Recipe for "the Glow"

[ray_g]

Call it "Digital Leica Glow" if you will. Either way, it is fun to experiment with. Courtesy of Lutz Kronermann, of the Leica forum at PN.

Here is an example:

 

[ray_g]

- Duplicate background layer
- Apply Gaussian blur to new layer - radius 4.5, 50% opacity
- Next, flatten layers
- Apply USM twice: 15% at 175 pixels, and 100% at 0.3 pixels

Have fun.

 

[aizan]

here ya go:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

 

[ray_g]

Aaah...I have been waiting to try that, Aizan, since reading it over a year ago. I now finally have a diffusion enlarger, and the plus x is in tha camera, with a yellow filter on my Summar. I am sure it will be a lot harder than a few clicks of the mouse, but I'm ready to play. 🙂

 

[tedwhite]

Right up front I will confess to terminal lack of technical knowledge. I can tie my shoes, take reasonably good pictures, and make rather good enlargements from my properly developed Tri-X negatives.

Having blathered on, my point is that I have no clue whether my enlarger - a venerable Simmons-Omega B22XL - is a diffusion enlarger.

Hope someone has an answer.

Ted

 

[ray_g]

Ted, I am a newbie at this, but I have been doing a lot of reading up. It depends on the particular type of head that comes with your enlarger - it can be a condenser, color head, etc.

Here's a good place to start, with lots of pics to compare to your equipment:

http://www.khbphotografix.com/omega/

 

[Fred]

Ted,

Rule of thumb, if the head has dial in filters for colour or contast it's probably a diffusion head. Better for not reproducing dust and scratches as light passes through at many angles. Also by chaging the yellow/magenter balance the contrast on MG paper can be changed without altering the enlarger timer.

If the filters are used in a filter drawer, it's more likely to be a condenser head, capable of producing higher contrast than a diffuser head. These tend to be cheaper also.

Hope this helps.

 

[Stephan]

Generally all color enlargers use light diffusers and all black and white enlargers use condensors. But that's not always true, depends on the make and such, for example krokus BW enlargers use diffusers 😉

 

[peter_n]

Ted if it's a standard B22XL it's got a condenser head. I got one of those things earlier this year.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Here are two with older lenses, no computer modifications necessary. Optical Processing only, many less gigaflops required.

1) Xenon, 50mm F1.9 wide-open on the Retina IIIS ($10 lens).

2,3) Summarit on M3. Wide-Open.

 

[dmr]

{munch}
- Apply USM twice: 15% at 175 pixels, and 100% at 0.3 pixels

What threshold are you using for the USM? Also, what resolution (dpi) are the files you're applying this to?

I'm playing around with this now and I'm getting what really appears to be more of just a gaussian blur ... 🙁

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Here are two with older lenses, no computer modifications necessary. Optical Processing only, many less gigaflops required.

1) Xenon, 50mm F1.9 wide-open on the Retina IIIS ($10 lens).

2,3) Summarit on M3. Wide-Open.

Excellent, Brian. I am all for analog first, digital when analog lacking.

This is a great technique to know in PS. My personal rule is to use PS as much as I would in the traditional darkroom. I must say this just makes me appreciate even more the optical engineers and designers of years long gone by.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Optical Engineer at our work actually designed an optical computer to process data. It used Lasers and the most amazing optics that I've ever seen to do pattern matching. The optics cost $40K per lens, two required. Loads of Digitizing boards to feed the Lasers.

 

[jano]

If you don't have $40k to spend on a laser lens, or prefer to do the effect digitally, an alternative and slightly more subtle approach to Ray's technique is to blur the lightness channel only.
In PS:
- "ctrl ~" will select lightness channel
- ctrl-J will copy selection to new layer
- run your fav blur on it to taste
- (optional) change the layer's blending properties.. I like soft light or overlay, and maybe duplicate then change to multiply layer.

Unfortunatley, I don't have any film-based examples of this yet.

 

[T_om]

What threshold are you using for the USM? Also, what resolution (dpi) are the files you're applying this to?

I'm playing around with this now and I'm getting what really appears to be more of just a gaussian blur ... 🙁

This is one of those PS tips you have to watch out for.

Gaussian Blur has a different effect at different resolutions. You may have to adjust the recipe to bake the same cake. 🙂

Here is another tip. Do this on a layer mask. Then you can "brush in" the effect where you want it and at whatever opacity works best.

Layer masks are among the most powerful of PhotoShop tools.

<soapbox> Ahem, LAYER MASKS WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE! </soapbox>

Try and get a handle on layer masks before trying ANY of the 'softar' type tricks and you will gain MUCH more control over the result.

Tom

 

[ray_g]

Yes, this is one of those tips that you will need to play around with to see which look you like best. I use those settings for images viewed on the monitor (I haven't made any prints manipulated this way), about 400 x 600 pixels, with 72 dpi resolution.

I haven't used this in a while, and the answer to the threshold question will need to wait until I sit in front of my pc (I don't have PS on my laptop).

I have the same opinion as Gabriel. PS lets you do most of the things that you would otherwise do in the darkroom. It is by no means a substitute for a good lens, and proper technique. PS (or a master printer) cannot help you with those.