Posts Tagged ‘ processing ’


Lucy looking out the window (larger)

Continuing my trials with medium format, I wanted to try push processing. I am using TMAX 400 (TMY) and wanted to push it to ISO3200. When shooting around the house (especially in the winter), certainly 400 is too slow, and 1600 is pushing what I’m comfortable with hand-holding. Hence my desire for pushing to 3200.

Yes, I could use a bounce flash (sometimes) but I’ve not worked that out yet. Those are tests for a different roll.

I’d have to say that I’ve got mixed reactions. The picture above seemed to turn out okay. The contrast is definitely more that ISO400, but I think it’s okay.

Lily in the basement (larger)

The next picture is more typical of when I’d use a high speed push: in our basement. While there are several can lights in the ceiling, I meter to f/4 @ 1/30 (if I remember correctly) @ ISO 3200. It’s a high contrast pic, to be sure. I’m not terribly fond of the picture, but this just may be the overhead lighting and the subsequent shadows it produces on Lily’s face.

One aspect of shooting with the C330 is that I’ve only got full stops to work with. If I meter for anything in between, I invariably choose more light as opposed to less.

For what it’s worth, all of my development has been in XTOL replenished at stock strength. I’ve thought about trying XTOL 1:1 or 1:2, but that will burn through my developer pretty quickly. Using it replenished is very economical. 

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reprocessing my boat

Yesterday I posted “Boat as Bow.” Burstmode, who takes absolutely beautiful flower photographs, commented. While I can’t retake the picture (it’s a long car ride back to Shawano), I can reprocess in Lightroom. So, here’s the reprocessed version.

negative_scan_200 reprocessed

And here is the original next to the reprocessed:

negative_scan_200 negative_scan_200 reprocessed
Original Reprocessed

When I compare the two side by side, I tend to like the reprocessed better. But, the original is more like what I remember, sort of (isn’t memory a funny thing). It was early morning when I took the photo, and there wasn’t that much contrast.

It all comes down to this being a matter of intent, right? I feel the original is more “accurate” to what I saw but the reprocessed has more punch. I have to say, I’m torn on this one. I’m not a “purist” by any stretch of the imagination. But, the mood I was trying to capture (whether I captured it or not is another debate) in the original seems wiped away with the higher contrast of the reprocessed photo.

Still, I like the reprocessed picture. Well, no one ever said you couldn’t contradict yourself. Any thoughts, ideas, or comments?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Noise in the shadows

Now, let me preface this with: I don’t think that I’m pixel peeping. That being said….

When I was converting this picture to black and white, I was looking at the picture at 100% while adjusting the black levels.


You can see the noise in the shadows of the arms. I’m not sure if the noise is due my camera or something else.


So, I tried to remove the noise with Noise Ninja. This was a mistake. The noise was actually helping to prevent banding. The banding is more prevalent on the arm on the camera right.

So, I’m stuck. I have seen this in other pictures as well, and can reproduce pretty much at will. I’m not sure how well the affects show up for this post, but it’s plain as day on my monitor at 100%. So, experience tells me that were I to print this, I would see this, and I would never be happy.

Not sure where to go from here. (Insert tongue in cheek) Buy a new camera?

(Here’s the noise reduced version)

Technorati Tags:
, , ,