|
krillen
Jun 16, 2003, 1:48 PM
Post #1 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I know this is a broad question but any help would be greatly appreciated.
Everytime I'm taking a shot with my camera I look through the view finder, and see these greeat shots. They have a fine, slighly black silky quality to them. Then I get my prints/slides back and they are good, more accurate to real life, but they lack that silk. Anyone have an idea how I'd get that back silk look back after I scan the images?
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Jun 23, 2003, 3:08 AM
Post #2 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
Aw, man, I don't know.
I hate the dismal view of the world I get through my 33 year old viewfinder. You could try some of the filters in Photoshop. One of them might do what you want.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Jun 23, 2003, 2:20 PM
Post #3 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
nope, sorry
I asked this on www.photo.net and no one seemed to know either.
|
|
|
|
|
cyberclimber
Jun 23, 2003, 3:26 PM
Post #4 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 243
|
Hey Brad,
Welcome to my world. I find that 99% of the time, the image I remember seeing in the viewfinder was so much nicer than what I see when I get my slides/prints/digital images back and look at them later. Part of that has to do with the contrast range our eyes can see (about 15 stops) as opposed to the contrast range that print film (about 9 stops), slide film (about 6 stops) or digital cameras can record (about 7 stops). So we see alot more in both the shadows and highlights with our eyes than we can record and reproduce. Plus with our eyes we can look past and ignore distracting things in our field of vision that show up bright and bold to ruin the images our brain saw. As for the "black, silky look" you talked about,,, I haven't a clue, dude.
By the way, 1% of the time I end up with an image that is better than what I remembered seeing in the viewfinder, that's what makes it all worth while,,,sort of.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jun 26, 2003, 4:10 PM
Post #5 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
I'm neither here nor there on this. Some scenes are not so impressive through the view finder, but they just have this amazing quality to them where the colours are almost surreal. Other times I just lose the quality of the scene entirely, and there is just this overwhelming sense of "meh." There's just no depth to the colour.
Things to consider: light source, subject matter, contrast range, exposure, development, filter, and film type/ brand.
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Jun 26, 2003, 4:48 PM
Post #6 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
if you have a lab nearby that produces LED (laserlightjet) prints see if you can get them to print a Metallic enlargement of one of your photos: especially nice for pictures of rock...it's basically a special type of paper that has a sort of perlescence pigment added that creates a "sheen" in certain parts of the image. Most people are blown away by the added dimensionality of these prints. Only one caveat: it isn't suitable for all subject matter especially low-contrast photos with muted colours. Try it out
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Jun 27, 2003, 5:13 PM
Post #7 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Does it work for B&W or only Colour? Prints from slides?
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Jul 9, 2003, 6:46 AM
Post #8 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
What camera are you using?
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Jul 9, 2003, 1:05 PM
Post #9 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Minolta Maxxum 7000i
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Jul 9, 2003, 3:57 PM
Post #10 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
ah cool. the upgrade of the world's first AF camera!
anyway, if the viefinder is really dark, you may have an electronic problem. i dont think the 7000i has aperture preview, but if it does, that could be a problem area as well. finally, if your shots are coming out consistently overexposed, you may have a problem with your meter. check the batts too
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Jul 9, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #11 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
No, the photo's are coming out perfectly exposed. I was simply wondering if there was away to get that slightly dark silky look to my prints. Post processing perhaps. Matte finish works a bit, but even whenI scan and Photoshop them I can't reproduce that feel.
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Jul 10, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #12 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
oops 8) gotcha.
A good way to proceed is to calibrate everything step-by-step. What you see in the viewfinder is good. What you get on film is good (I assume you mean transparencies, it can be hard to tell from negatives), so start there. You *can* expect high-quality prints that match the original.
Hard to say, unless you can say exactly what type of prints you are getting and, for the scans, what scanner, what monitor, etc.
the "dark, silky" look you are describing sounds like highly saturated, with dramatic lighting, and high contrast or "high-key" tones, like this, perhaps?:
http://www.akornphoto.com/images/B-TX-20.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Jul 10, 2003, 12:52 PM
Post #13 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
could be I suppose....I'll look into it.
I was thikning that it might be a factor of the view finder itself. It maybe actign liek some what of a Neutral Density filter for my eye, but not the the actual shots.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Aug 26, 2003, 1:40 PM
Post #14 of 14
(2159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Okay, I figured it out. The probelm was print vs. slide. When I compared my shots to professionals, or my perception of what they should look like they just weren't up to snuff. Well I FINALLY got some of my slides scanned, and low and behold if they don't fall along the lines of what I am looking for.
Most of my print film photos come out looking like this:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=15067
Where as my newly scanned slides look more like this:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos.php?Action=Show&PhotoID=16976
AS you can see they look much more dynamic, and have a slightly black silky look the them when compared to the print shots.
Thanks for all your help guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
