Jim,Originally Posted by jim kitchen
As I'm another admirer of the tonality you're getting for your clouds, I'm curious as to what method of calibration you're using to make TMY negs fit your to the 750? I have your well written pdf on xtol w/tmy...
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
Huang Shan, Chamonix 45N, Schenider 135/5,6, FP4
Dear mandoman,
Thank you for your comments...
My negatives are not truly calibrated to the 750, since they are black and white negatives, other than what I achieved while recalibrating my TMY-2 dilutions with XTOL to produce lower densities that allowed me to reduce the inherent artefacts in the denser highlights, and where the thinner negatives allowed me to obviously extend the lower density capture.
I found that the Epson 750 and the 700 are surprisingly good digital devices with large format negatives, especially 8X10 negatives, but they still fail miserably with tricky delicate important shadow details, whether the negative is 8X10 or not. I have yet to see a well crafted drum scan fail with any shadow detail that may be present within my negatives. I am not a fan of blocked shadow details, and I cringe when I see large blocked shadows present in an image, and although their effect can be effectively reduced with the careful use of a rubber stamp tool method, as stated earlier by Ken Lee in a separate post, the effect happens to be only as good as the author's skill sets.
The reduced TMY-2 development times and the reduced XTOL solution strength opened several doors for me, and allowed me to explore and, or extend several darkroom techniques within Photoshop, where it seems that the Epson 700 series scanners enjoy the thinner negatives, and it seems that the Epson software does not become super saturated with a large dynamic range, which leads me to believe that the scanner's software is partially responsible for the annoying blocked shadow details, and the annoying artefacts within the highlights. I would liken the saturation level to a buffer overload, and the lack of warnings to that effect. I could be terribly wrong with my statement, but there was a significant reduction in blocked shadow details and highlighted artefacts going forward, while scanning the thinner negatives.
I should qualify that statement, because I also believe you are at the mercy of each scanner's inherent characteristics, and although they are different, you must adjust my earlier stated development TMY-2 and XTOL development times to accommodate your own equipment's natural characteristics.
There are a few excellent scanning techniques available on the net, and after scanning techniques that produce a grey scale image, but I decided to develop my own after scanning approach to mimic my learned darkroom techniques as taught by other master printers, while using the negative's captured information. I don't think my scanning approach is better, but the after scanning process that I use surely gets me to where I want to be with immediate effect, compared to not. The clouds that you speak to are handled effectively with proper masking and detailed isolated gamma control, where my digital approach to voluminous dramatic cloud cover is not different from my darkroom approach. The effect you see within the clouds happens to be what I would do in the darkroom, using various developer strength techniques, multiple developers, bleaching techniques, and good old fashioned dodging and burning, but I now apply various tools and procedures to mimic those darkroom techniques within Photoshop to achieve the same result, while using several controlled masking layers. I do not dodge and burn in Photoshop, and my files are always north of 10GB with the masking layers, and I save the files as Large Format Documents.
I hope this long winded comment helps...
jim k
Just blowing the dust off some negatives from the archives - this is from the Japanese northern alps;
Toyo 4x5, Fujinon 90mm, Ilford Delta 100 / PMK Pyro
In the same location, I'm not sure if I would take the same picture today - part of me thinks I might, another part thinks not.
Spring Evening, Garden of the Gods
Fuji 125-NW, Fuji Pro160C, f32, 1/8, 3 stop hard GND
Dear mandoman,
Thank you for your comments...
My negatives are not truly calibrated to the 750, since they are black and white negatives, other than what I achieved while recalibrating my TMY-2 dilutions with XTOL to produce lower densities that allowed me to reduce the inherent artefacts in the denser highlights, and where the thinner negatives allowed me to obviously extend the lower density capture.
I found that the Epson 750 and the 700 are surprisingly good digital devices with large format negatives, especially 8X10 negatives, but they still fail miserably with tricky delicate important shadow details, whether the negative is 8X10 or not. I have yet to see a well crafted drum scan fail with any shadow detail that may be present within my negatives. I am not a fan of blocked shadow details, and I cringe when I see large blocked shadows present in an image, and although their effect can be effectively reduced with the careful use of a rubber stamp tool method, as stated earlier by Ken Lee in a separate post, the effect happens to be only as good as the author's skill sets.
The reduced TMY-2 development times and the reduced XTOL solution strength opened several doors for me, and allowed me to explore and, or extend several darkroom techniques within Photoshop, where it seems that the Epson 700 series scanners enjoy the thinner negatives, and it seems that the Epson software does not become super saturated with a large dynamic range, which leads me to believe that the scanner's software is partially responsible for the annoying blocked shadow details, and the annoying artefacts within the highlights. I would liken the saturation level to a buffer overload, and the lack of warnings to that effect. I could be terribly wrong with my statement, but there was a significant reduction in blocked shadow details and highlighted artefacts going forward, while scanning the thinner negatives.
I should qualify that statement, because I also believe you are at the mercy of each scanner's inherent characteristics, and although they are different, you must adjust my earlier stated development TMY-2 and XTOL development times to accommodate your own equipment's natural characteristics.
There are a few excellent scanning techniques available on the net, and after scanning techniques that produce a grey scale image, but I decided to develop my own after scanning approach to mimic my learned darkroom techniques as taught by other master printers, while using the negative's captured information. I don't think my scanning approach is better, but the after scanning process that I use surely gets me to where I want to be with immediate effect, compared to not. The clouds that you speak to are handled effectively with proper masking and detailed isolated gamma control, where my digital approach to voluminous dramatic cloud cover is not different from my darkroom approach. The effect you see within the clouds happens to be what I would do in the darkroom, using various developer strength techniques, multiple developers, bleaching techniques, and good old fashioned dodging and burning, but I now apply various tools and procedures to mimic those darkroom techniques within Photoshop to achieve the same result, while using several controlled masking layers. I do not dodge and burn in Photoshop, and my files are always north of 10GB with the masking layers, and I save the files as Large Format Documents.
I hope this long winded comment helps...
jim k
Thanks for taking the time to explain your methods, Jim. At the very least, you have offered confirmation that beautiful tonalities don't just happen by accident.
My take from your comments is that the scanner likes thinner negatives that have good shadow detail, and that a fair amount of masking is used in the highlight tones of the clouds, requiring an ability to work with large files (Not to mention a good working familiarity with your film/developer combination).
Its great to have the opportunity to see the work of a real craftsman, and to learn of his techniques like this.
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
Dear John,
I apologize for forgetting your name, and I thank you for your comments, again…
Yes, I do extract information stored in the negative, and I try to transfer this information to a digital file with effect and purpose, but I do not succeed as often and, or as well as I would like, because I am still learning to transfer a few of my previous darkroom skill sets into Photoshop. The negative's information is there to print, and I try to learn through trial and error how best to extract that information effectively, while making the image look as natural as possible. Again, sometimes I am nearly successful, and other times I am busted, and my total restarted images can be as exhaustive as Carter's liver pills.
Dragging information out of a well formed negative happens to be fun...
Making the image look natural happens to be a difficult task, and a task that many user's abandon if it becomes too difficult and, or they abandon the drama because they do not understand a specific darkroom technique, or comparative digital technique to minimize the obvious miscarriage within the image. I am in that group too...
I managed to attend a few workshops through the Owens Valley packages several years ago, and during those workshops I learned how to place important shadow detail information onto the negative, I observed minor "light bulb" details presented by the image makers to use later, and I learned how to selectively extract and apply the negative's information into the final print, while obviously working in the darkroom. Transferring that information into the digital environment was, and still happens to be a very difficult task for me, because I do not always know the digital tool's boundaries, embedded within Photoshop, nor the strength of the digital tool's effect. Acquiring minor, but effective boundary knowledge takes time to accomplish, and although I still learn better procedures, or more effective procedures every other week, I am always amazed at the wonderful detailed macro, or micro control a user has within the lightroom environment, compared to the numerous discarded prints I produced in the darkroom, and the prohibitive associated cost with wasted, or discarded near perfect darkroom prints beside the pile of homemade tools on the darkroom bench. A good digital negative seems as though I saved money.
As a side note, I am asked to review other folks technical work periodically, and although I am not a critic, nor would I ever claim to be one, nor do I like criticizing another artist's interpretation, I can quickly see however, that they do not understand the required darkroom mechanics to produce an effective image, for whatever reason, because they are led to believe that what they captured is what they print, not what they captured, allows them to make a print. I know in a heartbeat what I want the final image to look like, especially when I view a potentially positive scene, or developing scene through a viewing card, so I endeavour to quickly capture the negative's information with purpose, process the negative with purpose, and extract the negative's information with purpose, while using several layered masks that contains the darkroom effect within each mask. I try to carefully place these selective masks, complete with their embedded darkroom effect, into certain areas of the final image to enhance the image's balance or drama, just as if I were toying with the image in a darkroom, where I must admit I believe I am more successful in the lightroom now, compared to my darkroom's past.
That said, everyone can produce an excellent image, knowing that the information happens to be present within the negative and digitally captured with effect, while having the acquired darkroom knowledge, combined with good transferred digital skill sets, and where they should be able to produce that near perfect image, today.
Lastly, I am preparing a series of weekend workshops for next year, where the workshops will be held up against Alberta's southwest foothills and mountains, conveniently located on a working ranch, and a local artist's retreat. The daytime activities and pleasant surroundings might overwhelm a few of the participant's spouses, whether they attend the extracurricular activities or not, so be prepared to spend a few extra days in the local area if they do, and while you have fun too. My presentation should be ready by the end of the summer, but more likely the fall when all the associated costs are tabulated. Be prepared to ride on horseback and camp in the high mountain wilderness.
Again, thank you for your comments...
jim k
Definately count me in for your workshops Jim.
This is just excellent! Wonderful image.
I only wish I was on the right side of the Atlantic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks