Getting the best from my new 'cron

[jamiewakeham]

Hi all

Just tried out my new rigid 'cron - a pair of test shots are here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=70869&ppuser=941
and here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=70870&ppuser=941

Neither have had anything done to them apart from my V700's digital ICE. The film was XP2 at ISO400, measured with an incident meter.

I don't know; they just seem a bit... grey... I got the summicron because of the incredible 'gleam' I saw in other people's shots. Do I simply need to get better at post-processing in PS? Or would I be best served by overexposing the film by rating it at ISO200 or so and having it developed normally?

If that's the case, I think I'll abandon ideas of using it as my 'does everything' film and go back to Delta 3200 at about 800 for when I need more speed...

Cheers
Jamie

 

[Pherdinand]

the cat shot looks already overex posed to me.
The contrast is also rather low on both of them. Is that maybe what you are missing?

I never understood the idea of using xp2 at iso 200. But it might be just the way people meter the light.

 

[gavinlg]

Congrats on the lens.

Ways to make the images pop more:

1. Don't use ICE - robs detail. Instead use clone stamp in PS and/or dust filter with selective masking to protect areas you want to have detail.

2. c41 BW films I've always found to be very flat. Other people seem to get awesome results from them. I suspect its contrast boosts in PS

3. If you were using a traditional BW film, you could increase agitation during development to increase contrast.


Try using the curves tool in photoshop and increasing the shadows (dark) area so make it much darker, and then pushing the mids a little higher. This will make it more gleamy. The best way to increase contrast is by making a copy of the background layer, changing the mode to "overlay" or "soft light" and then creating a layer mask over the copied layer and using the brush tool to dodge/burn areas as you see fit.

 

[retnull]

Since you ask...the cat shot looks to me like focus is a little soft, and also a bit overexposed. Did you say you post-processed in Photoshop? Looks to me like the histogram does not extend all the way down into the blacks. A bit of S-curve in Curves might also help. The second shot has sharper focus, but this time there's room for more whites in the histogram, as well as more contrast.

Hope you don't mind my comments. Overall the tones are lovely, as is the bokeh.

It's annoying that PS skills are such a necessity, but once there's a scanner involved, there's no way around it.

 

[jamiewakeham]

Thanks for the advice, gents. No, nothing done at all in PS - I hate the bl**dy program. Suppose it's just time to get good at using it.

Is digital ICE really that bad a thing? That's disappointing; something else I hate is cloning out the inevitable dust spots...

Cheers
Jamie

 

[shadowfox]

What's so annoying about post-processing in photoshop?

It's *post-processing*, a process that takes patience and skills, whether it's on the monitor or in the darkroom, it doesn't make a difference.

So if a wet-printer adjust the contrast in the darkroom it's called 'art', but when the other did it in photoshop it's 'annoying' ??

I don't get it.

Edit: Need to clarify, a soft focus *cannot* be fixed in photoshop.

 

[Thea]

If you have not used PS at all you could try Elements to start with, if you got to Adobe web site, you can download a trial...see what you think, if you dont like, simply dont buy it....
I have had a few students who were suffering from Photoshop-phobia (mainly more mature students) and found Elements an excellent beginner tool and ended up with some stunning results.

No offence intended if this is not the case.

Re the cat image maybe add alittle more contrast and darken it alittle...?

 

[Vics]

I bought a BGN condition DR (same lens exactly) shot a few rolls of Tri-x, processed in D-76 and printed normally (Dektol) and it blew my hair back! Those prints just SPARKLED! I sometimes drop back to the collapsible as the DR can be a bit too contrasty and detailed for portraits.
Hmmm...

 

[hlockwood]

Hi all

Just tried out my new rigid 'cron - a pair of test shots are here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=70869&ppuser=941
and here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=70870&ppuser=941

Neither have had anything done to them apart from my V700's digital ICE. The film was XP2 at ISO400, measured with an incident meter.

I don't know; they just seem a bit... grey... I got the summicron because of the incredible 'gleam' I saw in other people's shots. Do I simply need to get better at post-processing in PS? Or would I be best served by overexposing the film by rating it at ISO200 or so and having it developed normally?

If that's the case, I think I'll abandon ideas of using it as my 'does everything' film and go back to Delta 3200 at about 800 for when I need more speed...

Cheers
Jamie

I use XP2 developed normally and rated at ISO 320. Sometimes I get the gleam, sometimes I don't. In my case, I believe I am not consistent in metering. (Something I have to work on.) And I almost always apply some Curves correction in PS.

You might try shooting a test roll with each shot bracketed to see if it's an exposure/ISO problem.

Harry