Need Opinion on this Photo

RattyMouse said:

This doesn't look right to me, yet I'm not exactly sure why. The images almost all appear to have some blue in them. As a result, they have a very unnatural feel to them.

Click to expand...

Images look absolutely right to me. As others have said, it is high key. Excellent job exposing for the open shadows and getting that full sun midday (blue) look.

Not what you were looking for? You could have slapped some yellow filtration on the lens, reducing the "blue", which may have gotten you a bit closer to your visualization. Better yet, expose under different lighting conditions, when contrast and warmer light is actually present in the scene. Good light makes good pictures. It is beyond me to understand why petulant types on this forum keep expecting to make silk purses out of sows' ears. Good photographers understand and appreciate light as read by film, apply technique and their own visualization to each situation*, and interpret the final print as necessary under the enlarger.

The other part of the puzzle is composition. What are you trying to say with your pictures? Very often, communicating that will help immensely with your choice of light.




* not even gonna mention the verboten exposure techniques that might help you. Just so not worth it anymore. Go ahead inmates, run the asylum.

Kirks518 said:

I'm just wondering if the 'blue' you're seeing could be your monitor? Have is been calibrated? Not sure if that would be the problem, especially since you say other scans are fine, but it's just a thought. Maybe a combination of a cool monitor and this particular set?

Click to expand...

BINGO!! Problem SOLVED!! I calibrated my screen and now the images look exactly as I'd expect. I had no idea calibration made that much difference with monochrome images.

I just recently upgraded my Mac to 10.9.4 and that muffed up my calibration some how. I never had that happen with an OS upgrade before. Strange but color images did not look bad at all to my eyes.

I am so happy! These images mean a lot to me (not the example photos) so to be so disappointed in them was hard to take.

No wonder everyone thought I was a bit nuts.

Thanks for all the feedback! I have never scanned before and do not even know anything about it. So that element of image display is a whole mystery to me.

Awesome! It is amazing how much difference a properly calibrated monitor can make.

No applause, just throw money (or Leicas, I'll catch them).

I have no knowledge of scanning so this may be a naive question but how is it possible for Rattymouse's scan to appear OK for us viewers of it but for it to be OK for him he has to re-calibrate the scanner. In other words it appears that we can see what he has scanned for us and it's OK but the same scan is not OK for him until he changes things?

Now he has changed his calibration and if he were to scan what he sees as now OK for him, would we see a different version from what we have been shown previously?

I am truly puzzled and not seeking to start an argument

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I have no knowledge of scanning so this may be a naive question but how is it possible for Rattymouse's scan to appear OK for us viewers of it but for it to be OK for him he has to re-calibrate the scanner. In other words it appears that we can see what he has scanned for us and it's OK but the same scan is not OK for him until he changes things?

Now he has changed his calibration and if he were to scan what he sees as now OK for him, would we see a different version from what we have been shown previously?

I am truly puzzled and not seeking to start an argument

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Quick clarification - it was his monitor that needed calibrating, not his scanner. (That probably takes care of your question, but I already typed out the following).

What he was seeing had a bluish tint to it. The bluish tint wasn't in the actual image/file, it was on his monitor. My monitor, your monitor, and others are each calibrated differently to give the same result (assuming all are calibrated). So all monitors that are similarly calibrated will essentially see the same thing. We didn't see the tint, because our monitors displayed the image differently from his (correctly), so we are either calibrated, or closer to proper calibration then his was.

Now that he has calibrated, if you or I see a blue tint (or other color) on an image that he edits, it would be because our monitors aren't calibrated properly. It becomes our problem, not his. In the case of this image, which is basically an unedited image, we all should see the same thing, assuming we are all calibrated. I didn't see the tint, but he did, because his monitor was out of whack. If he had edited the image to eliminate the blue tint (before calibrating), we probably would have seen a color shift that he wouldn't see.

If a photographer isn't calibrating his monitor regularly, he may be disappointed with prints, and other displays of his images. The most frequent issue is 'my print is too dark', and that's because most monitors have a brightness level that is way too high, but that's how the manufacturers default them - nice and bright screen.

Thanks for that very clear explanation. We see more and more "problems" on APUG that are scanner/monitor related rather than negative and print related. We see a scan of a negative presented as if it were a positive print rather an actual darkroom print as a scan which replicates the actual darkroom print and we descend into a pointless discussion of trying to solve what is at best a hybrid problem as if it were a darkroom problem. This problem presented by RattyMouse clearly had a hybrid solution and in the future I fear that to solve "problems" our first step will be to say:" It is either your scanner or monitor. Eliminate those two problems before we make any suggestions about potential analogue problesm"

In recent months APUGers who are clearly hybrid and either choose to remain that way or haven't got access to darkroom printing present hybrid problems that in fact cannot be answered with analogue solutions although we try to do so, often frustrating the OP or ourselves in the attempt.


I fear the way we are going then what was once a genuine analogue darkroom forum will metamorphose into a hybrid forum.

When we get there and I think it is a "when" and not an "if", I fear that the analogue section of APUG will cease to be able to fulfil its original purpose and we who are solely darkroom workers will then have to either form a minority genuine analogue section within what will be a de facto hybrid section or we accept that the original purpose of APUG has gone forever.


I fear for the arrival of the "new kind of reality"

pentaxuser

Kirk is spot on. The problem was with my monitor, not my scans. Once I had my monitor re-calibrated, the images all fell into place, looking just as I'd expect them to.

pentaxuser said:

This problem presented by RattyMouse clearly had a hybrid solution

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Not to me it didnt. I thought my development/fixing was in error, that is why I came to APUG. Had I know it was a monitor issue, I would have looked elsewhere.

No need to be so melodramatic with your fears.

OK, now I want to see what it looked like to you, lol.

Truzi said:

OK, now I want to see what it looked like to you, lol.

Click to expand...

Add a blueish cast to the image, maybe 5% or so and you'd have a good representation.

Glad to see you got it fixed. In the future, for anyone seeking advice on FILM DEVELOPMENT, it is always best to post the best picture you can get of the negatives on a light table. Scans really don't do anything to diagnose development problems. If you are worried about scanning issues, a picture of the negative on a light table and the scan would be helpful.

If it's any conciliation Pentax. Since I joined this forum as a Digital/hybrid user I've become pretty convinced that to make the best possible photograph I'm going to have to build myself a dark room at some point (ive already sold it to the boss as a walk-in wardrobe)
I don't think you have anything to worry about. Its just the "digital natives" will be coming from the other direction.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Now, its the time to print them. I'm sure they will print with least effort...

This thread reminded me of a problem I had last year on a large control room monitor wall we were building in Scotland.
It is forty 42" industrial LCD monitors arranged in to a single large 8x5 monitor-wall. It stands about 18' high.

All the monitors were band new with sequential serial numbers but when we turned it on and displayed the customers mainly white logo across the whole wall there was a massive difference in the colour balance.
They had various blue or pink cast.
We had to individually calibrate each monitor and it's corresponding video card to the same set of standards to give an even tone across the whole wall.
This is a shot after we had done the bottom two rows.

It was the first time we'd done it on this scale and there was a huge learning cure. It took two days to do the whole wall (It's bigger than it looks in this picture) using an access platform to reach the top three rows and a usb over cat5 system to connect the calibrating tool to the video-card drivers that were on a different floor in the same building.
The ambient light had a huge influence on the calibration too. We worked at night and had to keep all the blinds on the massive glass walls closed and the lighting set to a constant level. all the monitors except the one been calibrated had to be turned off so the light emitted from them didn't effect the calibration tool.
Bit of a nightmare, but It looked really good once it was done though.

In addition to the other things people have said, can I add that a temporary bathroom darkroom (or any other darken-able chamber, even the tents) does not need running water and 10k euros of hardware. Almost everybody used small, simple and cheap equipment in the 'old' days.

The limitations mainly affect the size of print you can make, but 16" / 45cm is very easily achievable. It is far easier than you think to start off printing, especially with the amount of decent secondhand kit available these days.

I kinda agree with pentaxuser in that if a person has not made an analog print, and asking about the negative or print, then it is not a analog problem, at this point.

It may be but until a print becomes the problem, it is a hybrid problem. Since almost everyone is hybrid anyway, in some form, maybe a hybrid thread rather than having to leave the site is more practical. After all, if one is pure analog, then they don't have a computer, right?

Using a computer for internet browsing and work purposes need not affect the analog nature of ones silver-based photography . . .

Yes the point I was trying to make in maybe a laboured fashion is that had there been a print available then chasing the cause would never have arisen as it would have been clear that the negative had to be OK as the print from it was OK.

I don't know what Ilford's position is but I am sure I have read that Adox has said that it is vital to its future that people continue to buy its paper. It is this that makes me worried about the likelihood of analogue companies long term survival based solely on film which is of course what the hybrid route leads to.

My gloom is added to by the fact that even those who have prints made commercially from B&W film often have little choice but to have them done on RA4 paper as that is all most mini-labs uses these days.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Yes the point I was trying to make in maybe a laboured fashion is that had there been a print available then chasing the cause would never have arisen as it would have been clear that the negative had to be OK as the print from it was OK.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

This is very true. the uncalibrated monitor just muddied up some clear waters in this case.

I do have a question though for the analog guys. Doesn't the different papers each produce different results from the same negative? So if I print on Paper Co A's Super-duper paper, it will look differently from Paper Co B's Ultra-wonderful paper, correct? Isn't that really no different from one monitor to the next?

We could get into a lot of blind alleys here but essentially the print from Paper Co A's will be essentially the same as are Paper Co B's with the following proviso:

1. A's VC paper has half a grade more contrast at its nominal grade 2 than B's. If the "correct" grade for the print is based on A then if you use B's you need half a grade more for the same look.

There of course might be inherent differences in "warmth" between two companies' paper and even in surface so A's "Pearl" doesn't look quite the same as B's "Lustre".Both will change the "look" but are intrinsic changes that the printer consciously makes by changing paper.

However these differences aren't in my opinion analogous with two different monitors example you give unless we are saying that no matter what you do company's A monitor will always give an intrinsically different look from company B's monitor to what is anyway a "virtual" print only and even if this is the case it has no relevance to what a finished "hold-in-the-hand" print will be.

On APUG like any other internet forum we are stuck with trying to demonstrate our prints from scans and all we can do is try and replicate the look of what we regard as being the best print we can make

Once you move from scanning a real print to simply scanning a negative as if it were a real print then that may be fine for "Gallery" purposes but it can open a can of worms in terms of solving problems or helping to understand what darkroom printing is all about.

In replying to your question you will see how easy it is to start going down the kind of blind alleys that incorporating hybrid systems and equipment into the comparison will do.

I feel I should stop now as it would be so easy to start a deep philosophical discussion when Rattymouse's thread had nothing to do with such a discussion and I have been guilty of contributing to such a change of course.

pentaxuser

MartinP said:

In addition to the other things people have said, can I add that a temporary bathroom darkroom (or any other darken-able chamber, even the tents) does not need running water and 10k euros of hardware. Almost everybody used small, simple and cheap equipment in the 'old' days.

The limitations mainly affect the size of print you can make, but 16" / 45cm is very easily achievable. It is far easier than you think to start off printing, especially with the amount of decent secondhand kit available these days.

Click to expand...

My bathroom cannot be made dark. I have huge, giant frosted windows in both the wall and door. The ONLY room I can make dark in my house (and not totally dark even at that except at night) is a small closet, large enough for a single person to stand in.

Printing is just not an option for some people sometimes.

pentaxuser said:

Yes the point I was trying to make in maybe a laboured fashion is that had there been a print available then chasing the cause would never have arisen as it would have been clear that the negative had to be OK as the print from it was OK.

I don't know what Ilford's position is but I am sure I have read that Adox has said that it is vital to its future that people continue to buy its paper. It is this that makes me worried about the likelihood of analogue companies long term survival based solely on film which is of course what the hybrid route leads to.

My gloom is added to by the fact that even those who have prints made commercially from B&W film often have little choice but to have them done on RA4 paper as that is all most mini-labs uses these days.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Of course a print would have answered my question. But in Shanghai, finding a place that prints is virtually impossible. I have walked this entire city and never found a single place that does analog printing. Never. Not once. 24 million people here and nothing. The place that develops my C-41 and E-6 does no printing, of ANY kind. They develop, scan, and sell chemicals.

It's a veritable printing wasteland here in Shanghai.

I sympathise. Just as a matter of interest if you find a neg that cries out for a print to be made what do you do? Presumably you are not the only one in Shanghai who uses film so what do the locals who use film do for prints?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I sympathise. Just as a matter of interest if you find a neg that cries out for a print to be made what do you do? Presumably you are not the only one in Shanghai who uses film so what do the locals who use film do for prints?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I have given up looking for prints here. Over 1 year of effort has not yielded any success. I make negatives nearly every week, send them out for scans as an intermediary way to view them, and then file them away. One day in the not too distant future I'll be moving back to the US. There I'll easily have a dark room and then spend years printing off the negatives that I have amassed in my archives.

I have met several local Chinese who shoot film, via flickr, and none of them ever have wet printed their film. They are 100% digital in their output.

RattyMouse said:

I have met several local Chinese who shoot film, via flickr, and none of them ever have wet printed their film. They are 100% digital in their output.

Click to expand...

It is that kind of news I find very worrying for the analogue future. We have a whole class of film users in a highly populated country where there might be a market for analogue who never have considered making any prints. It just isn't the 21st century way, so to speak

The good news might be that film is so good that despite it being easier to go direct to digital they prefer film. The bad news is that printing as we know it has gone off their radar. The potentially disastrous news is that in fact they don't really find film to be that much better, they just enjoy the novelty of it or being able to tell their friends they are different but like any other novelty it will wear off.

pentaxuser