjust his processes to get better results. Is the question whether it is better to do so conciously or subconciously? I think a lot of good photographers respond to their results without hands on testing, souping and printing. B&W has always offered complete control. Doing your own is the shortest route to your desired results. However for color most of us do not have a relationship with a color lab. Now comes digital. More color photographers can have control over their result and will find it easier to have a relationship with a lab. "Hey Lab, last week my print looked like this and this week my print looks like this, I need consistent results." The lab will respond or we will find another with more consistent results. But we don't have to give detailed instructions to the lab. We crop, adjust and produce a proof at home. Hopefully the lab (printer) only has to print the photo equally well from week to week. Digital photography is the best thing to happen to the amateur color photographer.
RE: black & white
The photographer will learn about his equipment, film and lab by doing photography and will adjust his processes to get better results. Is the question whether it is better to do so conciously or subconciously? I think a lot of good photographers respond to their results without hands on testing, souping and printing. B&W has always offered complete control. Doing your own is the shortest route to your desired results. However for color most of us do not have a relationship with a color lab. Now comes digital. More color photographers can have control over their result and will find it easier to have a relationship with a lab. "Hey Lab, last week my print looked like this and this week my print looks like this, I need consistent results." The lab will respond or we will find another with more consistent results. But we don't have to give detailed instructions to the lab. We crop, adjust and produce a proof at home. Hopefully the lab (printer) only has to print the photo equally well from week to week. Digital photography is the best thing to happen to the amateur color photographer. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: black & white I saw this thread in the archives and felt that I just had to jump in. The question, as I understand it, is not whether a photographer has to or should process their own film and make their own prints, but whether one should LEARN the processes involved. Once one understands how the film and the developer and the exposure, and the different aspects of printing interrelate, one then understands with greater, if not absolute, certainty, how the previsualized final result will be, or if it's even possible under the circumstances at the time the exposure is made. While many (B&W) photogs of note will trust their film to a lab, and their prints to a good darkroom technician, that's usually a relationship that's developed over time, with all parties knowing enough about what is possible, and what the other is capable of doing. You can rest assure that Salgado has his gear calibrated, that his lab guy knows what he likes, and that their relationship is a close one, even over great distances. However, the average amateur photographer does not get so deep into the details. S/he points, s/he shoots, and then passes the film off to the lab. The lab knows nothing other than the photog says to process normally, or push one stop, or pull one stop, but in truth there's no calibration between the photographer's exposure and negs and what the lab chooses as processing time and technique. I've no truck with those who have a lab process their film or prints, nor do I perceive one who uses that approach as any less (or more) of a photographer than one who does their own processing. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that KNOWING what's involved in processing film and making prints (and there's a lot more to it than just simple time/temp) will allow the photographer, or the photographer and lab techs, to obtain better results. Frank, I've never seen your prints, just the poor quality images of (what you often describe as) poor quality scans that appear on my computer screen. I have no idea if the quality of your prints is good, excellent, or substandard. I also believe that, for the most part, the people on this list - and most people in general - and there are exceptions - wouldn't know a good quality B&W print if it bit 'em on the ass. That's in part because few here have ever made an exhibition quality print, and quite a few have never even seen one (Now's the time that a bunch of people jump in and dismiss my comments because THEY have seen such prints). The bottom line is this: the more you know the better your results, regardless of who develops the film or who makes the print. If the photographer doesn't understand the subtleties of exposure and development from a real world, hands-on perspective, and exposes the film with an understanding of what s/he wants to see as a result, knowing that the result is possible, then in more cases than not, the result will, at best, approximate the photographer's vision. Maybe for you, and for some others, close enough is good enough. But for others, good enough is not good enough. You ask "how often a musical piece is not performed by the composer?" That's something of a red herring of a question. A better question might be, "how often is a musical piece that is not performed by the composer reflecting what the composer intended?" Maybe the result would be better to some ears, maybe not, but it would certainly be different than the original intent. Carrying further with that analogy, how wonderful it would be to hear the work of Mozart played and performed as he meant it to be, for
Re: black & white
On 23/8/04, Caveman, discombobulated, unleashed: >Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> However, the average amateur photographer does not get so deep into the >> details. S/he points, s/he shoots, and then passes the film off to the lab. > >I beg to differ. He passes no film to anyone. He just plugs an USB cable >into the camera. How to develop film is completely irrelevant for him. > >Sorry but these are the days now. > >cheers, >digicaveman Actually Cavo the digitographer has a point. Perhaps because processing digital images is bound to become more prevalent than traditional wet darkroom technique - due to availability of computers etc - then more and more people *will* get into the whole process in a more hands-on way than previously.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: black & white
The question, as I understand it, is not whether a photographer has to or should process their own film and make their own prints, but whether one should LEARN the processes involved. Once one understands how the film and the developer and the exposure, and the different aspects of printing interrelate, one then understands with greater, if not absolute, certainty, how the previsualized final result will be, or if it's even possible under the circumstances at the time the exposure is made. While many (B&W) photogs of note will trust their film to a lab, and their prints to a good darkroom technician, that's usually a relationship that's developed over time, with all parties knowing enough about what is possible, and what the other is capable of doing. You can rest assure that Salgado has his gear calibrated, that his lab guy knows what he likes, and that their relationship is a close one, even over great distances. However, the average amateur photographer does not get so deep into the details. S/he points, s/he shoots, and then passes the film off to the lab. The lab knows nothing other than the photog says to process normally, or push one stop, or pull one stop, but in truth there's no calibration between the photographer's exposure and negs and what the lab chooses as processing time and technique. I've no truck with those who have a lab process their film or prints, nor do I perceive one who uses that approach as any less (or more) of a photographer than one who does their own processing. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that KNOWING what's involved in processing film and making prints (and there's a lot more to it than just simple time/temp) will allow the photographer, or the photographer and lab techs, to obtain better results. Frank, I've never seen your prints, just the poor quality images of (what you often describe as) poor quality scans that appear on my computer screen. I have no idea if the quality of your prints is good, excellent, or substandard. I also believe that, for the most part, the people on this list - and most people in general - and there are exceptions - wouldn't know a good quality B&W print if it bit 'em on the ass. That's in part because few here have ever made an exhibition quality print, and quite a few have never even seen one (Now's the time that a bunch of people jump in and dismiss my comments because THEY have seen such prints). The bottom line is this: the more you know the better your results, regardless of who develops the film or who makes the print. If the photographer doesn't understand the subtleties of exposure and development from a real world, hands-on perspective, and exposes the film with an understanding of what s/he wants to see as a result, knowing that the result is possible, then in more cases than not, the result will, at best, approximate the photographer's vision. Maybe for you, and for some others, close enough is good enough. But for others, good enough is not good enough. You ask "how often a musical piece is not performed by the composer?" That's something of a red herring of a question. A better question might be, "how often does a musical piece that is not performed by the composer reflect what the composer intended?" Maybe the result would be better to some ears, maybe not, but it would certainly be different than the original intent. Carrying further with that analogy, how wonderful it would be to hear the work of Mozart played and performed as he meant it to be, for only then would one have a point of reference and comparison to subsequent interpretations. And while you, and others, may send a print back to the lab for numerous corrections, it's quite possible that, because you have little understanding of the technical knowledge that goes along with KNOWING how to develop and print, and knowing the potentials and limitations of different developer/film combinations, you will never get exactly the results you want, just an approximation. This is not to say that anyone who learns the basics of developing and printing will fully understand the potentials and possibilities. That, IMNSHO, takes time and experience. Do you really think that photogs like Erwitt, Salgado, Nachtway, Lange, and others, NEVER processed their own film and made their own prints? Of course they did. It's just that as they became busier, as they travelled further afield, it became less practical for them to do so. But don't for a minute think that these photographers just snapped the pic and handed off their film for processing and printing, never having learned what is involved and having done the work themselves at some point. It's your vision and your creativity ... if you're happy with the results, then that's fine. But allow me to ask this question: if you had a better understanding of the process, is it possible that your results may be closer to your vision? Might the results be technically superior to what you're getting now? Would you perhaps know
Re: black & white
I saw this thread in the archives and felt that I just had to jump in. The question, as I understand it, is not whether a photographer has to or should process their own film and make their own prints, but whether one should LEARN the processes involved. Once one understands how the film and the developer and the exposure, and the different aspects of printing interrelate, one then understands with greater, if not absolute, certainty, how the previsualized final result will be, or if it's even possible under the circumstances at the time the exposure is made. While many (B&W) photogs of note will trust their film to a lab, and their prints to a good darkroom technician, that's usually a relationship that's developed over time, with all parties knowing enough about what is possible, and what the other is capable of doing. You can rest assure that Salgado has his gear calibrated, that his lab guy knows what he likes, and that their relationship is a close one, even over great distances. However, the average amateur photographer does not get so deep into the details. S/he points, s/he shoots, and then passes the film off to the lab. The lab knows nothing other than the photog says to process normally, or push one stop, or pull one stop, but in truth there's no calibration between the photographer's exposure and negs and what the lab chooses as processing time and technique. I've no truck with those who have a lab process their film or prints, nor do I perceive one who uses that approach as any less (or more) of a photographer than one who does their own processing. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that KNOWING what's involved in processing film and making prints (and there's a lot more to it than just simple time/temp) will allow the photographer, or the photographer and lab techs, to obtain better results. Frank, I've never seen your prints, just the poor quality images of (what you often describe as) poor quality scans that appear on my computer screen. I have no idea if the quality of your prints is good, excellent, or substandard. I also believe that, for the most part, the people on this list - and most people in general - and there are exceptions - wouldn't know a good quality B&W print if it bit 'em on the ass. That's in part because few here have ever made an exhibition quality print, and quite a few have never even seen one (Now's the time that a bunch of people jump in and dismiss my comments because THEY have seen such prints). The bottom line is this: the more you know the better your results, regardless of who develops the film or who makes the print. If the photographer doesn't understand the subtleties of exposure and development from a real world, hands-on perspective, and exposes the film with an understanding of what s/he wants to see as a result, knowing that the result is possible, then in more cases than not, the result will, at best, approximate the photographer's vision. Maybe for you, and for some others, close enough is good enough. But for others, good enough is not good enough. You ask "how often a musical piece is not performed by the composer?" That's something of a red herring of a question. A better question might be, "how often is a musical piece that is not performed by the composer reflecting what the composer intended?" Maybe the result would be better to some ears, maybe not, but it would certainly be different than the original intent. Carrying further with that analogy, how wonderful it would be to hear the work of Mozart played and performed as he meant it to be, for only then would one have a point of reference and comparison to subsequent interpretations. And while you, and others, may send a print back to the lab for numerous corrections, it's quite possible that, because you have little understanding of the technical knowledge that goes along with KNOWING how to develop and print, and knowing the potentials and limitations of different developer/film combinations, you will never get exactly the results you want, just an approximation. This is not to say that anyone who learns the basics of developing and printing will fully understand the potentials and possibilities. That, IMNSHO, takes time and experience. Do you really think that photogs like Erwitt, Salgado, Nachtway, Lange, and others, NEVER processed their own film and made their own prints? Of course they did. It's just that as they became busier, as they travelled further afield, it became less practical for them to do so. But don't for a minute think that these photographers just snapped the pic and handed off their film for processing and printing, never having learned what is involved and having done the work themselves at some point. It's your vision and your creativity ... if you're happy with the results, then that's fine. But allow me to ask this question: f you had a better understanding of the process, is it possible that your results may be closer to your vision? Might the results be
Re: black & white
--- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be a good B&W photographer you need to know how > to develop and print B&W. It > helps for color too, but many feel it is not as > important. Anytime you are > dealing with a custom lab you need to know enough to > supervise their work for > you, at least enough to know when to demand a > reprint. Tom, Explain to me why one has to know how to develop and print, in order to know what one likes and what one doesn't like, in prints. I go back to my developer and say, "Robert, can you lighten this a bit?" or "Can you burn the background a bit?" I don't need to know the process in order to give instructions. cheers, frank = "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" "Of course it's all luck" -- Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
