March 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Feb   Apr

Previous / Next

 4/1/05
 3/31/05
 3/31/05
 3/31/05
 3/30/05
 3/30/05
 3/30/05
 3/30/05
 3/29/05
 3/29/05
 3/29/05

PhotoblogsMagazine.org


Friday, March 11, 2005


Lava Field, Near Flagstaff

I think this was on the way into meteor park. Only took about nine years to post it.

2:39:14 PM    

Dave,
Congratulations. Some excellent work on your site. And beautifully reproduced for the web. How do you do it? I struggle to get 35mm scans looking as tonal and crisp as you do.

I particularly like your Trestles images amongst others and I know exactly what you mean by street lights illuminated during daylight.

Kindest Regards

Alex
---
Hi Alex,

I have been meaning to write up my "workflow" but I don't seem to get around to it. The problem is that it is different for different "inputs and outputs."

So it gets complex. In other words, for me there are two outputs: a) web b) Epson 2200

There are 3 inputs: digital RAW, 35mm negative, medium & large format negative. The only reason that I separate the medium & large format negatives is because they are done with a tranparency scanner on a flatbed and I actually scan them in 36 color mode.

But heres how I do 35mm b&w for the web:

1) I scan using a Dimage Elite 5400 at 16 bit, and 5400 dpi. I do this because I don't want to have to rescan something later if it might end up on the printer. No sharpening is applied during the scan because sharpening is generally the last thing to be applied depending on the output. My goal during the scan is simply not to clip anything in the histogram. I want everything I can get - if I am to adjust stuff - it will be later in Photoshop which is more powerful. Oh, and it is done in grayscale.

2) Any retouching / dust type of stuff is done on the large file. Then the file is resized with bicubic smoother (usually) to the size that I expect to print it at. Let's say 8 x 12 inches. I always add at least one adjustment layer: adjustment levels. Sometimes it takes an adjustment curves layer as well. I can tweak the file this way without destroying the underlyng data. When I have something close, I flatten the file, resize to 72 dpi, and save it with a new name for the web. And last but not least - sharpening for the web. I generally use the sharpening tool in Power Retouche plug-in. Generally - sharpening for the web is less severe than sharpening for print output. Sharpening is a subject all its own. I can't give specifics such as what radius to use because it depends on the size of the file, the resolution etc.

I soft-proof the image in PS with the Monitor option. If it needs further tweaking, I'll add another adjustment level layer and do it there.

Finally - the jpg is generated with save for web in PS at a high level. Of course jpgs are never touched or altered in anyway. If I post it on the web I go back to the source file, tif or psd, make the changes and resave for the web.

Don't know if that is helpful or not. For all I know you are doing the same thing?

Best,
Dave

12:11:10 PM    

Well look... the only news story I am vaguely interested in is the appearance - next week - of the juiced up jocks in Washington. This is because the only news I get is from sports radio. If there were another bombing in NYC I doubt if I would know about it unless a) it was nearby and I heard it or b) a stadium was the target.

So the big question of the day is: will this wipe the Michael Jackson trial from the news cycle for a while? (I do sometimes see MJ if I flip by to get to Nova. How many famous baseball players will it take to replace MJ? Speaking of MJ - I wish that Scorcese has done his life instead of Howard Hughs. Those two nuts are headed in the same direction.

Why isn't Bobby Bonds going to be at the hearing?

Will they need stronger furniture to support the dense girth of these guys?

But the two news stories - one about a guy who is getting so skinny that he may float away and another about guys who have gotten so dense that they produce their own gravity fields - there is a connection there. If only there could be a joint trial with MJ, Bonds and Martha Stewart as judge. Oh - what a circus.

Will these questions be posed:

"Are you now, or have you ever been juiced up?"

"Do you have personal awareness of other players who used or are using steroids?  And if so who are they?"

The reply should be: I will answer that if you will take an oath saying that you've never done illegal drugs.


9:38:35 AM    


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2005 Dave Beckerman.
Last update: 4/1/2005; 9:09:10 AM. Click to see xml version of photo blog