Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Nigel Turner on October 28, 2014, 11:13:39 pm
-
This is an image that I shot back in 1988 on 4x5 Fuji 50 Daylight.
A while ago I decided to have the film scanned on a Tango Drum scanner and to then replicate and match the file to the original Cibachrome print.
The original Cibachrome was extremely difficult to print and needed contrast masks, and this is just about as identical as I can get with a digital take!
Thanks for looking and appreciate any comments you may have.
Nigel Turner.
-
Well worth the effort. Lots to explore deep in the image.
-
Amazing photograph. I so loved Fujichrome 50 when it was the best game in town (sorry Kodachrome fans), but your description is an excellent reminder of how great we have it now with a digital DR of 14+.
I applaud your ability to replicate the Cibachrome with the scan - that, in itself is a feat - but could it be further improved from what you've shown us, e.g. slightly more open and slightly more neutral shadows while still maintaining the drama? At least give it a shot.
-
Wonderful and dramatic light.
-
I too remember the challenge of matching a digital scan to the original transparency. I shot a lot of Velvia 50 and then Velvia 100. Gorgeous photo in amazing conditions. Dead Horse Point is my favorite place in the whole Moab area. Nice rendition!
-
Wow!
-
Amazing photograph. I so loved Fujichrome 50 when it was the best game in town (sorry Kodachrome fans), but your description is an excellent reminder of how great we have it now with a digital DR of 14+.
I applaud your ability to replicate the Cibachrome with the scan - that, in itself is a feat - but could it be further improved from what you've shown us, e.g. slightly more open and slightly more neutral shadows while still maintaining the drama? At least give it a shot.
Thanks everyone for your kind feedback.
I think if I opened up the shadows I would actually lose that dramatic feeling of the storm passing overhead and would therefore have a more 'average' exposure leading to a more average looking run of the mill print which has never been my intentions. When I shot this particular image back in 1988 I was still in a steep learning curve and actually forgot to add 1.5 stops to compensate for the Polarizing filter that I placed on to cut down the glare from the rock surface on the left hand side of the image, so effectively the image was under exposed. But it certainly proved to be a very worthwhile mistake as this print, even today after nearly 26 years continues to be my best selling print. Unlike much of my work I never made this a limited edition.
The fine art print market is very much a dog eat dog situation, and if you produce prints with 'average' exposures that look like everyone else's there isn't anything unique about them.
Maybe I can cover this subject more on a future article for LuLa if there is some interest.
-
Great shot, that.
The color rendition is an antidote to the routinely jacked-up color saturation that is the current trend.