Any idea why there's a glow around her?

[chris_peterson1]

Lens: 90mm 2.8 elmarit. can't remember aperature or shutter speed, but there's a glow around

her. Lake McDonald, in Glacier National Park, April 2003. For what it's worth, she has pnuemonia

in this photo.

[mike dixon]

If it's a scan of a print, I'd say it's flare from your enlarging lens.

[chris_peterson1]

No. Scan direct from neg. T-Max 400. I think it might actually be her shadow, ever so faint, off

the mist.

[jerry_lehrer]

Chris

 

Nope, It's flare from, not on, the negative.

 

Jerry

[hadji_singh]

I like the idea that pneumonia caused a glow only perceptiable

on film...

[didjiman]

This is probably incorrect, but could it be also slight body movement, combined w/ the shadow?

 

Either that or the famed Leica Glow. Congratulation! :-)

// richard

[markci]

I saw something similar on a photo of my favorite nephew one time. I decided he must be the Golden Child or the Quisatz Haderack or some such and left it at that.

[dan_brown4]

I think it's called "halation". There is so much overexposure in

the image (on the negative) the the light channels through the

film backing causing nearby silver halide crystals to be exposed.

Some part of it also occurs during development due to devloper

depletion. That's why films often time have an anti-halation

layer. It most important in 120 roll film for some reason I don't

comprehend. If you've over-exposed as much B&W film as me,

you see it a lot. You've got a pretty cool creative use of it IMO.

[carl smith]

What was this scanned with?

[tito sobrinho]

Poltergeist

[olliesteiner]

To be read in 1950's radio announcer's voice:

It's her Prell Shampoo! Prell Shampoo gives every woman that special glow.

[richard_ilomaki]

Chris:

 

It looks like there has been some extended "burning in" of the subject, judging by the dark tones below her on the ground and in the mountains behind.

 

It may be halation and it may be the adjaceny effect mentioned already, greatly exagerated by the burning in.

 

It would be intersting to know how much burning in was done. Doing this on a small subject without darkening surrounding areas is always difficult. Who did the printing? ( No. Whos on first, Whats His Name did the printing, and I Dunno did the scan. Sorry couldn't stop!!LOL)

 

Cheers

[charlesk]

Were you using one of those new "black paint" cameras?

[mike dixon]

Scanner flare sounds like the most-probable source, though it extends rather far from the edge of her silhouette. If it were halation, it would be a light halo in the dark areas. Very odd . . .

[carl smith]

Mike, I'm thinking it may be scanner related, but not necessarily simple optical flare, or even just related to the film. The reason I asked what kind of scanner was used is because some Nikon scanners are quite susceptible to dust problems on the mirror inside specifically.

[cameron_sawyer]

It can't be halation, or flare during the positive part of the process, because the "glow" is black. It must be flare in the scanner, possibly a smudge on the scanner lens. Have a look at the neg with a loupe.

[steve_barnett2]

I'll go with Richard, it looks to me like ham fisted burning in, and nothing to do with 'scanner flare' (has that just been invented?) or any other flare. The only other suggestion is that the camera has recorded a swarm of midges around her, a common phenomenon when you are enjoying yourself near a body of water.

[h._p.]

Reminds me of an TV advert we had in the UK for a breakfast cereal that had kids wondering around glowing after they'd eaten the stuff.

 

It gave rise to a national joke: 'Make YOUR kids glow in the dark - move to Sellafield.' (Sellafield being the site of one of our more notoriously accident prone nuclear reactors)

[lacey_smith4]

some good guesses, and scanner flare may be it -- the bright negative image of her scanned, the brightness spilled around her. However, that, and my next query, both would tend to give similar shadows around the black rocks adjacent to the clear water.

 

My next query is development style and effect. With pyro, for instance, I have had a very pronounced "edge" effect (actually, a clear accent border around the dark subject against a light background-- but there is some feathering to that). The effect is very tightly edge related in 4X5 negatives (and thus mostly appears as sharpening/outlining), but in 35 mm, can be huge, relative to negative area. Changes in agitation can also give uneven development, accentuated/noticed around shadow-bright interfaces. But, again, I would have expected to see it at the black rock - water borders -- excpe they have dark areas adjacent on their other sides, and developer exposure may be changed by that.

 

Nonetheless, I think it one or the other above.

 

BUT, let me hallucinate a logical physical explanation from the original scene -- not photographic, but present physically (at least to some minimal degree). I am assuming a misty scene, perhaps even mistier than you have shown (by contrast adjustment). And, fairly cold, by her outfit. So, her body temp (at 39.5 C), is substantially warmer than ambient, so she has an envelope of surrounding air warmer than the mist-laden air, and thus a little surrounding mist is re-evaporated, thus less refractive mist-flare immediately surrounding her.

 

OF course, you could also read about Kirlian photography, and assume you are are recording the mystical aura of living things (which has had physical explanantion enough).

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Import that into Photoshop, play with the contrast and brightness just a little, and you can easily see the manipulation.

[joel_matherson]

I have done some field work on some very cold islands towards the Antartic and I have sometimes gotten similar strange glows and halos at times. Its very different to conventional lens flare but I found it related to internal lens condesation when in extremely cold environments. The warmth of my hand would basicly fog the lens temporarily. It often would affect only a part of the frame even though the fog may have covered the lens element. It seemed that certain light rays in parts of the picture were able to penetrate while others could not, often creating that burned in look I also see in your picture. Its just a thought but it cant hurt to check your lens for this type of cold weather temporary condensation.

[scott squire nonfiction]

I'd bet it's dust or gunk on the film scanner's lens or pickup

mirror. If (this is true and) it is a Coolscan, you can clean this

with a Q-tip and some alcohol, reaching in through the front port.

 

I'm curious to know what the answer turns out to be.

[chris_peterson1]

Developed it in D-76 1:1 for 12.5 minutes (the standard time). I

did NOTHING to it in photoshop. No dodge. No burn. Nothing but

the scan. Nikon Super CoolScan 111. I don't have neg right

handy, but I'll check it out in a loop on Monday, and I'll bet it's in

the image.

 

cjp

[adrian_morgan]

I had the same issue with a coolscan 2000. Dust on the mirror causes it. Clean the mirror and the problem goes away. (I've had to rescan about 40 rolls of slides

[dave_cheney]

Hmmm -- i've seen a simlary effect pushing Tri-x in straight D76, the highlights were so over developed (anti-compensation development anyone?) that it spread to nearby areas of the neg - most strange. Oddly the rest of the neg, the other zones were fine, it just affected the strong VIII and IX zones.

 

I'd look at you developer and/or technique.

 

Cheers

 

Dave