Ideals About Photos On the Photo.net?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by narke, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. narke

    narke Guest

    Hi, Folks

    Most pics on the photo.net looks not real, they are far beyong what I
    can do. I'm thinking how I can get my own shoots look as good as them.
    There are two quality in those pics what are so impressive to me: one
    is their high saturation, another is the find grain.

    I'm a film shooter, every time when I got some pics looks not bad
    throught projector and then had a lab to print or scan them out, the
    results were always depresive. Everyone on the photo.net get a nice
    scanner? or that's because most of them shoot by digital camera?
    What's the reason make the differences in your opinion?
    Does anyone get the similar feeling as mine? Any ideal is welcome!
     
    narke, Jan 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Every photo put up in compertition is severely modified with Photoshop.
    If you don't have photoshop skills... Get some training and you too can
    have unrelaistic looking photos on Pbase!

    Use 'neat image' (http://www.neatinmage.com) to remove the grain if you
    think less grain is better. I myself like the texture of grain in a
    photo. Use the 'saturation' tool of Photoshop or get Fred Miranda's
    (http://fredmiranda.com) 'Velvia' action to do the intensity thing.

    You can do it all in Corel Photopain or learn to use the free 'Gimp'
    editor if you can't justify the cost of Photoshop. Either way, you can
    make a film image look like a digital one or a digital one look like
    film with a little practice.

    JD
     
    James Douglas, Jan 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. narke

    Alan Browne Guest

    Funny, it's hard to run slide film through photoshop.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 17, 2005
    #3
  4. narke

    Alan Browne Guest

    You need a really good photofinisher who you can talk with to get what you need
    out of the photo. The best looking photos are properly lit and exposed with
    sharp focus. Without that, don't expect much from a printed version. I get
    large prints from both negatives and slides that are sharp, colorful and (in the
    case of slides) look almost as good as the projected image. I've never done
    Cibachromes or similar processes, but those where I've seen the original
    projected slides and the prints have been very nice.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 17, 2005
    #4
  5. narke

    Bob Hickey Guest

    I've gotten CDs made from negs and the results were very mixed. I don't
    know who was worse, Kodak or Eckart. Put another way, purple or green? The
    one hr. guy up the street, where I go for color, does excellent work, and
    fast too. Just happens to be good w/ PhotoShop. But then again, he actually
    looks at the shots. Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Jan 17, 2005
    #5
  6. narke

    Mark² Guest

    No it's not.
    Slide scanners are cheap now.
    Heck, I was scanning slides via my Nikon film scanner 6 years ago when they
    were NOT cheap!
    :)
    -Photoshop away...
     
    Mark², Jan 17, 2005
    #6
  7. narke

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mark² wrote:

    Cute, but a projected image from a slide is something that is clean, pure and
    beautiful. I've been scanning them for about 5 years myself... nothing comes
    close to projected, however.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 17, 2005
    #7
  8. narke

    Owamanga Guest

    Let's not forget we can have digital images put back onto slide. I've
    never tried it, it's quite expensive (about $3 each).

    I bet a color-enriched properly sharpened digital slide would look
    fantastic.
     
    Owamanga, Jan 17, 2005
    #8
  9. narke

    me Guest

    Film best,
    me
     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #9
  10. narke

    me Guest

    Ditto *everything* Alan said.
    Film best,
    me
     
    me, Jan 17, 2005
    #10
  11. narke

    Alan Browne Guest

    Owamanga wrote:

    Go fer it.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 17, 2005
    #11
  12. narke

    narke Guest

    Slide scanners are cheap now.

    Hi, Alan

    In your opinion, what kind of scanner is enought to produce same
    quality as thoese on photo.net? Thanks.
     
    narke, Jan 18, 2005
    #12
  13. narke

    Eric Miller Guest

    And yet this thread isn't about projected images from slides. Perhaps you
    should have posted this message to rec.photography.offtopic.posts. ;)

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Jan 18, 2005
    #13
  14. narke

    Alan Browne Guest

    All variations alowed. Slides I shoot can be projected, scanned and printed at
    fairly large sizes or reduced for web use. The point here is that a slide image
    is one of the purest forms of photography we have.

    The projected, unmanipulated in any way image. Proper exposure, sharp focus
    leave you with a single, unmamipulable (!) color palette for projection or scanning.

    Coming full circle, the OP presents the case that the superb images on photo.net
    must be manipulated. But that is not neccessarily so. Some of the best
    photography there is scanned slides. Unmanipulated.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 18, 2005
    #14
  15. narke

    Alan Browne Guest

    You're repling to Mark^2 but using my name so...

    Nikon 4000/5000/8000/9000 and others,
    Various Minolta's including the more recent DSE 5400.

    And many others. And drum scanning will get better contrast and detail at a
    higher price.

    Digital cameras have less noise and a perfectly flat imaging array. The film
    has grain-noise and is not perfectly flat in the camera or scanner.

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26507814 (which at higher scan res is just
    fantastic in detail) was scanned on an older 8-bit/channel maching at about 2800
    dpi. Todays scanners get much more out of the image.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 18, 2005
    #15
  16. narke

    me Guest

    The slide is never seen, only the scanned image of the slide. IMO The act of
    scanning is manipulation and it is impossible to tell if any other
    manipulation has been made.
    Film best,
    me
     
    me, Jan 18, 2005
    #16
  17. narke

    me Guest

    Riddle me this: How many posts would this NG get if everyone followed your
    suggestion and never submitted anything OT? (satire) ;-)
    Film best, (on topic for this NG)
    me
     
    me, Jan 18, 2005
    #17
  18. narke

    Alan Browne- Guest

    Project it or look through the loupe and it is as pure as can be.

    As to scanning, with a simple white reference leveling, the whole image
    on the screen is very close to what is on the light table. It can never
    be identical, of course. If there is no white reference, a neutral
    toned object serves well ... but this is more subjective wrt results.

    Further, if scanning a slide is a manipulation then lab printing from a
    negative is much, much, much more of a manipulation as the resulting
    colors are purely a result of the print process. Ask anyone who has
    despaired of finding a good photofinisher.

    I scan a lot of slides and negatives. Negatives are usually more
    challenging to match colors. Portra 160NC is pretty good.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne-, Jan 18, 2005
    #18
  19. narke

    me Guest

    Yes, with slides WYSIWYG *but* the images at photo.net are scans of slides
    (assuming the source was a slide) therefore we can never know how much they
    have been manipulated.
    Film best,
    me
     
    me, Jan 19, 2005
    #19
  20. narke

    Owamanga Guest

    Projecting a slide *is* manipulation:

    You make the image bigger.
    The color of the bulb changes the image's colors.
    The color of the surface changes the image's colors.

    BUT WHO CARES?

    The slide isn't *real*, it's a chemically created representation of a
    scene that happened in the past. It is *all* manipulation. The shutter
    speed, the aperture choice, the film choice, the grain *all*
    manipulate the image to the point that not one human there at the time
    saw the scene as it was captured on the film.

    A human can't *see* a five second exposure any more than he can see a
    1/1000th sec exposure. A human can't see a color scene in black &
    white. A human can't over-expose a scene. A human can't switch his
    brain to 'velvia' mode. A human can't open his eyes to f1.4, so DOF is
    out of his control, and his angle of view is fixed.

    The photographer however, *is* a master manipulator because he *can*
    do all of these things. And any rule that says manipulation must stop
    once the button is pressed IS A FALACY.

    Is cropping cheating?
    Is using velvia cheating?
    Is cross-processing cheating?
    Is printing an image to paper cheating?

    no.

    And neither is scanning a slide, adjusting curves, adjusting levels or
    even the use of a purely digital process from start to finish.
     
    Owamanga, Jan 19, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.