When I scan a negative and then apply "curves" or "levels" via PS, what is the darkroom equivalent? I always feel like the software is doing something that can't be done in the darkroom.
When I scan a negative and then apply "curves" or "levels" via PS, what is the darkroom equivalent? I always feel like the software is doing something that can't be done in the darkroom.
Generalizations are made because they are Generally true...
The rough equivalent in the darkroom is manipulating the image contrast, tonal range, and color balance.Originally Posted by stradibarrius
Lotsa stuff you can do with curves in photoshop.
As mentioned. contrast, tonal range, color balance
you can also solarize, posterize, split contrast, fog/pre-flash, underdevelop, underexpose, overexpose, and all sorts of craziness with curves
I think of the curves tool as the rough equivalent of everything that goes on in the darkroom.
I spent years figuring out how to get the tonal curve I wanted, through choice of paper, adjustments in developer formulas and development, etc... Curves let's you just draw the shape you want.
Curves are based on the Characteristic Curve of the film and paper. They are controlled in film photography by exposure and development first, and then altered in many ways including burning, dodging, bleaching, toning, and several other techniques.
Film curves have been around a lot longer than Photoshop. Most legitimate tasks in Photoshop mimic real Photography.
Here is an example. one obviously is the negative scan and only resized for the web. The other has been worked in PS with curves, burn etc.
Would you have developed longer?, changed exposure somehow?, your thoughts and suggestion please.
This 4x5 TMAX processed in Pyrocat HD 1+1.5+100 for 13mn.
Generalizations are made because they are Generally true...
It would be easier to analyze the negative, but based on the second image I would say your negative is significantly underdeveloped. If our goal is a print resembling the first image, a film with more inherent contrast like FP4+ would be better.
Would you have developed longer?, changed exposure somehow?, your thoughts and suggestion please.
This 4x5 TMAX processed in Pyrocat HD 1+1.5+100 for 13mn.
The raw scan just shows a linear representation of the negative's values. You don't see that in a darkroom print, because gelatin silver paper has an S-shaped tonal curve. This means that photo paper is more or less linear in the midtones, but compressed the hightlights and shadows.
Would you have developed longer?, changed exposure somehow?, your thoughts and suggestion please.
This 4x5 TMAX processed in Pyrocat HD 1+1.5+100 for 13mn.
The curve you applied in photoshop was s-shaped. I've attached a curve I made that fairly closely mimmicks your results. You can see that it increases the overall contrsast (by bringing the black and white points in toward the center), and compresses the highlights and shadows the way that a typical photographic paper would.
I don't think your negative or scan has any problems. The scan is relatively low contrast, and you have plenty of detail in the highlights and the shadows. This is what you want: lots of information to work with.
It's perfectly normal to have to apply a curve. If you came up with a negative process that didn't require one, you'd never be able to get a decent darkroom print. Photo paper would apply its own intrinsic curve, and you'd have to fight against it. With the neg and scan that you've shown, you could either print in the darkroom, or get a good digital file with very little work.
It's called masking, and has been around forever in all kinds of flavors. But ya gotta learn all your basic development and contrast controls first, and then decide if
you need anything advanced at all. With excellent variable-contrast papers on the market, probably not. But when it comes to printing color in the darkroom, that's
a different story...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks