Snowstorm and others

terri · Mar 16, 2004

Another interesting group. I can see that the first image is more about texture and tone than anything else and sadly, that is exactly what is missing from this scanned image. grrrr....scanners!!! A more subtle print is hardly worth showing from a scan sometimes, since so much depends on scan (and the viewer's monitor) quality. Would love to see the large print version. I know your work and there's not a doubt in my mind that it's much more compelling than what is showing up there.

That said.... :wink:

my faves are from the second group: I am enchanted with both Clinton Lake Fog and Wetland Fog. Beautifully composed (and they translate well even as a scan!). The handcolorist in me wants to sneak in some oils....the barest hint of transparent wash. Oh yeah baby.

Thanks for sharing.

ksmattfish · Mar 16, 2004

Osmer_Toby said:
the second set is quite sharp, almost looks like these were shot with a digital. you did these in traditional darkroom?

The snowstorm pics are from 6x7cm negs. #1, and #3 of the second set are from 4x5inch negs, and #2 is from a 6x6cm neg. I scanned from 8x10 FB prints. Of course I did use unsharpmask on the scans.

vonnagy · Mar 16, 2004

:?: ksmattfish I have a question for you, i guess its more of a personal preference question

Do you do all your image editing in darkroom (dodging, burning, contrast etc) and then scan - or have you ever 'photoshopped' your work post darkroom. When say photoshopped here, i am generally referring to photoshop's darkroom equivalents.

I've seen the 3rd eye picture, so I know you aren't adverse to playing with photoshop... but would you ever consider using it professionally - or are you content to sticking with the darkroom editing?

ksmattfish · Mar 16, 2004

I try to make my scans look like the print that came out of the darkroom. This usually involves playing with levels/curves and using unsharpmask, although sometimes I also have to mess with color balance in the case of toned images and some paper types (which have a base that isn't exactly white). Sometimes I have to burn edges where the paper wouldn't lie flat of the scanner.

In the darkroom I alter contrast, burn/dodge, and sometimes use split contrast filtering and toning. I don't have a problem with PS manipulation after the darkroom, in fact someday I hope to have a neg scanner. I would definately use the scanner as a proofing method to decide which prints I want to enlarge in the darkroom. Once again I would try to make the image look like how I visualize the darkroom print.

The reason I don't do any PS work that couldn't be done in the darkroom is that the final work for me needs to be a gelatin silver print. There isn't much point for me to manipulate an image in PS more than I could do it in the darkroom. Other than pamphlets or fliers, I won't be printing them digitally.

I can't wait until I can afford a good DSLR. Then I'll do a lot more color, and it will be 100% digitally printed. Hopefully by then I'll know more about Adobe PS and the whole digital process. I'll still stick with film for BW, because I'm a film-geek, and I love the cameras and the process.

Although at first I was amazed at how good the web friendly scans of my prints looked, I've gotten used to them now, or something. I find myself eyeing my cheapo scanner distrustfully. I see problems with the scans that I can't figure out in PS. I see weird visual affects that I can't tell if it's my monitor or the scan, particularly with the snow, and other large areas of highlight.

Snowstorm #3 with the roots is a good example. It took a dozen tries in the darkroom to get the roots where I wanted them, but a scan from that image doesn't have the same detail in the shadows.

I'm starting realize that I may have to specifically print to be scanned; scanning seems to reduce contrast by contracting the tonal scale, darkens the image, and softens the image. When I enlarge ISO 125 4x5 film to 16"x20" I can't even find the grain with a grain magnifier; the original prints are razor sharp with a wonderful tonal range.

Osmer_Toby · Mar 16, 2004

I can't wait until I can afford a good DSLR. Then I'll do a lot more color, and it will be 100% digitally printed. Hopefully by then I'll know more about Adobe PS and the whole digital process. I'll still stick with film for BW, because I'm a film-geek, and I love the cameras and the process.

i think that will make you even stronger once you go digital. you understand the behavior of light better than most people because you with it directly at every stage of the process. although the same argument could be made for pure digital, in your case you must make all decisions on your own- nothing is automated.

once you have the automated tools at your disposal, you'll be far better than someone with the same level of innate talent who did not use traditional methods to such a degree.

you have a following for your style here on this forum, and i think most of us can't wait to see you get that dslr, too

ksmattfish · Mar 16, 2004

Silicon is fun, but silver is magical. Digital is what got me into photography; silver is where I fell in love. Will I find romance with a silicon chip? Probably not, but a frenzy of lust, heck, I'm easy....