Dazzling

[Photo-gear]

Dazzling light on a picture.
It is a very ordinary picture but that doesn't matter regarding the issue.
The dazzling effect gets more important when I push on the whites while processing it thru LR2.
I need your opinion. Personnally, I tend to believe the Fomapan doesn't have the anti-halo protection.

Nikon F80
Fomapan 400
Rodinal 1:50

the flat picture


after a little LR2

 

[AgX]

What is LR2 ?

 

[markbarendt]

What is LR2 ?

I'm guessing "Adobe Light Room 2", which is off topic.

 

[Photo-gear]

I'm guessing "Adobe Light Room 2", which is off topic.

Yes.
But I don't consider this thread as a scanner one.

 

[MattKing]

I don't see halation.

I see over-exposure of the highlights.

Scanning plus digital manipulation makes the over-exposure look a bit like halation.

 

[Photo-gear]

IMHO, even the picture #1 seems to show some dazzling light (especially the shoulders of the little kid). I have never had such effect on my shots before this serie.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes.
But I don't consider this thread as a scanner one.

Good thought, but all digital manipulation is off topic here at APUG.

BTW, the halo you are seeing may actually be lens flare or Light Room guessing and have nothing to do with the film characteristics.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't see halation.

I see over-exposure of the highlights.

Scanning plus digital manipulation makes the over-exposure look a bit like halation.

I think that is a darn good guess.

 

[heterolysis]

I'm not entirely convinced either. As Matt said, it's easy enough to manipulate something to the point you're convinced you see something.

To me there almost seems to be a slight bit of "halation" in the original around the boy in the whitest sweater's shoulders, but it's more likely due to overexposure of the whites and scanning than the film base itself. And even if not, I don't see what difference it makes if you have to overexpose and then blow out the whites even further just to see it.

 

[Photo-gear]

Thanks a lot for the replies.

I set my F80 on the D3 matrix meter mode.

I also forgot to mention I used a Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5,6 G to take this shot.

 

[David Goldstein]

Dazzling light on a picture.
It is a very ordinary picture but that doesn't matter regarding the issue.
The dazzling effect gets more important when I push on the whites while processing it thru LR2.
I need your opinion. Personnally, I tend to believe the Fomapan doesn't have the anti-halo protection.

Having scanned a lot of negatives, I am speculating that perhaps you are not compensating correctly in the scan for your highlights. What software are you using?

 

[Photo-gear]

Having scanned a lot of negatives, I am speculating that perhaps you are not compensating correctly in the scan for your highlights. What software are you using?

The first picture, as I previously said, is scanned without any special light adjustment. It is just a regular scan as I do plenty of them. In the second picture, I just pushed the dark tones and did not push any whites.

 

[albada]

I've seen halos like that when the coating on the front element of the lens was damaged. Or maybe the lens needs to be cleaned. A fingerprint perhaps?

Mark Overton

 

[summicron1]

d3 matrix meter mode? wow.

anyway, i got that effect once, or similar, when I was having trouble keeping my temperatures under control and ended up practically boiling a roll of minox film -- interesting effect, actually.

 

[AgX]

The artefact at the boys shoulder could be due to partial body movement.
Halation ot this point of image would be symmetric.

 

[Photo-gear]

To albada,
This problem has also happened while using another lens than the Nikkor mentionned up above...

To summicron,
I always develop at room temperature.
"d3 matrix meter mode" Hummm..., I just copied off the term used by Rockwell that is related to the F80 light measurement modes.

To Agx,
I shot at speed mode with this one.

 

[timagal]

The artefact at the boys shoulder could be due to partial body movement.
Halation ot this point of image would be symmetric.

I'm of the exact same opinion.

 

[kevs]

Photo-gear,

It ain't your lens, it's either over-exposure, overdevelopment or poor scanning technique. Highlight white skin tones should be light grey and there should be detail in the shadows. Even in the 'flat' scan the skin tones here are burnt out and the shadows are blocked up. Maybe the neg is overexposed and/or over developed; if this is not the case you should review your scanning workflow. Discussion of software processing is not allowed in this forum - try DPUG.

Cheers,
kevs

 

[David Goldstein]

The first picture, as I previously said, is scanned without any special light adjustment. It is just a regular scan as I do plenty of them. In the second picture, I just pushed the dark tones and did not push any whites.

Ok. What specific scanning software? I am just curious.

 

[Photo-gear]

I have an Epson V500 and most of the time, the job is fairly well done.

After reading all the comments, I tend now to believe it might be an over-development.

 

[David Goldstein]

I have an Epson V500 and most of the time, the job is fairly well done.

After reading all the comments, I tend now to believe it might be an over-development.

Ok, so scanner defined. What ... software? Its more important than the hardware.

 

[markbarendt]

Ok, so scanner defined. What ... software? Its more important than the hardware.

Discussing scanning here is off topic.

 

[jon koss]

SOS, CQD, CQD...

Moderator, or better yet Terminator, needed immediately for this thread.

J