Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 18, 2013, 06:55:59 pm
-
Thou shall not shoot at high noon ....
Also playing with a new frame.
-
That bold frame will ruin any picture.
Harald
-
Hi,
Sorry to say, but to me it looks like a bad scan of a Velvia slide. The slide may be great but the scan makes it no justice. Now, Velvia is hard to scan, I know as I was doing it for many years. Drum scans are expensive but be better, the photomultipliers in the drum scanners handle Dmax of Velvia better than CCD scanners.
Best regards
Erik
-
I remember it well; next stop Fornalutx.
You have no idea how lucky we/you were to find that parking space!
It's a feature of nature that defies scale; if anything, I think it must offer the same problem as the Grand Canyon probably does, though I've never seen the latter place.
The reality gives me vertigo, just as does Formentor, but I also have shots of rocks surfaces just around ten feet high that look similar when shot.
Rob C
-
Hi,
Sorry to say, but to me it looks like a bad scan of a Velvia slide. The slide may be great but the scan makes it no justice. Now, Velvia is hard to scan, I know as I was doing it for many years. Drum scans are expensive but be better, the photomultipliers in the drum scanners handle Dmax of Velvia better than CCD scanners.
Best regards
Erik
Any suggestions ?
I'm using a Coolscan LS 9000.
In the moment I'm working on a different processing of the file - most shadow detail is there - the sky is a problem though.
-
Hi,
I have A Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, and used it mostly with Vuescan. Vuescan has two pass scanning, two scan with different exposures. I have also tried doing it by hand.
I would suggest that you send a slide to a good drum scanner operator, just to see what is possible. I used http://www.high-end-scans.de . Tim Parkin offers drum scan services at a great price and really nows what he is doing.
I did some testing doing repro with my DSLR, it worked out quite well: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74091.0
(Keep in mind this was just a feasibility test, I have not really worked on alignment and film flatness).
Here is an article I have written: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
Here are some of the images used in that article: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/index.html
The images here are all Velvia scans: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/
Hope this helps!
Best regards
Erik
Any suggestions ?
I'm using a Coolscan LS 9000.
In the moment I'm working on a different processing of the file - most shadow detail is there - the sky is a problem though.
-
I reprocessed the image, but I really want the shadows to be quite dark.
Thats not a scanning error ...
I worked on the sky and clouds using some fake HDR technique from a single file.
Also did a bit of dodging and burning.
Oh yes - and I won't change the frame :P
-
After seeing Eriks files - I wish I had a drum scanner - or an IQ260 ....
Awwwww....
-
Hi,
An IQ180 would be nice...
I would say that your LS9000 is in all probability a bit better than my Minolta DSMP scanner. Almost all of my images come from that DSMP so your scanner matches mine.
I used Vuescan, scanned to 16 TIFF and did most of my processing in GIMP, Photoshop and now Lightroom.
Another way to make life a bit easier is to use a film with lesser DMAX like Provia. I used Provia for a while but returned to Velvia.
There is a program called Silverfast, that has a reputation for excellent scans. My copy was buggy, but there has been a lot of development since.
Best regards
Erik
After seeing Eriks files - I wish I had a drum scanner - or an IQ260 ....
Awwwww....
-
Actually I'm scanning with Silverfast doing Multiexposure scans. The darkish shadows are intentional and a part of my interpretation of the scene. Though the scanner is good grain aliasing is an issue even at 4000 dpi. A Dmax of 4 is no problem. Your Drum scans look terrific. I really want to go digital, but not below sheet film quality.
-
Have you tried a bit warmer white balance?
-
Hi,
Have you seen this one? Don't forget to click for actual pixels view, it is about 4000x6000 pixels. Sony Alpha 99 and Samsung 14/2.8.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Samyang/20130821-_DSC2705.jpg
It doesn't compete with 4x5" inch film, but still pretty impressive from a 350$US ultra wide, isn't it?
You could check this pages if you are interested in larger formats:
'
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/
The Mamiya 7II is an impressive camera, Tim Parkin sent me a piece of a 10000 PPI scan that measured quite a bit better than the IQ 180. It was very sharp but quite noisy. Little doubt that Mamiya 7 + film and excellent scanning technique can yield excellent results.
Best regards
Erik
Actually I'm scanning with Silverfast doing Multiexposure scans. The darkish shadows are intentional and a part of my interpretation of the scene. Though the scanner is good grain aliasing is an issue even at 4000 dpi. A Dmax of 4 is no problem. Your Drum scans look terrific. I really want to go digital, but not below sheet film quality.
-
Have you tried a bit warmer white balance?
No - I tried some unusual colorprocessing here including one layer being changed in LAB mode in another file and cooling the shadows and warming the lights. I also used a blurred layer to increase some of the atmospheric effects. I feel this file is a difficult learning experience for me and we still have to learn to know each other better so to say .... This second version is better concerning the toning, but looking at it this morning, I feel color indeed needs still improving. In the original scan the clouds are totally invisible and hidden in mush - I had exposed for the shadows and thus the lights are quite at the edge of the curve. I feel I need to experiment with this file even more.
Hi,
Have you seen this one? Don't forget to click for actual pixels view, it is about 4000x6000 pixels. Sony Alpha 99 and Samsung 14/2.8.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Samyang/20130821-_DSC2705.jpg
It doesn't compete with 4x5" inch film, but still pretty impressive from a 350$US ultra wide, isn't it?
Best regards
Erik
Indeed it is.
I am constantly dragged between going the DSLR route or MFDB.
When I worked with that loaned IQ260 I was blown away by the quality and robustness of the files it produced.
And 4x5" film still is an option.
In any case I want movements.
MFDB is just so insanely expensive if you are inside the 60 MP up range.
But its not only about resolution.
My impression is, the scanned files and the purely digital files have a very different feel I need to explore further.
And I don't know if this is just some crazy subjectivism and I am a victim of some sophisticated marketing or if I am feeling something real here.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Hi,
If you like scanned film, and enjoying scanning it is very nice! Keep on taking the challenge and share your results and findings.
I have a projector for 67 slides, a Götschman 67, a projected Velvia 67 slide is very impressive!
Best regards
Erik
I am constantly dragged between going the DSLR route or MFDB.
When I worked with that loaned IQ260 I was blown away by the quality and robustness of the files it produced.
And 4x5" film still is an option.
In any case I want movements.
MFDB is just so insanely expensive if you are inside the 60 MP up range.
But its not only about resolution.
My impression is, the scanned files and the purely digital files have a very different feel I need to explore further.
And I don't know if this is just some crazy subjectivism and I am a victim of some sophisticated marketing or if I am feeling something real here.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Hi,
If you like scanned film, and enjoying scanning it is very nice! Keep on taking the challenge and share your results and findings.
I have a projector for 67 slides, a Götschman 67, a projected Velvia 67 slide is very impressive!
Best regards
Erik
Actually I hate scanning ... But film still has something for me, especially when the alternative is some dozen grands of costs ....
-
Allright - here is (for now) my last iteration of the file.
I'll stay away from it for a while, since I feel quite exhausted from the work.
I tried and learned many new things and need to let it rest now in this state after working 3 hours on it.
There are still some slight imperfections, but it will stay like this for now.
Please still stay honest with your critique.
Cheers
~Chris
-
To give you an idea of the image I added this 33% crop, which would be print size if you watch it on a 100 dpi screen.
The websize does not really do it justice.
-
That bold frame will ruin any picture.
Harald
+1
-
Hi,
That crop looks nice. I think you are right that the small image doesn't make it justice.
Best regards
Erik
To give you an idea of the image I added this 33% crop, which would be print size if you watch it on a 100 dpi screen.
The websize does not really do it justice.
-
That bold frame will ruin any picture.
Harald
And there you are: it's the standard black frame beloved of every gallery I ever entered.
Always knew those galleristas knew nothing about the business!
;-)
Rob C
-
I believe frames function differently in a number of ways on the screen than they do on the wall. I am not bothered by your frames Rob. With yours the black is more of a line than a shape and they give you somewhere to write other than on the photo its self.
-
Probably the association with bad 3D web design graphics is too strong.
Though many graphical stuff is sort of fake, the fake 3D seems to pull off a trigger in most,
despite the fact its quite similar to real world framing.
I'm still experimenting with the frames and will sure come up with a different iteration in future.
-
I believe frames function differently in a number of ways on the screen than they do on the wall. I am not bothered by your frames Rob. With yours the black is more of a line than a shape and they give you somewhere to write other than on the photo its self.
To be brutally honest with myself, I have always feared real framing for the wall; I've been seduced by brushed aluminium Daler frames that I used to put calendar pulls into during the 70s and I still have/use the same ones now; only the images have been changed. What happens there is that familiarity steps in and makes anything different feel sort of wrong, but that's really just the comfort zone getting pricked... I really do think that only someone with a lot of professional framing experience has the developed eye to see what makes a pic look at its best. Another aspect that freaks me out is deciding on the width of the board...
As it is, my venerable aluminiums all fit a standard A3 sheet quite well, and mounted on a black card that's wider all round, it all looks fairly presentable. Of course, that means the glass is pressing onto the print, but who cares? The glass restores lost tones to the hated matt papers on which I have to print.
The longer I put images onto the web rather on paper, the less inclined I become to print at all; could I but determine the cause of my softened shots here, I'd be almost happy!
Rob C
-
Chris, I still think that you are missing an opportunity to warm-up the scene a bit. It comes across as overly blueish and cold (not unusual for film). If that is how you want it, or how it was, then I can't argue with that.
-
Chris, I still think that you are missing an opportunity to warm-up the scene a bit. It comes across as overly blueish and cold (not unusual for film). If that is how you want it, or how it was, then I can't argue with that.
I'm pondering.
The shadows are cold, the blueish impression in the shadows shall remain.
But I also see, since there is so much shadow, its becomes quite cold.
I already selectively warmed the light areas a bit and am afraid to break this effect apart.
But after your input I'll give it another look, since I don't want people to freeze looking at it.
Maybe I can rebalance it sensibly a bit in the foreground.
-
Allright - here it is especially for you, Slobodan - and I like it too.
Used the warming filter in PS following a suggestion from another thread.
This forum is so awesome for learning ....
Cheers
~Chris
-
From memory, you need to warm the whole thing up.
I could easily be mistaken (but I don't think so). Mallorca rocks - no, Mallorcan rocks - are that honey-coloured limestone which, usually, looks black as hell and every colour under the sun other than honey. The honey only drips when the sun sets or rises. It's all part of the grand design of the Tourist Board, in complicity with the established church. The old Crusader churches certainly do have that warm glow, but its probably from the dried old blood of the poor devils who had to risk life and limb to build them in the first place.
Hermits lived in caves.
Rob C
-
From memory, you need to warm the whole thing up.
I could easily be mistaken (but I don't think so). Mallorca rocks - no, Mallorcan rocks - are that honey-coloured limestone which, usually, looks black as hell and every colour under the sun other than honey. The honey only drips when the sun sets or rises. It's all part of the grand design of the Tourist Board, in complicity with the established church. The old Crusader churches certainly do have that warm glow, but its probably from the dried old blood of the poor devils who had to risk life and limb to build them in the first place.
Hermits lived in caves.
Rob C
Rob you should have a look here - a shot from the same place just another direction:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84333.0
I dared to post in the landscape section - after seeing so many flat mid day shots there recently I thought I'd raise the level in that subforum a little.
And no - the Mallorquin government doesn't pay me to pretty it up ... ;)
Cheers
~Chris
-
Just to be clear, I do not mind blueish and cool shadows, I was referring to the need to warm up the highlights and create that nice orange-blue contrast. What struck me in your OP image was the bleak nature of the highlights. You might actually try split toning in LR (or PS), selecting one color for highlights and the other for shadows.
But of course, the version that works best is the one that warms up your heart, not necessarily the colors. ;)