View Full Version : Trying to get it RIGHT!
Hello Everyone,
I have been posting a few images in Feb Portraits 2013, but i felt that the thread is more for people who have mastered the basics of LF, at least. I am a beginner, who is struggling to get it right, basically trying to put in place a process consistent enough to produce good likeable images. Currently, I am not liking my own images :)
Here is a picture I took yesterday, the background wall is off-white, my wife is wearing a beige sweater, so i guess no extreme values...took light reading off her jeans which was dark navy blue, so i adjusted that to zone IV and took the shot...and it came out horrible. I guess, I am learning in a way that my composition has improved, i for once did not cut her arms :) But her eyes are not in focus I am not sure why because the rangefinder showed pretty good focus...the biggest problem there is no detail on the face, sweater or anything. Does the negative look over-exposed?
89152
89153
Cheers
Raffay
amac212
11-Feb-2013, 06:07
But her eyes are not in focus I am not sure why because the rangefinder showed pretty good focus...
Was the film holder already in place while you were focusing? (I ask because sometimes I knock my focus out when sliding it in). Is your rangefinder calibrated for the lens you're using? I'm curious if you would find the same focus result using the ground glass to focus?
I actually don't think it's "horrible". A bit more exposure to get tonal detail in the hair and perhaps moving in a tiny bit would help with focus on the eyes.
Michael W
11-Feb-2013, 06:47
Hi Raffay, I think it's a good idea to start this as a separate thread.
It will probably be really helpful if you give as much detail as possible about how you took each photo, such as
Camera and lens used
Film type and ISO
How you metered - such as what type of light meter. The info about zones and spot metering you are giving is good.
List what shutter speed and aperture setting you used. That can be very useful for people assisting you.
How you processed the film - the developer, dilution, container etc.
The image you've posted here looks like you're on the right track. Focus can be an issue with LF as the depth of field is so small - if she moved a bit she could easily go out of focus. Are you on a tripod?
Tobias Key
11-Feb-2013, 07:46
Portraits can be very frustrating because you have the added variable of a subject that may or may not have moved. Knowing what went wrong under those circumstances is difficult so you have to go back to basics. I was having issues with focussing portraits so the first thing I did was check all my equipment. I got my daughters girls' world doll (A large plastic head for little girls to put make up on) and shot a few tests to be sure my focussing screen was set up right. If you have a rangefinder it would be a simple thing to set up something similar and check your rangefinder calibration against the ground glass with out shooting any film. If that goes well at least you know your equipment is OK. From then on you can refine your technique to address any other issues.
Jac@stafford.net
11-Feb-2013, 09:23
Her eyes may appear out of focus because she blinked. What shutter speed are you using?
For lighting it is often good to begin with a 3:1 highlight to shadow ratio. Once you have placement for those lights you can experiment further.
Her eyes may appear out of focus because she blinked. What shutter speed are you using?
For lighting it is often good to begin with a 3:1 highlight to shadow ratio. Once you have placement for those lights you can experiment further.
Can you please explain the ratio bit, I am afraid I don't understand what you mean can you elaborate with example settings please.
thomasfallon
11-Feb-2013, 09:55
As far as focus, is anything in the image critically sharp? If so, you just missed the focus. If not, probably the camera or the subject moved during a slow shutter speed. I'd solve the sharpness issue first and then move in to portrait lighting and posing. As far as the lighting, you are asking us for a portrait lighting seminar in a thread. In short, your light is coming mostly from the front. It should be more to the side. That would give more detail in the face and clothing and flatter the subject more. Google "loop light, modified butterfly light, short lighting, portrait lighting."
Here is a link:
http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/chapter-01.html
It's old school, but classic.
As far as focus, is anything in the image critically sharp? If so, you just missed the focus. If not, probably the camera or the subject moved during a slow shutter speed. I'd solve the sharpness issue first and then move in to portrait lighting and posing. As far as the lighting, you are asking us for a portrait lighting seminar in a thread. In short, your light is coming mostly from the front. It should be more to the side. That would give more detail in the face and clothing and flatter the subject more. Google "loop light, modified butterfly light, short lighting, portrait lighting."
Here is a link:
http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/chapter-01.html
It's old school, but classic.
Thank you for your feedback. Your comments are perfect, you have provided input, which is very important to get moving in the right direction, and links/ keywords to understand the basics I guess that's how it works. I totally agree with you I cannot expect a seminar, and I am not expecting one thank you.
Hi Raffay, I think it's a good idea to start this as a separate thread.
It will probably be really helpful if you give as much detail as possible about how you took each photo, such as
Camera and lens used
Film type and ISO
How you metered - such as what type of light meter. The info about zones and spot metering you are giving is good.
List what shutter speed and aperture setting you used. That can be very useful for people assisting you.
How you processed the film - the developer, dilution, container etc.
The image you've posted here looks like you're on the right track. Focus can be an issue with LF as the depth of field is so small - if she moved a bit she could easily go out of focus. Are you on a tripod?
Hello Michael
Great points, I will include details you mentioned in my posts now. Here is what I remember of this picture:
1. Polaroid converted to 4x5
2. Lens Rodenstock 127mm
3. Kodak TMax 400
4. UNITTIC light meter
5. F16 1/2 sec (I think)
6. D23 no dilution 23 degrees Celsius developed for 7 mins
7. FR tank which I find difficult to agitate, any pointers on proper agitation with this tank would help
8. Monfroto tripod
89210
Will attach more pics of my setup next time
Cheers
Raffay
My tank
892278922889229
Finding it very difficult to agitate, any ideas?
Camera and tripod
892328923389234
89235
How do you read this meter, I took a reading with the latch closed so I aligned the blue arrow to the light reading of 2.8. This gave me different options of f number and shutter speed, but as you can see if I choose f11 I am not sure what the speed is because it is not marked it is between 500 and 250.
8923689237
Now this is the reading I used in the picture of my wife, I took the reading off her navy blue jeans and the meter showed 1. I choose f16 that's aligned between 1/2 and 1, so that will turn it into middle grey so if I want to retain some detail in the jeans or make it the right tone then I assume I will have to make it zone IV, so I have to decrease the exposure by one stop right? Now the question is what is one stop on this meter I guess if i move one stop it lands in middle of 4 and 1/2, right? What is that value i am not sure and i cannot find that on my lens as well. My lens has B 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 125 300 so how can I go below 1, Really confused.
Portraits can be very frustrating because you have the added variable of a subject that may or may not have moved. Knowing what went wrong under those circumstances is difficult so you have to go back to basics. I was having issues with focussing portraits so the first thing I did was check all my equipment. I got my daughters girls' world doll (A large plastic head for little girls to put make up on) and shot a few tests to be sure my focussing screen was set up right. If you have a rangefinder it would be a simple thing to set up something similar and check your rangefinder calibration against the ground glass with out shooting any film. If that goes well at least you know your equipment is OK. From then on you can refine your technique to address any other issues.
Hi, I checked my focus from the range finder and the ground glass as suggested, and you are right what seems to be in focus on RF is way out of focus on the GG. Also there is another issue in my rangefinder now, it is aligning the image vertically but not horizontally. Horizontally the image is a little right and does not sit one the image perfectly but if I focus on the ground glass then it seems tack sharp. Does that mean if I focus using the ground glass only my images will come out properly focused? If yes then now I can only use the ground glass.
Michael W
12-Feb-2013, 04:13
I would trust the ground glass over the rangefinder. The plane of the ground glass is where the film will sit.
Tobias Key
12-Feb-2013, 04:31
Hi, I checked my focus from the range finder and the ground glass as suggested, and you are right what seems to be in focus on RF is way out of focus on the GG. Also there is another issue in my rangefinder now, it is aligning the image vertically but not horizontally. Horizontally the image is a little right and does not sit one the image perfectly but if I focus on the ground glass then it seems tack sharp. Does that mean if I focus using the ground glass only my images will come out properly focused? If yes then now I can only use the ground glass.
Yes I would focus with the ground glass only for now. Rangefinders have a habit of coming out of alignment over time, the ground glass is much more likely to be accurate.
Bill Poole
12-Feb-2013, 17:43
8923689237
Now this is the reading I used in the picture of my wife, I took the reading off her navy blue jeans and the meter showed 1. I choose f16 that's aligned between 1/2 and 1, so that will turn it into middle grey so if I want to retain some detail in the jeans or make it the right tone then I assume I will have to make it zone IV, so I have to decrease the exposure by one stop right? Now the question is what is one stop on this meter I guess if i move one stop it lands in middle of 4 and 1/2, right? What is that value i am not sure and i cannot find that on my lens as well. My lens has B 1 2 4 8 15 30 60 125 300 so how can I go below 1, Really confused.
+ It sounds to me as thought you are using the meter correctly. But with the cover closed and the meter reading down around 1, I might open the door and use the high range scale for a little more accuracy.
+The meter is not marking all the fractions. 4 is 1/4 second, 8 is 1/8th of a second -- confusing, but that seems to be the case.
+ When the reading falls between two shutter speeds, I would go with the slower ones -- a little more exposure is probably better for B&W.
+ On speeds slower than 1 second, you have to use the B or T setting and count or estimate the exposure. (Try B and T and see how they work. You'll get the idea.)
Hope this helps.
Bill
polyglot
14-Feb-2013, 05:02
Some things to ponder:
- exposure looks OK to me - some more would help with the hair but the skin is fine.
- 1/2 second is a really long exposure for a portrait. You want to be doing 1/60 at the slowest or you risk subject motion. TMY2 is an excellent film and it can be shot easily at EI800 with a bit of extra development, especially if you use a speed-increasing developer like Xtol.
- as mentioned above, you need to think much more about lighting. I will suggest Strobist Lighting 101 (http://strobist.blogspot.com.au/2006/03/lighting-101.html). It's aimed at people using small portable strobes with digital cameras but what matters is what it will teach you about how light works and how to manipulate it for a pleasing result. Photography is all about the light.
- if you use a strobe, even a small cheap one, that may dramatically help your shutter speed
- a longer lens is probably a good idea unless you want to shoot full-length portraits. You could move closer but the perspective will become very intimate (could be good or bad depending on your goals) and you risk some distortion.
LF needs lots and lots of light, portraits especially because of the need for short shutter speeds. So my concrete suggestions for a first decent go are this:
- get outside into open shade on a bright sunny day; the light should incident-meter at about f/5.6 (i.e. f/5.6 with time = 1/ISO, e.g. 1/400 for ISO400)
- if you only have a spot-meter (reflective), your wife's skin should be one-stop more-exposed than the meter reading, i.e. it will read f/8 in f/5.6 lighting because most people's skin is about 1 stop lighter than medium grey
- use a longer (e.g. 180mm to 240mm) lens if you have access to one
- sit your subject down with the light coming mostly from one side
- give your subject's head something to rest/lean on, this should prevent it moving between you focusing and inserting the film holder
- assuming you have f/5.6-light at your subject's face and about 1/2 stop of bellows factor set your shutter/lens to about 1/125 f/11
- use a tripod and focus on the ground glass with a loupe (which can be an old $10 50mm lens from a 35mm camera or enlarger); if your camera back is undamaged and your subject doesn't move (very difficult!) then you should get perfect focus.
- shoot a few shots, develop them for EI800 (TMY2 in Xtol 1+1 rotary for 11:00 at 20C)
Longer development for EI800 will give you a more-contrasty negative, which will make up for the slightly flat light found under shade. If you don't have enough light, consider hanging a white sheet or something in full sun near your subject to direct light onto your subject. That should also help with the directionality of the light. Here is an example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24125157@N00/8353743288/in/set-72157632452346208/) shot in that way, though it's medium not large format. There was a large white tent about 3m in front of the people and directly behind me, which was helping with the light.
And definitely have a read through the strobist link. It's probably the most important thing in this post, even though it'll take months to soak up all the information there.
Brian Ellis
14-Feb-2013, 09:08
Many good points have already been made, especially a 1/2 second being a long time for a portrait of an amateur model standing upright. But one thing I don't get about your initial question is your statement that there's no detail in her sweater, face, or anything. On my monitor I see plenty of detail (not necessarily in focus but the detail is there) everywhere except parts of her hair (recognizing that what I see on a monitor and what the print looks like may be two different things).
Also, you mention metering for the darkest important shadow area (her jeans), placing it on Zone IV, and making the exposure. That's fine but it's only half of the zone system. You don't mention metering the brightest important highlight (presumably some part of her face), taking the reading to determining on what zone it falls with an exposure based on Zone IV for the jeans, and then determining an appropriate development time (e.g. normal if the brightest important highlight falls on Zone VII or VIII and you want a lot of contrast, normal plus one or two if the spread is too small (e.g. IV for her jeans and V for her face which will lead to a negative with less contrast than you perhaps want, etc.). I normally wouldn't go into all this since many people don't use or care about the zone system but you appear to be using at least part of it so hopefully this will be clear to you.
Many good points have already been made, especially a 1/2 second being a long time for a portrait of an amateur model standing upright. But one thing I don't get about your initial question is your statement that there's no detail in her sweater, face, or anything. On my monitor I see plenty of detail (not necessarily in focus but the detail is there) everywhere except parts of her hair (recognizing that what I see on a monitor and what the print looks like may be two different things).
Also, you mention metering for the darkest important shadow area (her jeans), placing it on Zone IV, and making the exposure. That's fine but it's only half of the zone system. You don't mention metering the brightest important highlight (presumably some part of her face), taking the reading to determining on what zone it falls with an exposure based on Zone IV for the jeans, and then determining an appropriate development time (e.g. normal if the brightest important highlight falls on Zone VII or VIII and you want a lot of contrast, normal plus one or two if the spread is too small (e.g. IV for her jeans and V for her face which will lead to a negative with less contrast than you perhaps want, etc.). I normally wouldn't go into all this since many people don't use or care about the zone system but you appear to be using at least part of it so hopefully this will be clear to you.
Hello Brian,
Thank you for the valuable input, to be honest I did not meter the face this time as I thought it would fall in place automatically. I am little confused with using the zone system, just to experiment with the settings I just metered on her jeans again the meter showed the value of 1.4 and when I aligned the dial the reading say at f5.6 was 1/25 sec so that's V and in order to make it zone IV I increase the time by one stop say 1/50 sec, right? But then I metered her face the meter showed 2 that at f5.6 was 1/50 the same which turned the jeans into zone four to make it the right tone. But if I take a picture on this settings then her face will be zone V and not zone VII which I believe would be right. To get the face right I will have to increase the time by two stops say 1/10 but that will make the jeans go to zone VI way lighter then I would want and is. Is this when you use plus one or two (and when you say plus one or two you mean plus one or two more minutes?).
Sorry for my lack of knowledge.
Cheers
Raffay
Brian Ellis
14-Feb-2013, 12:15
Hello Brian,
Thank you for the valuable input, to be honest I did not meter the face this time as I thought it would fall in place automatically. I am little confused with using the zone system, just to experiment with the settings I just metered on her jeans again the meter showed the value of 1.4 and when I aligned the dial the reading say at f5.6 was 1/25 sec so that's V and in order to make it zone IV I increase the time by one stop say 1/50 sec, right? But then I metered her face the meter showed 2 that at f5.6 was 1/50 the same which turned the jeans into zone four to make it the right tone. But if I take a picture on this settings then her face will be zone V and not zone VII which I believe would be right. To get the face right I will have to increase the time by two stops say 1/10 but that will make the jeans go to zone VI way lighter then I would want and is. Is this when you use plus one or two (and when you say plus one or two you mean plus one or two more minutes?).
Sorry for my lack of knowledge.
Cheers
Raffay
I'm not familiar with your meter so parts of this thread are confusing to me. But FWIW, when I said plus one or plus two I didn't mean one or two minutes. I was referring to an increase in your normal development time such that the highlight density would be increased by one or two stops. These times (normal - usually abbreviated as "N" - plus one - "N+1" or two - "N+2"stops) are usually determined by development time testing (a subject way beyond this thread but discussed in many books on the zone system such as Ansel Adams' book "The Negative"). But you could get a "seat of the pants" idea by first starting with your normal time - say 7 minutes just to pick a number - and increasing that by an additional roughly 15% for plus one and another roughly 20% (i.e. 35% total increase) for plus two (someone please correct me if these guesstimates are off, it's been a while since I've used b&w film and when I did I tested to determine my times).
So in the situation you describe, when the jeans were placed on Zone IV and that gave you a Zone V reading for the face you'd know you'll have little contrast (one stop) between the jeans and the face. That in turn would tell you that if you want the face on Zone VII you'll need to use N+2 as your development time to bring the face from Zone V to Zone VII.
The fundamental principle behind all of this is that you base the exposure on the darkest important shadow (the jeans on Zone IV in your case) and you affect the brightest important highlight not by changing the exposure time (i.e. not by increasing the exposure time to 1/10 as you mention because, as you note, that would increase the brightness of the jeans which you don't want to do) but by increasing the development time to N+2 (i.e. you move the Zone V face to Zone VII with relative little or no effect on the jeans because development time increases primarily affect the highlights relative to mid-tones and dark tones).
I hope this is reasonably clear, it's not necessarily the easiest thing to grasp at first but once you do it's all very simple especially after you've done the proper testing to determine normal, plus, and minus development times with your film, your developer, and your development technique. I should also mention that you don't necessarily have to use the zone system. Many photographers make perfectly fine negatives without using it and in some cases without even using a meter. I happen to prefer the zone system as the best method I've found to achieve consistently predictable results and you seemed to already be using at least part of it. Hence all of this.
Michael W
14-Feb-2013, 18:25
Raffay, the zone system can be very confusing at first so it's probably best to keep things simple for now. Particularly because part of the zone system is about metering but the rest is about developing, which means you need to have a lot of control there, however it seems that at the moment you have some doubts about your processing tank. You can make perfectly good large format portraits without knowing anything about ZS. My advice would be to meter the face and relate that to a mid tone. For light skin I think one stop over the meter is OK. If the light is not too contrasty then normal development should deliver you good results.
Is your meter doing incident or reflected readings?
I'm not familiar with your meter so parts of this thread are confusing to me.
Brian, pictures of my meter are in the thread above. I guess I need to learn the N+1 etc development technique, can you recommend a good source on the internet, as for books, I have checked none are available here. I am determined to learn the Zone system and appreciate all the help you are providing.
Cheers
Raffay
Is your meter doing incident or reflected readings?
Reflected.
My advice would be to meter the face and relate that to a mid tone. For light skin I think one stop over the meter is OK. If the light is not too contrasty then normal development should deliver you good results.
Michael, I will try this as well in even lighting, since it might not make sense to use the ZS all the time, especially when the a picture can be taken with a single reading then I guess it would not be right to make it complicated - correct me if I am wrong.
Cheers
Raffay
C. D. Keth
14-Feb-2013, 23:09
Michael, I will try this as well in even lighting, since it might not make sense to use the ZS all the time, especially when the a picture can be taken with a single reading then I guess it would not be right to make it complicated - correct me if I am wrong.
Cheers
Raffay
When you are lighting a subject, you have control over subject brightness range. You can choose how dark to let your shadows go and how bright to bring up your highlights and you can taylor that to your film. That is what the zone system is designed to do, except in situations where you do not have control over the lighting. Rather than adjust lights, you adjust development according to specifications you have discovered through trial and error or a systematic testing procedure. If you want to learn the zone system, I would find a copy of Minor White's "Zone System Manual" or Ansel Adams' "The Negative."
When you are lighting a subject, you have control over subject brightness range. You can choose how dark to let your shadows go and how bright to bring up your highlights and you can taylor that to your film. That is what the zone system is designed to do, except in situations where you do not have control over the lighting. Rather than adjust lights, you adjust development according to specifications you have discovered through trial and error or a systematic testing procedure. If you want to learn the zone system, I would find a copy of Minor White's "Zone System Manual" or Ansel Adams' "The Negative."
Since, I don't own a lighting setup and try and use natural light it would be handy to learn the ZS in detail. I would love to get a hand on Minor White's Manual as all this cannot be covered in a thread, and once I have more knowledge then threads can be really helpful to clarify things by posting pictures. The only issue with most book companies is that they don't ship to Pakistan and also they don't except visa cards originating from Pakistan, although other shopping sites do, so I am not sure how your finding a copy would help. Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Raffay
C. D. Keth
15-Feb-2013, 00:19
Perhaps place a want to buy ad in the classifieds here. Those are both very common books that many members probably own. Somebody might be able to part with their copy.
Miguel Coquis
15-Feb-2013, 06:38
Raffay,
check,
http://www.amazon.fr/gp/offer-listing/0871001004/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all
MAC
Raffay,
check,
http://www.amazon.fr/gp/offer-listing/0871001004/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all
MAC
The only problem is that Amazon does not deliver to Pakistan :(
Skip the zone system stuff for now. Use the light meter as an incident meter (to measure the light falling on it in a slightly shadowed area). tmy2 film can handle such a long range of brightness, that as long as it's well enough exposed in the shadows, you will be fine.
Peter Mounier
15-Feb-2013, 15:49
Not to contradict jp498, but since you said you're determined to learn the ZS here's the general idea behind it ...
When you see the n+1 or n+ whatever, people who know the Zone System are referring to development times, rather than exposure settings. N+1 are instructions to develop the film so that a zone 5 becomes a zone 6 with extra development time, thus the "+1". If you take a picture of something with only two tones, black and white, and develop that film for 10 minutes (or long enough to be fully developed), the black part of the picture will be clear on the negative and the white part of the picture will be very dense with exposed and developed silver. If you cut the development time in half, the clear area of the film that represents the black will still be clear and still print as black. That's because none, or very little of the silver in the negative got any exposure and is unaffected by the developer since the developer only reacts with exposed silver. On the other hand, the silver in the negative that will represent the white part of the picture got a lot of exposure and has potential to turn into white on the print if given enough time in the film developer to fully develop. But by cutting the development time in half, only some of the exposed silver gets developed, and in fact, not enough to fully block the enlarger's light, so the result is a gray tone in the print. So what it all comes down to is the shadow areas in a neg have relatively little exposed silver, and those grains of silver are fully developed in the first few minutes of development time while the more exposed areas (highlights) continue to build up density as the film continues to develop. So you can control the contrast by controlling the amount of time the film is in the developer.
That's why Zone System practitioners expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.
So to take your example of your wife's navy blue pants and her skin tone, the pants will stop developing before her skin tone stops developing because there is less exposed silver in her pants and more exposed silver in the part of the negative that is her skin tone. If you shorten the time that the film is in the developer you can theoretically flatten the contrast enough to match the tone of her pants with that of her skin. Or you can expand the contrast in the negative by giving it more time developing because the skin tones will continue to build up density after the pants are fully developed. Testing different development times will tell you how much development is needed for the contrast range you desire for any given scene. If you want to give your neg a n+1 treatment, you might try developing the neg for 30% more time. Of course there are nuances to this that you will discover after you've done the testing yourself.
Skip the zone system stuff for now. Use the light meter as an incident meter (to measure the light falling on it in a slightly shadowed area). tmy2 film can handle such a long range of brightness, that as long as it's well enough exposed in the shadows, you will be fine.
Thank you, I will try and expose using your guide.
That's why Zone System practitioners expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.
Thank you for all the great advice and more importantly in an easy to understand manner. when you say expose for the shadows then in a portrait most often the shadows will be the hair (if nothing else in the frame). Suppose most asians have dark brown black hair, then should i place the hair in Z-3...i mean whats the general guideline behind exposing for the shadows. I understand it has a lot to do with recognising where everything is falling Z wise but that is difficult to do without a filter (the one that turns everything to BW).
I need to learn a few basics as well, here are a few:
1. Need to thoroughly learn how to read a negative (any help would be appreciated, link to a good resource etc.)
2. Also can you recommend a test environment and routine for N N+1 etc dev, so that I can understand and practice and not ruin family pics in future
Cheers
Raffay
Here are images from my latest picture:
1. f4.5, 1/2 sec
2. Ilford fp4 125
3. ASA set to 100 as there was either 100 or 150 so i chose the lesser one
4. 1/2 for bellows
5. Developed in D-23 for 8 mins @ 22 degrees C
6. Scanner settings are in the pictures below
Here are the pictures:
from left to right:
Negative, scanned from phone:
8950989510
Scanner settings:
8951189512
Can't attach more pictures so the rest in the next post.
Cheers
Raffay
8951389514
Final from scanner:
89515
Cheers
Raffay
Miguel Coquis
16-Feb-2013, 02:37
Final from scanner:
89515
Cheers
Raffay[/QUOTE]
Very nice !
Great composition !
Good mood !!!
A few more and you could start helping others to start !!!
C. D. Keth
16-Feb-2013, 09:27
I think your negative looks nice. You need to, in vuescan, increase the brightness control though. That will pull the detail out of the negative in the hair. I can see it on the negative but not in the final image from the scanner.
Took it this evening, I am a little happy with this one. Let me know what you people think, and please criticise whatever you don't like and any improvements in anything, I would be very very happy, as the idea is to learn.
89528
It is late in the night, will post the details of the pic tomorrow morning.
Cheers
Raffay
Please check the cropped image as the first image i attached was a screen shot from desktop background and is not very clear. btw how exactly do you attach picture here, so that others can see them in good quality.
That final one is the best looking scan; plenty of hair detail. Looks like either a little motion blur or she moved forward out of the focus zone.
Michael W
16-Feb-2013, 15:16
This recent one looks very good, both technically and with regards to content (pose, composition, lighting.)
To insert a bigger image directly into the post you need to upload that image first to some hosting site such as flickr, your blog, website etc. Then link it to the post with html.
I think your negative looks nice. You need to, in vuescan, increase the brightness control though. That will pull the detail out of the negative in the hair. I can see it on the negative but not in the final image from the scanner.
How about this one, I placed the negative on the scanner without the holder so that the clear edges of the negative could come in the scan as well to set as black points and here are the results, i did increase the brightness a little but not as much as I had to do previously and the results would go all powdery as well. I am not sure if this affects the focus or not.
89566
That final one is the best looking scan; plenty of hair detail. Looks like either a little motion blur or she moved forward out of the focus zone.
Do you see the blur in this one as well? The previous one I had placed the pic on the scanner without the holder, I am getting better scans that way in terms of exposure, as i am getting the clear edges as black points. This one was placed in the holder, so just wanted to check with you if this resolves the blur issue.
89567
Cheers
Raffay
I think you're getting it.
Jan Pedersen
16-Feb-2013, 20:36
I think you are learning very fast! The portrait of your two children is really nice. Wonderful tone and you got the focus just perfect.
Went out this morning, my first picture outside. Have been watching these trees for quite sometime and today finally gathered the courage to go out and use this camera, with people coming and asking what on earth I am doing, but in the end it was fun and not embarrassing. These pictures are from my phone just wanted to share what I shot will develop tonite and post. Took the reading from that tree trunk it was 5.6, I increased the exposure by one stop to place it in zone VI, lets see how it turned out. Later I was thinking I should have metered the sky and the ground and should have seen where everything else would have fallen. I would appreciate if anyone one could tell me how they have metered this using ZS.
89582
Cheers
Raffay
89583
Setup, nothing fancy just basic.
polyglot
17-Feb-2013, 03:41
The pic of your kids is great.
You don't need the film edge to set the black-point, you can set the black-point in scanning to be wherever you want it to be; often that will be higher than the film-base, i.e. you will discard shadow details that were recorded on the film. This is to be expected because the film records far more dynamic range than you can fit in a print or jpeg, so some of the dynamic range must be discarded in order to maintain proper contrast.
Final image:
89642
Input please...
To insert a bigger image directly into the post you need to upload that image first to some hosting site such as flickr, your blog, website etc. Then link it to the post with html.
Michael, I tried flickr but the size limit is 30MB and my tiff was 200+ and the jpeg is also coming to 54MB, which is beyond the pro limit if 50. Any ideas, How does one create a blog?? I suppose a blog would be nice as I could possibly document my learning along with pictures, websites I guess would be good once I become a pro :)
Cheers
Raffay
Here is a link to my trees picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/february71/8484053047/in/photostream
Raffay
Looks good to me. Reward for persistence. Hope you will post lots of photographs.
Looks good to me. Reward for persistence. Hope you will post lots of photographs.
All thanks to you, without the film this was not possible :)
Many thanks to you.
Cheers
Raffay
Michael W
18-Feb-2013, 05:33
Michael, I tried flickr but the size limit is 30MB and my tiff was 200+ and the jpeg is also coming to 54MB, which is beyond the pro limit if 50. Any ideas, How does one create a blog?? I suppose a blog would be nice as I could possibly document my learning along with pictures, websites I guess would be good once I become a pro :)
Cheers
Raffay
54mb jpeg is way bigger than necessary. You should be able to get a file smaller than 500kb that will display well full size on a screen. I would make it 72ppi, 30cm high and save as a level 10 jpeg.
You should be able to set up a free blog with wordpress, blogger, typepad, probably some others. I've been using Wordpress for years with no problems.
Bill Poole
18-Feb-2013, 18:23
Here is a link to my trees picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/february71/8484053047/in/photostream
Raffay
Good looking photo with lovely tones.
Good looking photo with lovely tones.
Thank you Bill.
Any more input on the pictures, anyone?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/february71/8503294077/in/photostream/
Took this today, took a reading from both sides of the face of my nephew (the on the left in the picture) then exposed for the shadow of the face and then developed for extra three minutes. Have no idea of N+2 whatever development but just gave it a shot :) please comment.
Cheers
Raffay
My first studio shot, please comment:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/february71/8503089956/in/photostream/
Raffay
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.