[Leica] Alien Skin Exposure

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 4:00 PM +0100 12/3/06, Philippe Orlent wrote:
>OK.
>
>To clear some things out.
>I shoot both digital and analog, with a big 
>preference for analog because it makes me 
>somewhat less just snapping away. Digital is OK, 
>but I use it differently.
>However, I adore using PS and other digital 
>technology because for me, it gives me more 
>possibilities to get out of a shot what I 
>imagine(d) in my head. And that has very little 
>to do with 'technical' perfection.
>In other words, the main problem I have with 
>digital is that the image quality is getting too 
>perfect. And if everything is perfect, there is 
>no difference any more. Pretty boring, IMO.
>Maybe that's a strange thing to hear, but coming 
>for somebody who only started with photography 
>in the 80s, it maybe is not that uncommon:
>I never had to crave for better quality as some 
>of you might have back in the 50s, 60s or 70s: 
>the quality of film back in those days was seen 
>by some as limiting, and I understand that it 
>must have been frustrating not being able to 
>capture something exactly as one saw it. Hence 
>probably the 'filtermania', postprocessing etc 
>back then.
>But for me, and looking at such photographs (or 
>printed representations) now, it was the era 
>were photos were not necesseraly technically 
>perfect but had a lot more character and charm. 
>Take Ted's 'Men of the saddle' for instance: 
>technically, these photographs are somewhat 
>dated. But qua content and picturing quality, 
>they still are top notch. I'd even say that the 
>technical 'flaws' in them (color rendition and 
>print reproduction) enhance the feeling of 
>authenticity and quality they have.
>Same thing with traditional mechanical cameras 
>(of which a pre-M7 M is the ultimate result) and 
>lenses: not perfect, but what character!
>Try to copy 'le baiser de l'h?tel de ville' with 
>modern material for instance. It's virtually 
>impossible to get that softness and tonal 
>rendition right out of camera with today's 
>cameras, lenses and film.
>In short (and call me melancholic): I'm not 
>looking for perfect, I'm looking for imperfect. 
>Because that very often makes a part of the 
>charm and personality of a photo. And, as a 
>matter of fact, of a lot of other things in 
>life, too.
>So if I stumble upon a program that lets me 
>recreate the imperfect feel of films that do not 
>exist any more, that makes me -as I already said 
>yesterday- very happy.
>Does that mean that I'm against the digital revolution of these last years?
>Not at all, but I'm confronted and work with 
>that in my professional life every day.
>If I were a photo pro, I'd probably sing another 
>song. But I'm not, I'm an amateur. (Which BTW 
>origins form the word 'aimer').
>
>Philippe
>
>
>Op 3-dec-06, om 07:03 heeft Henning Wulff het volgende geschreven:
>
>>>This is a photograph that I already showed 
>>>exactly as below here. I shot it on Fuji 
>>>NPS160, with professional development, but had 
>>>it scanned commerially on low res: all 
>>>flattened out.
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/y4o8pq
>>>or bigger:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/tbwgw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This is the same shot after I let Alien Skin 
>>>(and some minor additional PS alterations) 
>>>have a go at the original scan today:
>>>
>>>as big as above:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/y373rf
>>>
>>>!!! the big ones are in Adobe RGB !!!
>>>
>>>Isn't the 2nd one much more distinctive and 
>>>doesn't it have a lot more character? Or am I 
>>>just overenthousiastic?
>>>
>>>Philippe
>>
>>Hi Philippe,
>>
>>The plug in just seems to increase contrast, 
>>throw a lot of the extended tonal range away 
>>and skew the colours to introduce a cast.
>>
>>This is usually what I fight to get rid of when scanning.
>>
>>Film, properly printed lets me get a huge tonal 
>>range and a good printer was always able to 
>>handle the colours properly. My scans, even 
>>with a fairly good scanner, are usually limited 
>>in comparison to projected slides or a good 
>>print.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but the first image, while not 
>>necessarily optimized, allows all sorts of 
>>interpretations, but the second looks like a 
>>poor scan. It is a 'film' look, but one that 
>>mimics something I try to avoid - not always 
>>successfully.

hmmmm.... that sounded a lot grumpier than I intended.

The main point still is though that we've been 
trying to get better quality overall, and this 
plug-in throws a lot of information away, 
reducing the 'technical' quality.

Like you say though, the mood can often be 
enhanced by 'lesser' technical quality, and for 
the very best photos, it just doesn't matter. So 
therefore, in the ultimate sense, it just doesn't 
matter.

On a similar note, each time we use a lens like a 
Thambar or Imagon we throw away information right 
at the start. Also if we use a film like 2475 or 
Kodalith, or IR or even B&W. I've done all of 
that; some of it extensively to get the correct 
feeling.

Now with Photoshop we can shoot digital or high 
quality film and a good scan and then decide what 
areas of the picture are important and bring 
those to the fore by throwing the rest away.

So, in a lot of ways I obviously agree with you. :-)

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com