Comments for Better In Print http://betterinprint.wordpress.com A photographic print discussion group Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:15:02 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Slowness by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/slowness/#comment-44 Kjell Harald Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:15:02 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=80#comment-44 I don't know. If you scanned it, it would be quite easy to fix the specs in Photoshop. Probably much easier than printing by hand. As for the print being gritty, that may be the scanning process. Maybe Martin can tell something about this. As far as I know, he's done quite much negative scanning. I don’t know.
If you scanned it, it would be quite easy to fix the specs in Photoshop. Probably much easier than printing by hand. As for the print being gritty, that may be the scanning process. Maybe Martin can tell something about this. As far as I know, he’s done quite much negative scanning.

]]> Comment on Slowness by M J http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/slowness/#comment-43 M J Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:16:23 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=80#comment-43 The picture was hanging that way, I simply didn't touch anything! As for the print, I was waiting for the first comment, but i have to say that I wasn't impressed at all for the same reason. The grain got ugly once printed, and the picture is a little dirty. This is a digital print from a flat-bed scanned 6x6 negative. I wanted to have the greatest control over the print, so I decided to scan it and adjust it at the PC. The overall black&white levels are pretty much as I wanted them, but I think that the scanning process is simply the wrong way to go (even if i spent a lot of time cleaning the dirt bits from the file). I will try again with a professional hand print directly from the negative, with instructions to the printer guy. The picture was hanging that way, I simply didn’t touch anything! As for the print, I was waiting for the first comment, but i have to say that I wasn’t impressed at all for the same reason. The grain got ugly once printed, and the picture is a little dirty.

This is a digital print from a flat-bed scanned 6×6 negative. I wanted to have the greatest control over the print, so I decided to scan it and adjust it at the PC. The overall black&white levels are pretty much as I wanted them, but I think that the scanning process is simply the wrong way to go (even if i spent a lot of time cleaning the dirt bits from the file).

I will try again with a professional hand print directly from the negative, with instructions to the printer guy.

]]> Comment on Slowness by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/slowness/#comment-42 Kjell Harald Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:31:05 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=80#comment-42 Speaking of slowness. I got your print in perfect condition a little more than a week ago. It's been on one of my print stands ever since, and I'm enjoying it. I think the three main features in the image balance each other quite well. The symmetry os slightly offset, which creates some dynamics in the composition. One thing I'm curious of; The picture is not hanging straight. Was it intentional, or just by accident. I'm not quite sure what to think of it. I kind of like it, but a completely straight picture would fit more with the title "slowness". I'm not sure, maybe I just think too much. The gray scales are great, but there are some dust specs and scratches that disturbs a bit. I assume you have printed this from negative film at a pro lab? I think a good cleanup would be good for this pictures. It's not that many details, so the large smooth areas get much attention, and the flaws stands out just a bit too much. I Speaking of slowness. I got your print in perfect condition a little more than a week ago. It’s been on one of my print stands ever since, and I’m enjoying it.

I think the three main features in the image balance each other quite well. The symmetry os slightly offset, which creates some dynamics in the composition. One thing I’m curious of; The picture is not hanging straight. Was it intentional, or just by accident. I’m not quite sure what to think of it. I kind of like it, but a completely straight picture would fit more with the title “slowness”. I’m not sure, maybe I just think too much.

The gray scales are great, but there are some dust specs and scratches that disturbs a bit. I assume you have printed this from negative film at a pro lab? I think a good cleanup would be good for this pictures. It’s not that many details, so the large smooth areas get much attention, and the flaws stands out just a bit too much. I

]]> Comment on Cracked Wall by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/cracked-wall/#comment-41 Kjell Harald Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:05:10 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=71#comment-41 This photo is what I in my head calls "A picture of nothing", and by that I mean that it only becomes interesting once it is capured on ... sensor (I was so close to saying film ... hey, wait, you do shoot on film, it could be..). In real life it is often not interesting to look at, but once on paper it is converted into a slightly more abstract arrangement of shapes and colors/grayscales. After some thinking, I may have found what triggered my interest in this picture, and why I find it a bit better on screen. There are two parts. First is the center of the image, with the big crack. This part is constantly shifting in my mind between being flat, and being 3D. When 3D, it looks like it's sinking into that vertcal black line, like somone is pulling it from behind. Anyway, this effect is equally strong to me both on screen and on paper. The white surrounding, which I mentioned in the previous comment, is what makes the big differense. On screen, it looks sharper, and my eyes are more pleased with looking at this part. This becomes an area where my attention spirals, and I investigates the details. On print, it does not look as sharp, and does not require the same attention. This make the picture "smaller" to me. The last thing I find a bit disturbing is the mangenta cast. At least I see it that way. I've tried it under several light sources, and I still see it. It is not much, but still something I noticed even without looking at a neutral reference. I'll continue posting when I manage to gather some more thoughts on this. This photo is what I in my head calls “A picture of nothing”, and by that I mean that it only becomes interesting once it is capured on … sensor (I was so close to saying film … hey, wait, you do shoot on film, it could be..). In real life it is often not interesting to look at, but once on paper it is converted into a slightly more abstract arrangement of shapes and colors/grayscales.

After some thinking, I may have found what triggered my interest in this picture, and why I find it a bit better on screen. There are two parts. First is the center of the image, with the big crack. This part is constantly shifting in my mind between being flat, and being 3D. When 3D, it looks like it’s sinking into that vertcal black line, like somone is pulling it from behind. Anyway, this effect is equally strong to me both on screen and on paper.
The white surrounding, which I mentioned in the previous comment, is what makes the big differense. On screen, it looks sharper, and my eyes are more pleased with looking at this part. This becomes an area where my attention spirals, and I investigates the details. On print, it does not look as sharp, and does not require the same attention. This make the picture “smaller” to me.
The last thing I find a bit disturbing is the mangenta cast. At least I see it that way. I’ve tried it under several light sources, and I still see it. It is not much, but still something I noticed even without looking at a neutral reference.

I’ll continue posting when I manage to gather some more thoughts on this.

]]> Comment on street light by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/street-light/#comment-40 Kjell Harald Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:49:58 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-40 Hi Martin, the last thing you commented was a very good description of something I couldn't quite find the words for myself. I will look into that, because I really find the picture more satisfying on screen than on paper. The problem is that it is impossible to fix things like that unless you are aware of what is causing the difference. Thanks! Hi Martin, the last thing you commented was a very good description of something I couldn’t quite find the words for myself. I will look into that, because I really find the picture more satisfying on screen than on paper. The problem is that it is impossible to fix things like that unless you are aware of what is causing the difference.

Thanks!

]]> Comment on street light by doonster http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/street-light/#comment-39 doonster Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:30:16 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-39 I don't see any colour shift at all. It does appear somewhat darker on the right in print than on-screen. Not a major problem but some of the detail of the foliage is lost. A more distinct difference is in the way the halo from the light works. On screen it is like a fine mist, gently petering out - a nice smooth tonal shift. In the print is is much more abrupt. The light, therefore, seems quite a lot harsher ithout the subtle glow that seems to come in the screen version. This effect also seems independent of viewing distance (from a few inches to a few meters). I don’t see any colour shift at all. It does appear somewhat darker on the right in print than on-screen. Not a major problem but some of the detail of the foliage is lost.
A more distinct difference is in the way the halo from the light works. On screen it is like a fine mist, gently petering out – a nice smooth tonal shift. In the print is is much more abrupt. The light, therefore, seems quite a lot harsher ithout the subtle glow that seems to come in the screen version. This effect also seems independent of viewing distance (from a few inches to a few meters).

]]> Comment on street light by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/street-light/#comment-38 Kjell Harald Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:36:31 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-38 It could just as well be my lighting that is fooling me. Or me not being as sensitive to the small color shift. It could just as well be my lighting that is fooling me. Or me not being as sensitive to the small color shift.

]]> Comment on street light by M J http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/street-light/#comment-37 M J Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:42:37 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-37 It might be the light, I was watching it under mixed light (incandescent main light + 6500K fluorescent desk light). I'll watch it again tomorrow during the day ;) It might be the light, I was watching it under mixed light (incandescent main light + 6500K fluorescent desk light). I’ll watch it again tomorrow during the day ;)

]]> Comment on Cracked Wall by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/cracked-wall/#comment-36 Kjell Harald Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:42:50 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=71#comment-36 I think what's missing in the print is just a little bit increased contrast in the whitest part of the wall. Maybe just a little bit more sharpening as well in the white lower half. The crack in the center, and the iron ... uuhm, whatever it is ... is nice and sharp. This is a kind of photography that I like, but I just can't put my finger on exactly what it is. I think what’s missing in the print is just a little bit increased contrast in the whitest part of the wall. Maybe just a little bit more sharpening as well in the white lower half. The crack in the center, and the iron … uuhm, whatever it is … is nice and sharp.

This is a kind of photography that I like, but I just can’t put my finger on exactly what it is.

]]> Comment on street light by Kjell Harald http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/street-light/#comment-35 Kjell Harald Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:35:28 +0000 http://betterinprint.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-35 This photo has not been manipulated much at all. Everything is done in Lightroom. I did burn in the parts at the road, the light part in the background, and the out of focus leaves at the upper left. Apart from that, I only did a minor adjustment to the exposure, brightness and contrast. Wait... I did some small tweaks to the curve as well, a slight s-shape, but not much. The output sharpen was done using the Lightroom sharpening for matt paper, normal setting, and that's it. I surprises me that you see the print as green toned. I do see the violet tint in Martins print, but I can't see the green here. It should be neutral. It might have something to do with the difference in viewing light. This photo has not been manipulated much at all. Everything is done in Lightroom.
I did burn in the parts at the road, the light part in the background, and the out of focus leaves at the upper left. Apart from that, I only did a minor adjustment to the exposure, brightness and contrast. Wait… I did some small tweaks to the curve as well, a slight s-shape, but not much.
The output sharpen was done using the Lightroom sharpening for matt paper, normal setting, and that’s it.

I surprises me that you see the print as green toned. I do see the violet tint in Martins print, but I can’t see the green here. It should be neutral. It might have something to do with the difference in viewing light.

]]>