Folks,
Eighteen months ago I inadvertently started to collect a few experimental images with my 8X10 camera...
I have three final image formats that I use to present my images within a gallery environment, where the first format is the traditional format entirely based upon the shape of the 8X10 negative be it a landscape or portrait orientation, a second cropped landscape format I call the Da Vinci format based upon the Golden Ratio or Golden Rectangle, and a new format to my own presentation group which everyone seems to describe as a variation on the letterbox format, and where the latter seems to fit a few of my landscape images rather well. The latter format, the letterbox format, happened to be the focus of my long experiment.
Occasionally, I would encounter a scene that looked interesting through my homemade viewing card designed to accommodate the 8X10 negative, so much so, that I would unpack and set up my equipment, choose a suitable focal length lens as determined by my viewing card, and make an effort to capture the image unfolding in front of me.
One day, for whatever reason, I decided to capture two images, creating a marginal overlap within the two images, and I decided that I would try to marry the images together through the digital process. My darkroom days never allowed me to think, let alone believe that I had the skill set to properly marry two images together as one image, but the light room process changed that thought process quickly. So, my simple experiment began by capturing the side-by-side images within the scene, where I overlapped the landscape captures by a few degrees, and where I kept my camera level and properly focused for each image, and although the idea seemed to be a simple exercise, I did not realize how complex the process would become until I started the digital marriage.
I started with a preview rgb scan for each image on my Epson scanner, where I wet mounted the images creating a 3000ppi rgb digital file for each image, and where I finally I brought the digital files into Photoshop to conduct the test. I made the digital files this large, because it is a continuous habit of mine to secure a preview file with this information before a selected image is drum scanned, and I really wanted to see how Photoshop within CS2 would handle files this large in the process while using the Epson wet mounted scans. I do not have a powerful Mac, but it has enough ram, the old style PPC architecture, two slower processors, and enough external hard drive space for a scratch disk. I also wanted to discover what the possible physical boundaries may be with my created image within Photoshop.
That said, here is my simple processing and scanning procedure:
1. I exposed each negative with identical exposures, as well as could be allowed;
2. I did not shoot in direct sunlight, but preferred to shoot in the late evening, where the lighting was evenly distributed throughout the scenes;
3. I processed the negatives together;
4. I scanned the images, creating and saving an rgb digital file at 3000 ppi for each negative;
5. I tried to properly align each negative while scanning, but I found that a small misalignment could be rectified in Photoshop, with minor rotation adjustments;
Here is my simple Photoshop procedure:
1. I created a new Photoshop file that had enough canvas to accommodate and to act as the repository for both digital images;
2. I changed each original scanned file in Photoshop into a layer, using "layer from background" menu command;
3. I dragged each layer into the new Photoshop file;
4. I placed a "new guide" on each horizontal boundary of the layers for alignment and overlapping issues;
5. I change the opacity of one layer to identify my common focal point within the two images, while overlapping the common area and reset the opacity when done;
6. I made a choice regarding which image layer happens to be the dominant top layer;
7. I tweak and twist the two layers until I believe I have a correct alignment within the two layers common overlap area;
8. I continuously experiment with the simple marriage trying to eliminate any parallax issues between the two images;
9. I carefully erased the dominant top layer to properly fit the bottom layer. If I make a gross error while editing, I delete the dominant layer and drag in a fresh one;
10. I do not marry the layers together before I crop the two layers into a format that is equivalent to 8"X20";
11. I save the new unmarried and cropped layer Photoshop file as a "Large Format Document" as the master file;
12. I open this saved master file, marry the two original layers together, and again I make a copy and save the file as a "Large Format Document" working file, going forward;
13. I modify and correct the new working "Large Format Document" Photoshop digital file, before I collapse the adjustment layers of this file into a workable "tiff" file, required by the printer;
14. I make and save a copy of the digital file from the "psb" format to a printable "tiff" format;
15. I print the file...
For those of you that might not know, and forgive me if you do, but a large format document can be 300K pixels by 300k pixels when saved, complete with layers.
Here are my Photoshop discoveries:
1. my original scanned files were 3.54GB each;
2. my married and cropped 8X20 format files created a digital file that was 5.18GB, and borrowed 23.8GB from my scratch disk, for a total file size of 28.98GB;
3. Photoshop definitely requires at least 500GB of free disk space to properly act as a scratch disk with files this large;
4. Photoshop could quickly run out HD space if you do not have 500GB, because Photoshop saves files for the "undo" action;
5. you should save the file to another location in another HD partition, compared to a location in the scratch disk area, because Photoshop will run out of useable disk space;
6. the time to save the "psb" file on my computer took one hour;
7. the time to open the "psb" file on my computer took one hour;
8. Photoshop converts the image into a useable form while saving and opening the digital file, therefore the lengthy open and save times;
9. the file size is not for anyone without patience, because the file size is large, and Photoshop's reaction time is proportionate to the file size;
10. my tool action time took approximately five, ten, or even twenty minutes for each action, before I could review the result;
11. the merged file, prepared for printing, did not require any sharpening;
12. I did not try nor will I try the Photoshop merge function with files this large, or even a smaller file;
13. Photoshop did not choke...
Here are my issues:
1. I periodically had a second negative that was unusable because of wind movement;
2. this process really slows you down because of my selected file sizes;
3. selecting the proper choice of focal length and, or the angle of view for the initial image capture;
4. finding a suitable overlap focal point between the two images while in the field;
5. continuously negotiating with the scene's changing light and, or a possible high contrast scene.
What I enjoyed:
1. the final image quality and detail is rather breathtaking...
What I would like:
1. an 8X20 view camera back for my Ebony;
2. a scanner that can handle an 8X20 negative;
3. a faster computer;
4. less wind;
5. someone to carry my equipment while hiking in the mountains;
6. more patience...
I discovered that Photoshop, my Epson scanner, and my older Mac can accommodate this process, albeit the process is very slow, and I also discovered that this process opened the door to many other image possibilities that could be great fun too. I now carry a viewing card that illustrates the 8X20 format, along with my 8X10 viewing card. There are times that I wonder what the final image would look like if I had the original negatives drum scanned...
I believe many folks may not exercise this avenue to create a larger file, which created these letterbox format finished images, but I decided to see whether this film and digital process would work, and to see whether the finished image warranted the effort.
Anyway, I believe the process is a successful process, and I like the result...
jim k
Btw, if you look close enough, within the first image, there is a squirrel in the midcentre grouping of trees, with two peanuts in his cheeks...
A few of my married images are here:
Sibbald Creek Pond, Alberta...
Castle Mountain, Banff National Park, Alberta...
Bow Lake, Jasper National Park, Alberta...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by jim kitchen
Bookmarks