brent8927 said:There's no need for critical comparison because no one is going up to photographs with microscopes. I do use a lens hood, but the flare you get from the sun is quite different than the supposed flare you get from the filed negative carrier (as I said before, I get no flare).
I do keep my lenses clean, in fact I'm quite OCD about it it, even though it makes no or incredibly little difference because any dust on the lens is not in the plane of focus. I just like my equipment clean, I trust that's a good enough reason?
I get the feeling you just want to argue. I keep saying that I like to do things the way I do them, because I both enjoy it and prefer the looks of my images that way, so why must you keep arguing with me (and everyone else for that matter)?
Ornello Pederzoli II said:Flare has the opposite effect in enlarging. Flare reduces contrast in the highlight areas. In taking, flare reduces contrast in the shadow areas.
If you're compulsive about keeping your lenses clean because you want to minimize flare, I suggest you be consistent and keep your negative masked right up to the edge. That's really all there is to this.
brent8927 said:I don't keep my lenses clean to prevent flare, I simply like to keep my equipment clean. I'm not going to keep my negative masked right up to the edge because I simply prefer printing the way I do now; I think my prints look much nicer with a border and as I said before, I notice no flare whatsoever.
John McCallum said:Lecturing=Bad
John McCallum said:Me thinks he did not wish to know...
... from you, no?
John McCallum said:Me thinks he did not wish to know...
... from you, no?
Ornello Pederzoli II said:You won't 'notice it' except in a direct comparison. It would be analogous to having a small fingerprint on your camera lens. You may not notice the effect until you compared images taken with a perfectly clean lens. Flare always degrades image contrast. How noticeable the effect is depends on the image propeties and the amount of flare. If you go to the movies, take a look sometime at the projector window, and see how dirty it can sometimes be. How badly is the image affected by dirty windows? Until they clean it, it's hard to tell. You may note that the projected image is masked at the projector (you don't see the sprocket holes, do you?), and that in addition black cloth is usually draped around the screen, to give a sharp edge to the image.
Flare=bad
Masking=good
brent8927 said:I understand what you're saying and I know flare is a bad thing. However, the benefits (for me) far outweigh the consequences (such as possible flare).
However, if you can tell me a way to get that somewhat uneven black border, on the photograph and not from a window matt, using a negative carrier that crops the image closely, then I'll give that method a try, assuming it's cost effective and practical.
John McCallum said:Yes. You see, you may even be correct. But the problem for you is soooo maaaaanyyy people doooooon't waaaaan't to knooooooow (from you).
There seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary.Ornello Pederzoli II said:... What do I care?
John McCallum said:There seems to be plenty of evidence to the contrary.
It's unfortunate you are a poor teacher. I'm sure otherwise you could contribute to the pool.
Just musing .... you know, the very best teachers are continually open to learning. Unfortunately you appear not to believe this to be true. This is a shame.
Ornello Pederzoli II said:On the contrary, I have changed and refined my techniques numerous times over the many years I have been involved with photography. Been there, done that.
Ornello Pederzoli II said:So what? What do I care?
And of course, I am correct.... not so
Ornello Pederzoli II said:Well, I don't know. I have no idea why anyone would want a ragged border anyway, and I have never made prints that way. The camera, you may notice, gives a clean edge to the negative. The interiors of cameras are treated to minimize flare, I need not remind you.
I simply suggest thumbing your nose at fashion and making the best quality prints you can make. I don't care what anyone else does. Why should you?
brent8927 said:Others can do what they want, I was simply defending my preferred method of printing. I never said I thought printing with a filed negative carrier was a superior method than printing with one that crops close to the negative, I simply said I personally preferred that method.
John McCallum said:Brent, may I suggest a good practical soln is in fact using the cutt matt technique. This way you'll get to keep your neg carriers in their orig condition also. Though I must admit mine are also filed out to full frame size. (I also haven't experienced flare that was significant enough to be a problem).
brent8927 said:Thanks for the suggestion. I have used cut window matts but I just don't like them as much. However, people's preferences and styles do change so I'll keep it in mind.
On a side note, does anyone know how to print a 4x5 negative full frame? Does it require the use of a negative holder with glass? (I realize contact printing is an option, but I mean if I want a bigger print, and please don't say "buy an 8x10," my 4x5 is big and heavy enough!)
Ornello Pederzoli II said:I believe you may find some sag in the negative if you try it without glass. That's one of the reasons carriers do have a slightly smaller opening. It helps grasp the negative and hold it flat. In other words, you may have trouble with focus not being even across the entire negative.
brent8927 said:Without the glass wouldn't the negative just fall through, since I'm using sheet film instead of roll film?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?