Queensboro Dusk

queensboro_0158

This needs more fine-tuning, it’s just an HDR with two (I almost called them negatives) Raw files that have a 1/2 stop difference.  But I can tell you, it has promise, and many of the files I’m choosing to work with are not particularly dramatic in b&w.  In other words, it’s the pinks and blues of the sky that I like. But the next version won’t have so much red chroma or glow around the lights.   I also expect to “open up” parts of the bridge more and may tone down the saturation.  But this is an example of how close you can get with just a straight HDR import even with two files that aren’t properly bracketed.

Of course maybe I should only post finished stuff — but I think it’ll be interesting to see the next version(s).  The Queensboro bridge is particularly hard to shoot at night since it sways a lot and exposures tend to be in the 1/5th of a second range.  I don’t really want to go over 800 ASA if this is the type of thing that will be blown up…  on the other hand, if you use Image Fusion rather than  HDR you get rid of a lot of noise, even at 800.

Advertisements

Published by

Dave

My name is Dave Beckerman. I am a photographer and programmer working in New York City.

2 thoughts on “Queensboro Dusk”

  1. Dave – do you know the reason for the longer tonal scale on large format film? Is that a function of the physical size difference between it and say 35mm film, and how that factors into the physics/optics of light involved, or does it have to with the relative enlargement factor one would utilize between different format sizes? Hope this question makes some kind of sense.

  2. Makes sense. It’s the type of question that it’s too late in the day for me to answer, other than with a barely thoughtful reply: picture the number of silver halide grains that are being used to describe a given area of the print that comes from an 8 x 10 negative, compared to the number of grains used to describe the same area from a tiny piece of film, both with the same emulsion. In other words, in the extreme, the small negative uses 10 grains to describe the given area and the largest negative uses 1000 grains to describe the same area. Although both emulsions are the same (I think they are in real life, ie. the distance between grains is the same for both negatives, once an image or print is made, there are fewer grains with a wider distance between them to print the same area of the image. That could be completely wrong – and if so – I’m sure someone will tell us.

Comments are closed.