Bit of help needed if you please!

I'll probably try Peter Gilberts. His shop is definitely the best I've come across for vintage parts. I think my needs extend past the draw full of accessories he has in stock though.
 
Assuming I haven't forgotten all my physics in the last few decades. . . can I just make the remark that sticking a green-ish filter in front of a lightsource doesn't change the wavelength of the light - it just reduces the amount of light being transmitted in the areas of the spectrum which are not green-ish (or whatever colour you have) - meaning that the net result is the increased green-ish effect you can see. So for the minimum effect on the total amount of light, use no filter.

Interestingly, a red filter on pan film can give a smooth look to "white" skin, but watch out for veins. . . !

Try playing around with panchromatic film and narrow-cut filters, as used for making printing separations. Or just dark-red, dark-blue, dark-green filters. Can be interesting. I'm at work so I'll shut up now.
 
Assuming I haven't forgotten all my physics in the last few decades. . . can I just make the remark that sticking a green-ish filter in front of a lightsource doesn't change the wavelength of the light
Click to expand...
You haven't forgotten 😀 If you think of the frequency/wavelength profile (the "mountain range" graph with frequency/wavelength along the bottom and intensity up the side), all a filter does is lowers the height of part of the range - it doesn't move anything sideways.
 
Ash, you are tenacious! 🙂

Listen, ortho film will not record red things.

If you shine green light at a red object - it will look black, because a red object absorbs all light except for red. A red object only emits red. Getting rid of the red light before or after it bounces of the red object doesn't make any difference, and getting rid of the green, or whatever light won't make the black thing suddenly emit light either.

OK? The answer is NO. 🙂

Now, try it out and see what effect you get - (or try google).

Why do you have to use ortho film? You can get 4 x 5 in loads of normal types.

colin
 
Colin, I'm using Ortho because I have a box of 100 sheets (and a second box of 100 being posted sometime soon).

I like the tones 🙂


That, and I can't afford other film... Having a packard shutter on my camera also means I need a slow ISO for exposures, since I can't go comfortably under a second
 
Ortho film is a bit of a headache when its dark outside!

I decided to go for a bathroom mirror shot, that way I SHOULD have been in focus. Of course it dawned on me mid-expose that I can't stand still.

F8 lens...Leningrad read about 2, so with an EI of 6... that meant a LONG exposure. I went for a few seconds before I had to blink (hence the motion blur from twitching). Tried to push development but the Ortho was having none of it. Underexposed all over the place, but I pulled this out with a little help from photoshop.


At least I now know ortho CAN do skintones.

I'll be repeating this exercise tomoro in the hope that I can get a 'nice' example of Ortho's capabilities shooting humans.

Oh, my hair had been tied back for hours, so not even that would co-operate!

portraitedit.jpg



EDIT:
Using Apple's Preview program, 'Image Correction' features.
Sharpened, more levelling, slight sepia tone
portrait.jpg





Shameless plug to check out this thread also! http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36080
 
Last edited:
That original picture (above) looks rubbish now.

I tried again today and you can see the result in my latest blog. Oh, and a crop of my mug as a new avatar 😉


Edit, here's a crop from the backup shot. I don't like it as much, it's less dynamic, but the tones are visible.

backup2.jpg


So Ortho doesnt mind skin-tones after all!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom