Create The Old Masters Look With Modern Gear

Using the latest in software, techniques and hardware can provide you with imagery that will rival the masterpieces of nature photography

By Dave Willis, Photography By David Muench

Labels: How-To, Techniques

This Article Features Photo Zoom

Photoshop Vs. The Darkroom
For the Masters, the darkroom was where the final touches were applied to images. Now the digital darkroom is primarily the computer and the printer driver, where you can apply any number of optimization techniques (and you don’t have to worry about the chemicals!) In Photoshop, mastering Curves, Levels, Hue/Saturation and the Black and White mode are the keys to flawless prints, just as the Masters had to know developing, exposure, fixing and printing.

Curves and Levels provide you with techniques for pushing and pulling brights, mediums and darks to change tonality in an image. Selective application of these effects through local adjustment gets you the best possible results. The handy Lasso and Quick Selection/Magic Wand tools are best for this, and Layers and Masks provide you with ultimate control over each area of an image. Look at it as digital dodging and burning.

B+W Redhancer

Hoya Circular Polarizer

Extending Dynamic Range
Another great option for achieving the extended dynamic contrast of classic imagery is High Dynamic Range (HDR). Darkroom photographers would have several choices for getting great prints out of negatives with bright-brights and dark-darks—playing with different grades of paper and chemistry, dodging and burning selected areas from one negative, as mentioned above, or using multiple bracketed exposures of one scene on one print. HDR mimics the latter process, only it does so quickly and efficiently through postprocessing.

Photography is a young sport,” says photographer David Muench. “It’s still developing dramatically. There are so many possibilities with digital now, and I think Ansel would have really liked it because there are so many controls to work with.

To create a good HDR image, take three or more captures of one scene. (A tripod and a locked-down camera are absolute musts for this process to work effectively.) Bracket each image by half a stop or more between each exposure, with wider space in between stops for scenes with more dramatic contrast (like a very dark foreground with a very bright sky). There are a few options for good HDR compositing, including Photomatix Pro 3.0 from HDRsoft and Photoshop. (There’s also an available Photomatix plug-in for Photoshop.)

If you’ve shot your images in RAW, another similar option for getting good detail in both brights and darks is available by double-processing your RAW image. By processing the RAW image twice, first paying attention to the dark areas and then to the light areas, you can combine the two images into one optimal image through Photoshop. The results won’t be as good as HDR, but they’re certainly better than using a single image.

Today, we’re no longer limited by the choices we make in the field. We can alter an image in any number of ways, and you can bet that the Old Masters, who took advantage of every technical innovation that came their way, would be proud of the strides that photography has made.

Page 5 of 7

« Start Prev1234567Next End »

18 Comments

Feed

Jay makes this comment

Tuesday, 09 June 2009

I wonder, is the writer not versed in photography, or is it in many parts, intentionally misleading? I currently use mostly digital, but have used view camera (4x5 & 8x10) various medium formats, etc. The vast majority of my images are now done with DSLR's. A couple examples: DSLR's cannot rival the IQ of large format. A landscape print from a 120 format can be seen to have higher IQ in a print even of 8x10ish size.The histogram is not analogous in use to "the zone system". The histogram is normally used to avoid blow-outs. The zone system is used to place the values where you want them, creatively. I have never posted a comment re a consumer photo mag article before. I understand that your advertising base is now digital. But does all attempt at accuracy have to be abandoned? I have been a reader since the 1980's. No more.
MC makes this comment

Friday, 29 May 2009

There are also tilt shift lenses available for the Sony Alpha mount from Schnieder Optics and I think also at least another Zeiss approved company but forgot the name. ARCA Swiss has the M Line (makes your DSLR into a view camera). Another option, for any camera, is software that does the same thing.
patricia clapp makes this comment

Thursday, 28 May 2009

I think that everyone who made a comment is right in his own way whatever makes us feel fulfilled is the one we use. I am using a digital have used film in the past but prefer digital.
Wayne Edwards makes this comment

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

If I travel from my home town, 500 miles to St. Louis, Mo. I can walk, ride a train drive a car or fly a plane. Either way I get there. If my friends are happy to see me what does it matter how I get there? Same with a piece of art, what does it matter how you get there as long and the viewer is pleased with the result?
Haroon Rashid makes this comment

Monday, 18 May 2009

Hi, Look at the latest issue of SilverShotz fine art photography magazine, it give a good technical explanation of how digital capture and printer prints have a long way to go when it comes to resolution befoe they can begin to compare with film and that includes H3D-50 size sensors
Jack makes this comment

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Why can not a group of photographers adult or otherwise express thier opinions without attacking each other?
S Hurwitz makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what instrument [of photography] you use. It's the eye behind it and the brain, I hope. Eve Arnold
s Hurwitz makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what instrument [of photography] you use. It's the eye behind it and the brain, I hope. Eve Arnold
S Hurwitz makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what instrument [of photography] you use. It's the eye behind it and the brain, I hope. Eve Arnold
Bill makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

To Roy You don't know me nor how old I am. It is true that the use of a digital camera is much easier than a film camera! If they didn't have digital cameras. A lot of you wouldn't call yourself a Pro. Photographer! Film will always be around and many True pros. are reusing film. You sound threaten Dawg! Live with it!
Roger makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

If I hear someone state that shooting at F/16 or smaller aperture is bad, I'll puke. I've seen "plenty" of great, sharp photographs taken with these small aperture settings. I think we read what "experts" say then we take it as the truth without trying it ourselves. Although diffraction and lower contrast does occur it's not to the degree most people bemoan it to be. I challenge anyone to actual go and photograph at various apertures. You'll find the hype is not commensurate with the actual results. Bottom Line: Take what you read as a guide but not as the gospel! Lastly, the guy ridiculing digital because it's not film should realize. They're two different mechanisms used to achieve a result. All that matters is the result. People decrying digital need to get over it. I'm sure he's not using a wood-burning stove to heat his home. Advancements in technology are inevitable. If you don't like them, don't use them but don't "hate" on others who do!
Roy makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

"Bill" sounds like a sour faced old fool who rants on about how his opinion's concerning film vs digital is pure fact and everyone else is wrong. Isn't photography supposed to be fun? Regardless of what type of camera you chose to shoot with? I may not have "formal training" but I do know why i take pictures, because its fun. Roy-
Roy makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

"Bill" sounds like a sour faced old fool who rants on about how his opinion's concerning film vs digital is pure fact and everyone else is wrong. Isn't photography supposed to be fun? Regardless of what type of camera you chose to shoot with? I may not have "formal training" but I do know why i take pictures, because its fun. Roy-
Bill makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

I am going to puke when another Digital Whore (who is pushing digital for some company) put down Film. I still use film and will continue to do so. I have several digital cameras and only use them when someone needs a photo in a hurry. I have a D3 and D700 Nikon and there is no comparsion to my Nikon F4. With film cameras you have to use your brain (I have formal training) with digital you point and shoot.
Jeff makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

Suggesting that digital users shoot at apertures in the f/16-f/32 range is generally bad advice (for landscapes, anyway). Not only do you typically not need such a small aperture, but diffraction will rob the image of sharpness and resolution. Large-format shooters needed those tiny apertures because of the much longer focal lengths needed for a given field of view.
cuibel makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

"ultimate in sharpness" uh-oh, heave
cuibel makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

If i hear someone use the phrase "ultimate control" once more i'm gonna puke.
ofer makes this comment

Friday, 08 May 2009

Classic photograph in the modern resources

How-To

Create The Old Masters Look With Modern Gear

Using the latest in software, techniques and hardware can provide you with imagery that will rival the masterpieces of nature photography

18 Comments

Add Comment

Recent OP Articles

Popular OP Articles

OP Most Popular Tags