Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

More Garish Light from Pinatubo Eruption - Velvia 50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Slide Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:31 am    Post subject: More Garish Light from Pinatubo Eruption - Velvia 50 Reply with quote
Well, I was hesitant to post this, because it seems so "over the top" in color. Shocked
It's basically the combination of the altered sunset colors from the
ash in the air from Pinatubo eruption + using Velvia 50.

I also considered lowering the saturation through ACDSee 3, for fear
of members wondering why I "increased saturation". Shocked

But what the heck, I'm posting anyway, my shoulders can take it. Very Happy This
is out of the camera as scanned. The "line" above
the horizon is the upper rolled edge of a gauzy fog bank.

You can just barely see the Destruction Island lighthouse on the horizon
next to the cliff. I couldn't go farther to the right, as I was already knee
deep in water. Shocked

It's been a while ago, but I still remember that the farther I tilted my
head upward, the sky turned almost blue-black. I wish now I would have
taken a shot of the terrain behind me, as it was bathed in very
strong reddish gold light with the blue-black sky.


Pinatubo Sunset at Rialto Beach
Revueflex 3003
Super-Tak 55/1.8
f:16 and 1/2 second
Velvia 50


Last edited by Laurence on Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:33 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Don't touch it , this is an exciting , great picture!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like it this way, but my opinion doesn´t relly matter - if the photo is corresponding to your vision, when you took the photo, don´t change it, but if it´s not what you saw then, go on.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, just to be clear here, Larry, this was a hand-held photo, right? The rocks are sharp, but the water has a blurred quality to it, which gives a nice effect. So do you recall what your shutter speed was? Mount Pinatubo's eruption occurred back in the mid-90s, didn't it? So, it's been a while, I realize. I'm thinking your shutter speed was around 1/30? I've been able to get away with 1/30 with my Yashica Mats some of the times, but others I had shake-induced blur. You nailed this one, though.

Do you recall what portion of the scene you metered for this shot? I have found that, with sunset photos, I have had good luck metering the sky directly overhead.

Anyway, this is a great scan. Sometimes it's just not possible to avoid a blocking up of the shadow detail in images like this. If you look at the rocks on the left side of the image, you'll see what I mean. You've got a fair amount of posterization and/or banding going on there. With some of my scans I have tried just about everything I can think of to get rid of this (and they were sunsets too), and when I do, the overall quality of the image always suffers, it seems like. I've had some luck with negatives, scanning them as positives, then reversing them in PP, plus doing a lot of tweaking with the histogram. Never tried it with a slide.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A wonderful shot IMHO!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
So, just to be clear here, Larry, this was a hand-held photo, right? The rocks are sharp, but the water has a blurred quality to it, which gives a nice effect. So do you recall what your shutter speed was? Mount Pinatubo's eruption occurred back in the mid-90s, didn't it? So, it's been a while, I realize. I'm thinking your shutter speed was around 1/30? I've been able to get away with 1/30 with my Yashica Mats some of the times, but others I had shake-induced blur. You nailed this one, though.

Do you recall what portion of the scene you metered for this shot? I have found that, with sunset photos, I have had good luck metering the sky directly overhead.

Anyway, this is a great scan. Sometimes it's just not possible to avoid a blocking up of the shadow detail in images like this. If you look at the rocks on the left side of the image, you'll see what I mean. You've got a fair amount of posterization and/or banding going on there. With some of my scans I have tried just about everything I can think of to get rid of this (and they were sunsets too), and when I do, the overall quality of the image always suffers, it seems like. I've had some luck with negatives, scanning them as positives, then reversing them in PP, plus doing a lot of tweaking with the histogram. Never tried it with a slide.


Thanks Gurdie and Attila. I'll keep it the way it is then.

Michael, the shutter was at 1/2 second. And I actually had my tripod in
the water...yeah, SALT water. Shocked However, there is a creek about
100 yards away called Ellen Creek, so I was able to almost immediately
dunk the tripod - and my legs - back into fresh water. No harm, no foul!

I didn't have metering, darn it. The old Revueflex 3003 needs the hearing
aid type batteries. I always "save" the battery by covering the air holes
back up, which is fine. But I had put the battery in the little console
container in my car rather than back in the camera with the covering on. Embarassed

On top of that, my head wasn't working right, so I had to go back
to the dry rocks, pull out my tablet and pencil, and do the Sunny 16
stuff on paper. You know how it is..."uhhh...let's see, f:16 at 1/60th,
f:5.6 would possibly be at 1/500th, uhhh....unholy bright on the
horizon, ridiculously dark sky overhead...probably f:16 at 2
seconds straight above and probably f:16 at 1/125th or maybe even
1/250th straight ahead?...geeze, I don't know...how about splitting
the difference and trying f:16 at 1/2 second." Confused And of course time
was wasting away...you know the feeling. Laughing That is definitely a
defining difference to digital, where I could have just chimped until
it looked right.

Yeah, the blocking up was noticeable to me as well. Also, there is still
a bit of possible artifacting in the sky, although I am not 100% sure of
that because there were a lot of wispy things going on up there.

This was in the summer of 1991. I actually had made a point of taking
vacations days after the Pinatubo eruption because I heard that there
would probably be some weird atmospheric things happening. I was
lucky enough to be there for those things - however, there is a caveat
to this: I have several more "Pinatubo sky" shots in the wings, but they
are so garish and unbelievable that I am simply hesitatant to post
them. I might have been better served to go to Provia instead of Velvia.

I need to learn more and experiment more with my scanner. I hope to
have a large block of time next Winter to do so, and perhaps then I can
hunker down and learn more, not only about the scanner, but also how
to work Photoshop and/or ACDSee better.

I tend to wax on with too many words, but I do want to thank you Michael
for your great constructive suggestions. It helps SO much to be able
to learn for the next time.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
A wonderful shot IMHO!


Thank you Klaus (Mr. Generosity). While I'm here, I wanted to say
that your UV and IR images are simply gorgeous.

Hey are you ever coming over this way sometime in your lifetime?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
I have several more "Pinatubo sky" shots in the wings, but they are so garish and unbelievable that I am simply hesitatant to post
them. I might have been better served to go to Provia instead of Velvia.


Give 'em up, Larry. I for one would like to see more of the Mt. Pinatubo pics. Hey I'm a child of the 60s -- black lights, fluorescent and dayglo paints, etc. No colors are too wild for my palate. Might not want to paint my house's interior walls with them or anything, but I reckon I can handle it.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think it's garish, you find some really unusal light which sets this photo apart.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think its a beautiful picture Larry and a great guesstimate.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Schnauzer wrote:
I think its a beautiful picture Larry and a great guesstimate.


+1 to that. You nailed the exposure perfectly. Not easy to do with a slide. 5 stops off from bright sun. I'll have to remember that.

Now that I'm thinking about it, though, I wonder if all the dust in the atmosphere really did have a big effect on exposure. I say this because I've taken dozens and dozens of ocean sunset photos with Kodachrome 64, and was always able to handhold my cameras when using shorter focal lengths, say 50mm or shorter. I just metered the sky overhead because the sky is 18% gray, so that gave me a middle value. At least that's always been my thinking. But it could be that the atmospheric conditions were substantially different such that exposure times needed to be increased.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
William wrote:
I don't think it's garish, you find some really unusal light which sets this photo apart.


Thanks William, I appreciate your comment.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Schnauzer wrote:
I think its a beautiful picture Larry and a great guesstimate.


It was purely a guesstimate, that's for sure. I really should have
bracketed, because I think it might be a little better 1/2 stop brighter.
Thank you.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Schnauzer wrote:
I think its a beautiful picture Larry and a great guesstimate.


+1 to that. You nailed the exposure perfectly. Not easy to do with a slide. 5 stops off from bright sun. I'll have to remember that.

Now that I'm thinking about it, though, I wonder if all the dust in the atmosphere really did have a big effect on exposure. I say this because I've taken dozens and dozens of ocean sunset photos with Kodachrome 64, and was always able to handhold my cameras when using shorter focal lengths, say 50mm or shorter. I just metered the sky overhead because the sky is 18% gray, so that gave me a middle value. At least that's always been my thinking. But it could be that the atmospheric conditions were substantially different such that exposure times needed to be increased.


Yes, I've done that same thing - go for the sky at 18%. But for some
reason the sky was exceptionally dark blue. Perhaps it was the twilight
mixing with the warm colors given off on the horizon? I just don't know.
I was afraid if I "mind metered" off the sky, I was going to blow out the
image. And of course, all that is why I decided I had better sit down and
try to think it out a little, but to make sure I hurried at the same
time! Shocked Oh, and of course there's the polarizer which affected
my exposure calculations by 1 1/2 stops too. The confusion never
ends, does it? Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, I didn't realize you had a polarizer, too. That changes things somewhat. Perhaps the effect of the eruption was perhaps only in the 1/2 to 1 stop range then.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Slide Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1