 Ken Pang |
Digitally adjusting over exposed slides My first question in months... :) I recently bought a Canon FSU4000 scanner, and I found that colour positives work better than colour negatives in it (less colour balancing needs to be done post scanning) I've converted over to using completely Velvia and Provia. It was also time for me to use slide film since I really need to start paying more attention to exposure! Letting the matrix meter do all the work results in about 1 in 4 photos being poorly exposed! You don't notice on colour negs because of the latitude, but you certainly notice on colour reversals! In any case, I have quite a few photos that I actually like the composition and the subject matter, but it's over exposed by about 4 stops! (Took a spot meter off someone's skin, but waited too long and it must have metered again - this time from the centre of the photo - which was a dark blue shirt.) I tried shifting the colour bits towards the light end of the scale to see if I could stop it being washed out there, then tried to reducing the contrast, but to no avail. It helped a little, but the skintones are still too bright. I can't post the photo here, since I don't have a model release, but if someone could offer me suggestions on the discussion board, or if they need to see the photo, email me at kenpang1@optushome.com.au to get a copy of the photo sent directly? Thanks! Normally I wouldn't try so hard, but this set of photos are for a friend who wanted see what magazines can do to a model's photos. Considering it's my first try I am amazed at the difference it can make.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Pang |
I just noticed there's a problem with the board. To get your message to show, you need to reply to your own message. So here goes... :) *bump*
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Four stops is a LOT. My own problems have been more with underexposure, as I had a fetish with color saturation and underexposing slightly. (I got over that; I prefer Provia now). I scan slides, too. I can't handle anything underexposed less than maybe a stop. On overexposure, you have a little more leeway, but, if the color or detail information isn't in the film, the scanner can't bring it out. A model, eh? Skin makes me lose my concentration, too, even wrinkled skin.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Pang |
I'm reading between the lines here as "don't bother - write the photo off". After a touch more experimentation, I'd tend to agree with you. There is some detail there, but the amount of adjustment I need to do would make the photo look fake. Well, I did get some very good photos out of this particular shoot, so she should be happy with that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Pang |
I'm reading between the lines here as "don't bother - write the photo off". After a touch more experimentation, I'd tend to agree with you. There is some detail there, but the amount of adjustment I need to do would make the photo look fake. Well, I did get some very good photos out of this particular shoot, so she should be happy with that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Ken, I presume you're the same "Ken" from "Down Under?" When I read 4 stops overexposure, my heart sank. You may already know this, but I'll post it anyway. Overexposure is the bane of transparency film for the same reason underexposure is the bane of negative film: thin emulsion. At four stops over I'm surprised you have much more than a clear piece of film. Even if you can pull some detail out, you will likely have severe problems with its color balance. Have you tried extracting a B/W image out if it? If it has enough detail level you can record with your scanner, you wouldn't have to worry about trying to color balance it. Maybe not what you were looking for at the outset, but might be better than no image at all. Just watch that you have sufficient detail level and not just some. If your scanner has a good DMax, you may have a chance. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||