Stills

Rex,

I had the opportunity to do a number of things with this neg. It is extremely wide range. I scanned it linearly based on protecting the highlights in that middle car (which any S curve or clipping would have sent into oblivion). I then had an extremely wide ranging file, but one which was very middle grey.

My first inclination was to put the whites back. The foreground car *should* be very bright. But as I made the whites whiter the whole 3D dynamic of the picture changed. It is very easy to make this a one or two element picture rather than a three element picture.

So in this version I went for form not tone.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.
 

What others think?! I keep seeing a windscreen wiper above Mudvac if that's any help! I agree with Rex that it looks 'flat' but wouldn't say that the picture is affected adversely as a result. On the other hand, I can't believe that you lose any one of the elements by making any one of those brighter or not. What is slightly disconcerting in this presentation on the site is that one keeps seeing sky above the wall because the tone of the background makes 'sky'.

I think that I would cut out one or both cars and get individual areas of toning right before putting it all back together again. Some brightness would be welcome as long as signs could be read easily.
 

Those doors dwarf the background car. It almost looks like a toy by comparison.

If this is Mudvac Base, is there also a Mudvac Outpost?

http://www.mudvac.com/finding_mudvac_base_aberdeen.htm
 

It is interesting to me to read that something looks flat and then that it has a very 3D feel. I understand that the first comment is speaking of the tones, but if you have a 3D feel, (which you do), then I think the tonal range is working.

If you lighten the car in the foreground much, it becomes more dominant and you lose the balance perhaps. Also, that very fine highlight that defines the shape of the foreground car, as well as the reflection of the signs on top are nice touches that would possibly get lost.

So, what do I think? I think your choice to sacrifice some overall contrast was a good one.
 

Sorry to come back from a long silence with a negative (no pun intended) comment.

I tried this : PhotoShop curve, reate just one point with input 195 and output 255.

On my screen, it does not send into oblivion but it does restore some credibility to the scene.

I think photography relies on at least some sense of credibility and such flatness hurts it a lot.

I don't think either the flatness helps any kind of 3D feeling not helps with the number of visible elements. To my eye, the more contrasty one retains your intension and makes it easier and more pleasant to read. With the restored contrast I have a feeling of being there that's totally missing without it.

The range mapping is a problem when scanning B&W negatives. The scanners are made for slides, and B&W scanning is really like driving a nail with a screwdriver.
 

Stephane,

Your point about scanners and scanning is a red herring. The question with this photo is the gamma curve and the clipping point, followed by the subsequent processing. With 40 plus megs of 16 bit single channel linear file, I could do more or less anything with the tones that I wanted to.
 

The 'flatness' works for me as it stacks up all the interest. You then get in to problems of perspective and the relative size of the various objects in the scene. As Matt says, that sure does look like a toy car in the background. Optically very pleasing.
 

This is one of those images that keeps me scratching my head. I am a big popoent of not having a hot white at the edge of a photo that distracts your eye and takes you out of the image. But I find the whites overall too low key, appering a light gray and now the white I would expect. Nevertheless, an interesting stacking of the subjects.