Film - Post Processing

[rui_lebreiro]

<p>Hi,<br /> <br /> I've read and seen about the wonderful tones and rendering of Summilux's and Summicron's (which i trully admire), among others.<br /> <br /> I'm curious, which post processing do you do on these photos? (either digital or analog)<br /> <br /> I mean, i guess it has to be very very tiny, othersiwe it may change significantly the global "soul" the lens priovides.<br /> <br /> I'd love to ear about your experience.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> Rui</p>

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

<p>Interesting question.<br>

When I look at pictures in this forum, I think the nature and extent of the post-processing is in some ways much more important for the look of a relatively small web image than what lens is actually being used. There are obvious exceptions - like very characteristic bokeh - but if you are at 800 x 600 pixels after applying "levels" and "unsharp mask" in Photoshop, the nature of the lens (microcontrast, resolution, etc) becomes less important for the final image.<br>

If we are talking prints (analogue or digital), the nature of the lens will obviously shine more through.<br>

I recently posted an image here, after which someone was kind enough to talk positively about my image, adding that this particular combination of film and lens always seemed to yield great results. I am not really certain that you can judge this from a small web image.<br>

As for my own pictures, I scan the negative in a Nikon COOLSCAN IV, optimize the contrast, do a bit of dodging/burning, resize and sharpen, after which I usually add a border and (recently) a warm tone. If there is no negative, I start with the digital file (colour or B/W) and do exactly the same thing.<br>

Anyway, I post below a picture which has a very obvious "lens effect" to it, namely shallow depth of field. But if we are looking at a scanned negative on a web page online, I doubt that much meaningful about the "tones and rendering" of the lens can be said - except that it is a short tele used wide open. But a 90 Summicron or a 105 Nikkor or...<br>

But who am I to say what the truth is here :-)<br>

Soeren</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p>One thing I've found to be very useful is to make a copy layer, add gaussian blur, and then mix the two layers so that the grain is minimized.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>With a good negative (tone, sharpness, etc.) it`s easier to get a good digital file. Good lenses or adecuate ones will bring you better possibilities at the time of post-proccesing the image.<br>

The "soul" of the lenses and films is still there, it must exist on digital images too. Another topic is if the analog or digital process achieve different results or if some destroys that "soul".<br>

My digital prints are so different to my wet darkroom prints. Also, I love the look of my film strips over the light table, this charm is always lost when the film turns into digital files.<br>

I usually don`t bother about "soul", "glows", and all this stuff. I`m not as experienced. I only care about sharpness (focusing, DoF) and exposure (tonal range). I simply try to get what I`m looking for. I usually use "levels" to modify contrast and brightness. I usually leave the image a bit flat to compensate sharpening contrast increase. Sometimes I apply unsharp mask first and then levels. Some burning and almost never dodging.<br>

On the wet darkroom, I spend most of the time trying to get the proper contrast and exposure with proof sheets. Sometimes I apply different contrast filtering to the same print. Here dodging is way more used than burning.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>One of my main issues is about bokeh. I dislike how my sharpening method usually change bokeh in certain areas. I`m currently dealing with it.</p>

[g-man1]

<p>Jose, perhaps you could use selective sharpening and leave the oof areas alone.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Right Jordan, I`m on it... thanks.</p>