charles.K
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Leica M8/M9/X1 Picture Thread | |
Luka, Joe, Ryan and Ron, thank guys
Gregory, very nice shot! Very much like a Steve Huff shot, when he was on tour with Seal
Ron, excellent set of shots! I do love how pick the classical architecture and scenes for the backdrop.
Ryan, yes I did wait for a person, but not one was crazy enough to walk down the lane, on a cold wet and windy evening!!
Luka, literally excellent action capture My understanding is with experienced photogs who have used RF\'s for a long period, have the ability to focus blind, just by the feel and position of the tab do achieve a very high hit rate, even at f/1.4 and 2.0.
Luka, great series of shots, again!!! Love #4 with the 35 Lux
rscheffler wrote:
singletrack wrote:
On a separate note - can anyone help me on this point -
I\'ve seen silver halide prints up close and personal, and they are marvellous! So much detail and tone. How is it possible that digital B&W files with only 255 shades of grey (or so I think), can look so good too? If the question is super silly, apologies in advance!
Cheers all
kl
Are you referring to on-screen display or prints? If you mean on-screen my guess would be that a factor is the backlighting of the display, which is similar to viewing a transparency vs. a print. I.e. transmitted vs. reflected light. Also, a guess is many B&W images are actually desaturated RGB and may have subtle toning shifts, which will mean they\'re greater than just 255 shades. It also helps to have a full range, from black to white, which lends the impression of full tonality. Ryan\'s recent police car B&W is a great example.
As for prints... I don\'t print much, so it\'s not an area of expertise for me. If it\'s inkjet, many now print with various shades of gray ink in addition to black to allow for more subtle tonality. Again, there could be some colour in the images through toning, which will further broaden the range of shades.
As Ron, has suggested, there is such a difference between printed photographs and backlit viewing of images. It would be fair to say, that most of our opinions on photographs, rendering, colour, tonality is based on web images, before we have seen the printed versions. I would think the difference is our perception of b&w shots backlit is based on contrast ratios achievable with good quality monitors, and how we perceive the back lit tones as compared to reflected light print tones. Lesser quality monitors, when calibrated to lower luminescence light levels, may not have the range in B&W shades and can be very limited. I do feel many times when I have printed a shot, it does not emulate the screen shot, and I do know that the perceived viewed constrast ratios are different, and have to adjust the PP for the final print.
Silver halide b&w shots printed well are stunning and the range of tones are just amazing! But they do have to be viewed correctly to appreciate the quality. I do print B&W via an Epson 3880, but it is more difficult than colour to get the prints right. It is a compromise, silver halide prints out of the darkroom, are great but technique is unforgiving, whereas on the screen, soft proofing, seeing the end result on a specific type of art paper is a huge benefit with the large choices that are now available for fine art paper.
Here is a link to a company in Melbourne, Image Science that has a wealth of information, Image Science
|
