You could make the software WYSIWYG by tying a scanned negative to sliders... and from the result (after user picks appearance they are going for) feedback new exposure and development times.
You could make the software WYSIWYG by tying a scanned negative to sliders... and from the result (after user picks appearance they are going for) feedback new exposure and development times.
Or go the other way to make it a What-if illustrator... have user slide their exposure and development times, print exposure and grade... and make it an exploratory experience.
This is the way I find easy to implement.Originally Posted by Bill Burk
As we have density of each spot in the negative, by entering a Lux.Second exposure and selecting a paper curve then we have the proofing, so we see what that paper grade/exposure does, we see the image in the monitor, what we also can check what predicted density will have any spot we point with mouse, to overcome a bit the monitor vs print look.
...but as we also have the film calibration the software also allows to place a scim/crm/etc mask or (Alan Ross contrast color mask) in the middle, so it helps to design the mask in a WYSWYG way, just it should allow to invest the effort in the refined adjustements without much waste of materials, replacing the try/error cycle by a digital proofing exploration of the possibilities we have.
As a subproduct it calibrates the BW slides reversal process to nail exposure/contrast, DIY emulsions, carbon and Pt/Pd...
Carbon has an easy solution with a digital negative made with black or white spots, but I like Jim's way, this is formulating the carbon content to adjust contrast as if it was paper grades.
The idea is to help the optical process from digital proofing, rather from digital manipulation. In that way a pure optic process would be competitive in refinement terms compared to an hybrid of digital way.
At least, it would help to refine process. Adjusting for example the own carbon traditional process would take a remarkable effort, because each try is very time consuming, while with an straight calibration/proofing we may speed up a lot our progression.
An line active version would be nice, like DOF Master which I have been using lately a lot.
Tin Can
Randy, I was considering that, I also think it's best way. Problem is my capability as software developer, while I'm a proficient & really fast native code developer for RT and image procesing, I'm not good enough for the other. If this ends in useful tool then it would be possible the reuse most of the code for a PHP web project.
The aspects that amount to essentially an automated comparison densitometer are potentially useful as a means of refining exposure & processing, the rest is more questionable in terms of usefulness of making prints that are actually 'good' as opposed to 'accurate' - and this is my biggest criticism of the BTZS & Plotter/Matcher approach - it tells you a great deal of the 'what' in a scene but it seems to be often mistaken as telling the photographer 'how' in terms of providing a seemingly easy approach to making a print through technological means. In my experience it seems to have resulted in a great many technically perfect and utterly boring images. Understanding how to push around materials to creative ends is not difficult (if you put the hours in) & unless you have a database of analysed examples of where you want to end up, the system you describe is not going to be terribly useful in actually making spectacular prints. Same with generating masks. Making a really good print from LF isn't difficult, despite the excessive complexities & linguistics that some people like to dress it up in.
It seems to me that futzing around writing programs, and using a scanner and computer on your negatives, just takes away time from making images and becoming a better printer through experience, if that is even the goal.
Interneg, I agree with you completely.
But let me reiterate that this tool is not intended to make spectacular prints. This tool is only intended to assist the photographer or the printer in the crafting.
Let me ask you something, have you ever adjusted process for BW reversal ?
Frank, may be you are right. Karsh's printer had no computer, I guess. But they processed 250,000 sheets...
But I've several projects that require calibrations, some related to DIY emulsion for dry plates. Well, the software makes calibrations yet from a bare scan and a click, not that bad !
Last edited by Pere Casals; 20-Jan-2019 at 15:59.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks