The Schneider CF I sold you Alan is exactly 1-1/2 stops max density. A 2-stop offset is less common, but necessary for some extreme wides.
The Schneider CF I sold you Alan is exactly 1-1/2 stops max density. A 2-stop offset is less common, but necessary for some extreme wides.
rawitz - Eggleston hardly introduced dye transfer. By the time he finally showed up there were six different corporations making DT supplies. It was a standard commercial process for those who could afford it, and had already been around in one form or another for decades. The big labs could even do mural sized ones. He didn't even do his own color printing. But those lovely little DT prints certainly did more justice to his eye than the recent large inkjet ones. At larger scale, his work is simply a duck out of water anyway - a misfit. I don't know if any new dye editions of his are being made in Germany or not, where the last bastion of that kind of DT service still exists, using its own proprietary materials and techniques.
Corran - it's not that simple at all. Sometimes falloff crossover creates inextricable "mud", especially with color neg film. The only way for the average person to correct that digitally is to essentially erase it and artificially paint back in, or "dither", the desired cleaner hue. I'd rather have the minor inconvenience of attaching a center filter than the arduous torture chamber experience of dithering. You have mentioned your alternate technique of waving a darkslide in front of the lens during long exposures. I only do that when being attacked by gnats; so it must be an acquired skill.
Drew, again, I'm not talking about convenience or not, but whether or not something is possible at all. My response is related to the idea that "digital photo editing software" can not be used to fix a perceived issue. This is patently untrue - the power and ability of digital editing is essentially limitless. Of course it may be smarter to use the prescribed tool if the issue is easily resolved this way instead!
As for waving a darkslide around, that's for "dodging" the sky at the time of exposure, and it works wonderfully as an alternative for a graduated neutral density filter. While I haven't tried it, perhaps a circular piece of mat black paper on a stick could be used like a dodging wand in the darkroom instead of a center filter for part of the exposure time?Tongue in cheek!
And there are some CND filters that are 1/2 & 1 stop. I think even some 2.5.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/center5.htm
Heliopan also offered a 3 stop center filter.
It took me a while, but I finally found one at a decent price.
Yeah, Corran - every time I see an actual print with that kind of problem and they claimed they '"fixed it" in PS, that's exactly what it looks like, just like the stitches attaching Frankenstein's head are obvious. What's hypothetically possible, and what's realistic are not the same thing. I've done all kinds of convoluted fixes, especially in pre-digital restoration work, but was charging for all that time and sheer headache. Hollywood can even go back in and colorize old black and white movies. They look pretty odd; but it's just an example of what can potentially be done. The question is, is it worth it when a simple filter does it far more better in a mere fraction of the time? The average digital printer doesn't even seem to be aware of those kinds of problems, and when they are, usually blame the lens or the film. The really competent digital printers I know have also long recognized why center filters exist; they spend enough time fine-tuning things as it is, without yet another issue.
In other words, we agree on this point. But trying to untangle already mixed crossover "mud" is not something the typical person would even understand. Best not to mix it to begin with if it's going to be a visual problem.
If it looks bad it just means it was badly done. It's not a "digital problem" at this point. That ship has long since sailed. Digital editing is a skill and art, just like darkroom work, and like darkroom work, most people suck at it. That's how every artform is and always has been. Don't blame the medium/tools.
I'm not blaming the darn medium, Michael, just the cavalier mentality itself that comes with the territory these days. Please think about my analogy of mixed concrete. Heck, I've seen harvester ant colonies take apart even high strength concrete grain by grain, and eventually, over many years, find a way in. But how many people have that kind of patience? The whole instant-this, instant-that mentality prevails. But all the really good digital printers I know seem to need more time to perfect their files than the effort needed to achieve excellent results back in their darkroom days. High quality printmaking takes serious commitment either way, but not many like to bother anymore.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks