- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,759
- Format
- 8x10 Format
(In the above image, I admit to have been going to far in shifting the lens...)
I'm not sure I like the Filter in the images above. it doesn't respect or correctly represent the shapes and shadows of the structure. The pinkish tint sort of reminds me of and outdated Pepto-Bismol..
Yes, that pinkish tint bothers me to, and I can’t get rid of it, it isn’t there on my calibrated screen but on the net it’s there…
Neither is it on my iPhone.
98% of my B&W work is exposed in the camera without colored filters. I do have some filters, however, for special occasions.
I like it!(In the above image, I admit to have been going to far in shifting the lens...)
Example of a red filter. Don't think it is too over the top. I love filters and think an orange would work on this image as well. Mamiya 7ii, 65mm, Acros 100, Mt Nebo Wilderness near Nephi, Utah along busy I-15View attachment 353691
Foliage and sky is one reason for a K2 filter.
But for sandstone buildings it is interesting too as the yellow filter wil clear up the stones and reveal more details and structure, particularly when these are in the shadow.
And while printing, the building can be 'placed' into a more or less 'normal' density and the rest, mainly the sky but street cobbles too, wil darken.
View attachment 353607
(In the above image, I admit to have been going to far in shifting the lens...)
View attachment 353608
Silvestri SLC 6x9 camera, Super-Angulon 47mm with center filter plus K2 filter on Hp5+, at F22 (as always) and about t1 sec, in XTOL 1+1 for 14 min at 20°C hand agitated.
I'm never without an orange filter.
But I will add a dedicated sRGB export setting for the internet, when I am at it, any suggestions?
Me too Pieter....always yellow or orange.....except for portraits then no filter.
These are scanned negatives, which I do after the wet print is made. Doing so, I 'process' the scans to match the prints.
And that the exposures seems to be "to dark" is because I forgot to reder them bleaker for the net, for which this seems to be necessarily. On my Eizo screen they looked how I wantend them to be and matched with the wet print under diffused daylight (Nord).
I admit that, although I am retired now, I am still hooked on a workflow meant for mechanical printing (YMCK), it has become a kind of second nature as I am so used to it, and which I haven't thrown overboard yet...
The trouble with electronic (digital-) reproduction is that almost everybody has it's own system, platform and settings, hardly ISO calibrated, not to mention the environment where te screen stands.
What I see on my computer/screen can't be the same you see, and certainly not what you neighbour sees.
A book, let say printed in an edition of 2000 copies, wil be 2000 times the same (when it is well done) and whoever looks at it wil see the very seem 'thing' (should be).
My goal was/is to match the quality of the books as published by ZODIAQUE (La Pierre Qui Vire) and some by APERTURE (the Paul Strand series), which were magnificent B&W publications.
But I will add a dedicated sRGB export setting for the internet, when I am at it, any suggestions?
My edited picture adjusted the levels on the right white side.
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?