Well, my technique is better, it wasn't back then. Iwas worried about toasting the sky so much I let the foreground go. Probably could have saved it with n+1 development, but this was literally my first slide ever developed. So live and learn.
Well, my technique is better, it wasn't back then. Iwas worried about toasting the sky so much I let the foreground go. Probably could have saved it with n+1 development, but this was literally my first slide ever developed. So live and learn.
Apologies if I missed it previously, but I didn't realize you were self-developing your slides. This is good - you have control over the process.
I have tweaked my E-6 development for scanning. I pull back on the color developer especially to get less deep blacks, and I have occasionally given 2/3 stop extra exposure with a commensurate reduction in the first developer to reign in highlights.
I noticed only recently that the Arista instructions give the time in the color developer at 4:30, while my old Tetenal instructions said 6 minutes! No wonder I was getting dense shadows. I didn't bother to read the instructions for the Arista, thinking it was basically the same. I had already pulled back my CD to 5 minutes standard. Test!
Also, I'll reiterate my previous mention that a 2-stop GND should be standard on a shot like this.
I agree. I was using the Tetenal. For pushing to get you have to add time to the first developer. I don't see any mention of messing with the color developer. How did you figure out to play with color developer?Originally Posted by Corran
A scene I shot elsewhere on that trip required an 8 stop set up. I think I metered to need at least 5-8 or more, but I used a polarizer not worrying about the foreground as I wanted the sky to no lose the color which can happen when using just a grad nd. The biggest issue though, is not having a center spot for this lens. It sorely needs one and they are all friggin expensive!
This shot was with my 5DMKIII, and like I said, it took8 stops of grad nd. Sun was above and to the right. Same as susnet with slide film. I have some extacolor film I used as well. Scanning that tonight.
[IMG]Old Bridge Palouse, WA by Steven Ruttenberg, on Flickr[/IMG]
I forgot to ask earlier - why do you want to push? You will just blow the highlights out. So the first developer is for the latent "negative" image, and then the color developer fills in the negative space to make a positive, and finally bleach removes the first negative image. Therefore, 1st developer controls contrast just like normal negative film (develop for the highlights). The CD, since it is developing a positive, builds density inversely, so that controls the depth of the shadows. At least, I think that's right, and seems to work from my development.
Best-case scenario is you shouldn't have to muck around too much with that (overall balanced light) hence the use of GND. Mucking around like I mention also messes with color a little sometimes, but since we are scanning and printing digitally only since Ciba is dead, I don't find this to be an issue since it's all edited digitally anyway.
I'm confused with your statements. 8 stops? Do you mean an 8x GND? That is 3 stops. For digital I don't think GND filters are needed at all in many/most situations. The reason is you can selectively bring down the blues in the sky with an HSL layer and also the dynamic range of the image is humongous compared to slides. Finally, a quick composite of two shots, one with a -3 stop exposure compensation, is a much better "virtual" GND that can then be tailored to fit the image (for example, masking it out of the bridge in your photo. I have also composited multiple slide images when I didn't have a GND with me or had a lens it didn't work with, usually on 120 though because banging off two shots on a roll isn't too bad.
Anyway, as an example, here is a shot with a 2-stop hard GND, also with two shots composited to get the most from the lower half of the image (exposed one stop more than what I metered). This is a 58mm XL on 6x12, no center filter so lots of fall-off, but I just let it go in the deepest shadows:
I mean 8 full stops. That would be 2.4 factor. And yes you do need grad nds with digital. In fact the scene I posted was not possible without. The difference between tge shadows and bright clouds was close to 20 or more full stops. No way I could have pulled that off without grad nd. I also do not do HDR. Most of the time it looks like crap!
I treat digital as I do find film, but also acknowledge it is digital so has its own quirks.
As for pushing, it was just a guess at what to do with slides in order to open shadows. But I do not know a out the issues on slide development as I just started.
I like your explanation and would appear based on your experience to work very well. I will try that nxt time around.
Last edited by Steven Ruttenberg; 8-Dec-2018 at 00:15.
It's largely a question of scanner Dmax, colour management using an appropriate colour target & possibly luminosity masking etc to finesse tonalities afterwards. There are limitations inherent to positive origination processes that are quite obvious when compared to neg/pos, but it was easier in the past to hand over a transparency for repro & say 'match it'.
Even in AZ and also FL with full sun I have never seen anything that needed an 8 stop GND filter, even at sunset with extreme backlight. Especially with how malleable digital files are. Usually 3 stop GND starts to look unnatural in most uses. But if you insist, you go right on ahead. This isn't a digital forum though and I have no interest in discussing it anyway. I used to teach digital photography and editing classes and it wasn't much fun.
I have probably $1,000 worth of GND filters and adapters and whatnot and I use it on digital exactly 0% of the time (the rare times I shoot digital anyway - and this includes paid architecture work where the virtual GND method works perfectly and with less hassle, flare or reflection issues, etc.).
Speaking of which. bracketing and compositing as a "virtual GND" however is NOT HDR, whatsoever. Assuming you have a tripod and nothing actively moving in the scene in the area where the overlap happens, you simply shoot two frames, one for the bottom foreground and one for the background that would be in the GND area at a commensurate lower exposure level, and then using a simple gradient mask in PS to simulate either a hard or soft GND, should give exactly the same image as a one-shot image with said GND. HDR is completely different, where tone mapping is used throughout the whole image to lower the DR, creating (when overused especially) a wildly flat but high local contrast image. And yes it looks horrible when done poorly. Simple bracketing and compositing, with appropriate masking, is not only easier but looks more natural.
Your right, not a digital forum, that was just an example. There are many ways to skin a cat and I try anything once, maybe twice. But I did use two grad nds, both from Formatt-Hitech, both glass, IRNDs. 0.9 and 1.5. I manipulated them to get the look I wanted for 1 image. Yes, the clouds too, were moving quite fast.
Anyway,
I typically shoot directly into the sun and that can cause a big problem if not tamed down. Many times, 3 stops were not enough. I try not to go above 5 but there have been occasions where I have. And if done wrong, it looks like crap too. I just prefer to shoot 1 image and not several, less to keep track of. This includes film.
Like I always say, if it works for you, then by all means use it and we can all learn from others. No technique is 100% full proof and will always have a limitation and will require another method or way to obtain the image you want. I try not to be so naive that I will not accept other options or opinions as I can always learn and use and combine what others have told me/taught me. I am by no means perfect or even close to it.
I shoot Velvia 50. When I scan, I don't try to match the colors on the film when I post process them. I adjust until I'm happy with the colors on my calibrated monitor. I probably come close to the film. But I don't really care because no one is comparing the final adjusted digital image to the film. These Velvia's are 120 medium format. Could you tell which match or don't match the Velvia originals?
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_...05&text=velvia
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
What you say is true. I use the slidss as reference, but I also like the way they look and they represent what I saw at that moment. But as long as the scanned images are what I want in the final image I am happy with that, even if they don't match.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks