Digital BW, The Print

Clayton, I do this all the time. Its my workflow. No matter how good the
original photograph is, I can always make it better in Photoshop.  What
in the world is wrong with photo illustration? John Paul Capinigro and
Jerry Ulesmann do it VERY well!

Jerry



Clayton Jones wrote:

> 
> Alan,
> 
> >>>>
> Some people build an image from countless layers that they diddle with
> endlessly.  I call that digital illustration. Do you want to do that?
> >>>>
> 
> Isn't this a dangerous generalization?  How much diddling with layers
> does it take to cross the line?
> 
> I have a 6x7 neg of the St. Marks lighthouse on the Florida panhandle
> coast (taken in 1987) which I was never able to print because the sun
> side of the lighthouse matched the background sky tone almost exactly
> (didn't think to use a filter - duh).  I theoretically could have
> masked it on the neg with magenta dye but it was too small and I never
> seemed to have a knack for brush skills anyway, so I gave up on ever
> getting a good print from it.
> 
> In PS I was able to zoom in on a pixel level and find that faint edge
> of the lighthouse.  It took nearly 3 hours but I was able to
> completely separate the background sky from the lighthouse, trees and
> other foreground objects.  Putting it on a separate layer, I was able
> to bring it down in value just below the lighthouse bright side, plus
> add some gradients for edge and corner burning and so on.  After 15
> years I finally got a good print from this neg I've always liked.
> 
> Does this cross the line into digital illustration?  I really like the
> print because it conveys the mood of the original scene.  To me it's a
> miracle after a 15 year wait.  This is the sort of thing that thrills
> me about digi printing.
> 
> Any other miracle stories?
> 
> Regards, - cj
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I am reluctant to get into this as I am a rank amateur, but I don't 
understand why increasing the density of the image via an overlay or 
softlight blend layer, for example, is "photo illustration."  All you 
are doing is insuring that all of the information in the original 
negative is visable in the final print.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Clayton, I do this all the time. Its my workflow. No matter how 
good the
> original photograph is, I can always make it better in Photoshop.  
What
> in the world is wrong with photo illustration? John Paul Capinigro 
and
> Jerry Ulesmann do it VERY well!
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton Jones wrote:
> > 
> > Alan,
> > 
> > >>>>
> > Some people build an image from countless layers that they diddle 
with
> > endlessly.  I call that digital illustration. Do you want to do 
that?
> > >>>>
> > 
> > Isn't this a dangerous generalization?  How much diddling with 
layers
> > does it take to cross the line?
> > 
> > I have a 6x7 neg of the St. Marks lighthouse on the Florida 
panhandle
> > coast (taken in 1987) which I was never able to print because the 
sun
> > side of the lighthouse matched the background sky tone almost 
exactly
> > (didn't think to use a filter - duh).  I theoretically could have
> > masked it on the neg with magenta dye but it was too small and I 
never
> > seemed to have a knack for brush skills anyway, so I gave up on 
ever
> > getting a good print from it.
> > 
> > In PS I was able to zoom in on a pixel level and find that faint 
edge
> > of the lighthouse.  It took nearly 3 hours but I was able to
> > completely separate the background sky from the lighthouse, trees 
and
> > other foreground objects.  Putting it on a separate layer, I was 
able
> > to bring it down in value just below the lighthouse bright side, 
plus
> > add some gradients for edge and corner burning and so on.  After 
15
> > years I finally got a good print from this neg I've always liked.
> > 
> > Does this cross the line into digital illustration?  I really 
like the
> > print because it conveys the mood of the original scene.  To me 
it's a
> > miracle after a 15 year wait.  This is the sort of thing that 
thrills
> > me about digi printing.
> > 
> > Any other miracle stories?
> > 
> > Regards, - cj
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 04:54 PM 11/18/2002 -0000, you wrote:
>Alan,
>
>>>>>
>Some people build an image from countless layers that they diddle with
>endlessly.  I call that digital illustration. Do you want to do that? 
>>>>>
>
>Isn't this a dangerous generalization?  How much diddling with layers
>does it take to cross the line?
>
>I have a 6x7 neg of the St. Marks lighthouse on the Florida panhandle
>coast (taken in 1987) which I was never able to print because the sun
>side of the lighthouse matched the background sky tone almost exactly
>(didn't think to use a filter - duh).  I theoretically could have
>masked it on the neg with magenta dye but it was too small and I never
>seemed to have a knack for brush skills anyway, so I gave up on ever
>getting a good print from it.
>
>In PS I was able to zoom in on a pixel level and find that faint edge
>of the lighthouse.  It took nearly 3 hours but I was able to
>completely separate the background sky from the lighthouse, trees and
>other foreground objects.  Putting it on a separate layer, I was able
>to bring it down in value just below the lighthouse bright side, plus
>add some gradients for edge and corner burning and so on.  After 15
>years I finally got a good print from this neg I've always liked.  
>
>Does this cross the line into digital illustration?  I really like the
>print because it conveys the mood of the original scene.  To me it's a
>miracle after a 15 year wait.  This is the sort of thing that thrills
>me about digi printing.
>
>Any other miracle stories?
>
>Regards, - cj
>

Clayton and David B.

Sorry I seemed overly-critical of those who just can't quit fooling with an
image :-) I'm no purest, fer sure.  You have to judge one picture at a time.
Sometimes manipulations make an image look out-of-joint - non-photographic -
un-natural.  I've seen hideous examples of darkroom manipulation involving
multiple masking with inter-negatives over the years.

I recently sat through a PS presentation where a guy demonstrated his
typical workflow.  After about the twenty or thirtieth layer adjustment the
guy next to me mumbled "Why didn't he just take the %$**## picture in the
first place?"
What counts are results - right?  

Similar to your story, I recently made the delightful discovery of a long
forgotten box of "reject" panoramic  negatives in my attic. They had minor
flaws that made them un-printable - or at least not worth the bother - in
the darkroom. There are some good images I've never printed. Usually the
only problem was long horizontal film scratches. Does a little problem like
that bother us in PS?  I haven't the latest version but am dying to use the
"miracle brush."

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us