How to make orange water look awful in B+W
em...@my-deja.com
brochure printed up on Abandoned (Coal) Mine Drainage (AMD). AMD
is the primary cause of metal pollution within the watershed.
Metal pollution can often be seen visually by an Orange (Iron) or
White (Aluminum) coloring on the stream bottoms.
When photographed with color, it is obvious to non-experts that
something is not right with the water. Unfortunately, full color
printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
to creatively use black + white to convey a similar message? The
"typical" AMD scene will be a stream with (usually) green and/or
brown vegetation on each side.
Alex.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
chris kelly
Chris
William Wright
particular color look brighter or darker on B&W film? ('unnaturally'
brighter or darker, in this case)? You can carry this one step further
by using your flash with the appropriate gel over it in order to provide
unnaturally colors of light and thereby further 'unbalance' the scene.
Sometimes a polarizer filter does unexpected things -- stripes, etc
-- especially if you add polarized light of your own (polarizer over the
flash). Some metal ores respond in weird ways.
...and of course, depending on your views about altering a scene,
you can always float a dead fish in the water.
O'B
> Unfortunately, full color
> printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
> to creatively use black + white to convey a similar message?
Not black & white exactly, but I'm sure you get a pretty good
representation of the color you're looking with a duotone print. That
certainly would be much cheaper than a full color run. Very basic
description of this process: you are printing with only two colors.
Of course, you'll never come close to depicting the full spectrum, but
if only one color is truly important to you, you'd be surprised how
effective this can be.
John
--
John O'Brien
dylp...@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~dylpluck
"I can tell your future, just look what's in your hand" -R. Hunter
Keith Clark
Yes!
If your budget allows it, you may want to consider "Powertone" which was
created just for creating awesome duotones.
Check out the examples on their website :
http://www.intensesoftware.com/index.htm
You can download a Photoshop plugin from their site that will let you
output two duotones before it expires...
Granted, printed with two colors is more expensive than one (black), but
the impact can be tremendous, for 1/2 the cost of 4/C printing.
But, also consider that the cost of 4/C printing is mainly in the setup.
(plates, makeready, etc).
Once you pay for the setup and the first 500 pieces, the next few
thousand copies are relatively cheap.
Are you going the old fashioned route of making color separations, litho
film, plates, etc? You can save money and gain quality by going directly
to press with your digital file.
There's lots of digital print vendors out there. Choose one that uses
Heidleberg presses. I'm rather partial to Color Craft. Their pricing on
posters and such is very good, and the samples they sent me were
awesome. http://www.colorcraft.com/
Keith
(no connection to any companies mentioned)
Pierre Renault
>A watershed association that I volunteer with wants to have a
>brochure printed up on Abandoned (Coal) Mine Drainage (AMD). AMD
>is the primary cause of metal pollution within the watershed.
>Metal pollution can often be seen visually by an Orange (Iron) or
>White (Aluminum) coloring on the stream bottoms.
>
>When photographed with color, it is obvious to non-experts that
>printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
>"typical" AMD scene will be a stream with (usually) green and/or
>brown vegetation on each side.
I assume here that your final results will be in black and white.
When you shoot through a filter, the correponding colour will be rendered
lighter, the opposite will be darker. If you shoot with an orange (or red)
filter, the orangey water will be lighter (than the vegetation near it), a
green filter will do the opposite. Use filters for B&W, they're much deeper
and have a much stronger effect.
Try it either way, you'll be able to decide when you see the results.
Good luck!
Pierre
Edward Frank
You need to look at a variety of Mine drainage discharges. There are
three prominent colors: Orange from Fe(OH)3 [iron] , black from MnO2
[manganese], and white from various aluminum oxides Al2O3. What is
precipitated depends on the pH and concetration of the metal in the
solution. I have seen stream bottoms where side flows into an orange
stream bottom are black deep black precipitate, then change to white
precipitate then to orange with fingers of each color as the pH drops.
While the orange color may be dramatic in color, for b&w look for high
pH discharges that have the black and white coloration. Call your
state mine permit office and ask for suggestions of where these types
of discharges may occur.
Edward Frank
http://members.xoom.com/ed_frank/
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:55:20 GMT, cheu...@mlink.net (Pierre Renault)
wrote:
>>When photographed with color, it is obvious to non-experts that
>>something is not right with the water. Unfortunately, full color
>>printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
>>to creatively use black + white to convey a similar message? The
>>"typical" AMD scene will be a stream with (usually) green and/or
>>brown vegetation on each side.
Mark Spatny
>When photographed with color, it is obvious to non-experts that
>something is not right with the water. Unfortunately, full color
>printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
>to creatively use black + white to convey a similar message? The
>"typical" AMD scene will be a stream with (usually) green and/or
>brown vegetation on each side.
This is just my two cents, but what you are trying to do sounds a
whole lot like that news program that got in trouble for using
explosive charges to demonstrate how a particular vehicle was
dangerous.
If you actually go so far as to "touch up" the pictures to make your
point, it could backfire on you if somebody finds out.
em...@my-deja.com
Most discharges within our watershed are either slightly acid or
slightly alkaline; however they dump out a lot of iron and aluminum.
We do have a few sites that dump out a lot of manganese; unfortunately
they are on Airport property - Thus I've never really seen the sites.
I'll check the data that I have on the sites and If the data indicates
that they are good candidates, I'll see if I can arrange access to the
sites. It sounds like the results may be better than using the filters
suggested earlier.
Thanks for your help!
Alex.
In article <38f374ca...@news.penn.com>,
spam_e...@hotmail.com (Edward Frank) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> You need to look at a variety of Mine drainage discharges. There are
> three prominent colors: Orange from Fe(OH)3 [iron] , black from MnO2
> [manganese], and white from various aluminum oxides Al2O3. What is
> precipitated depends on the pH and concetration of the metal in the
> solution. I have seen stream bottoms where side flows into an orange
> stream bottom are black deep black precipitate, then change to white
> precipitate then to orange with fingers of each color as the pH drops.
> While the orange color may be dramatic in color, for b&w look for high
> pH discharges that have the black and white coloration. Call your
> state mine permit office and ask for suggestions of where these types
> of discharges may occur.
>
> Edward Frank
> http://members.xoom.com/ed_frank/
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:55:20 GMT, cheu...@mlink.net (Pierre Renault)
> wrote:
>
> >>When photographed with color, it is obvious to non-experts that
> >>something is not right with the water. Unfortunately, full color
> >>printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
> >>to creatively use black + white to convey a similar message? The
> >>"typical" AMD scene will be a stream with (usually) green and/or
> >>brown vegetation on each side.
>
> http://members.xoom.com/ed_frank/
William Wright
make your point, it could backfire on you if somebody finds out.
Perhaps the original poster of this thread would be best served by
looking at the scene through a No. 90 Viewing Filter. A 3" square gel
costs about $15 nowadays, I think.
Looking through a No.90 will show how bright each of the colors in
the scene will appear in a B&W print (if exposed and developed and
printed 'properly'). Then you can decide how much contrast would be
excessive and 'dishonest'. For example, a red apple and a green leaf
appear almost identical on B&W, so you need to do something to separate
them. It becomes a value judgement about how far to go.
(The No. 90 is for looking through, not for photographing through !!)
Cheers,
Bill
em...@my-deja.com
were to visit an AMD site they would instantly notice that the water is
polluted. For an example of what an AMD site looks like see:
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bamr/amd/science_of_AMD.htm
What I was asking was how to alter the contrast to convey the "something
is wrong with the water" message in B+W. I'm not going to add a "dead
fish" as someone had suggested, but I was considering the use of
filters. I believe that using filters for B+W is an acccepted practice.
To be honest with you, I have never used filters before with B+W; thus I
don't own any filters. I read the Kodak filter book, but I am still
unsure what to do; part of the problem is that I don't know if white
water, grey water or black water would convey the message I want to
convy. I don't want to go out and buy a dozen filters to that I will
probally never use again. I can certanly go get the red+green filters
that were suggested and test them out.
Soneone also suggested that I find an AMD seep that dumps out a lot of
maganese; I will definitely try to check out a few of those sites.
Alex.
In article <38f36c05...@news.earthlink.net>,
vfxpr...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com (Mark Spatny) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:40:27 GMT, em...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >When photographed with color, it is obvious to non-experts that
> >something is not right with the water. Unfortunately, full color
> >printing is expensive. I wondered if anyone had any ideas on how
> >to creatively use black + white to convey a similar message? The
> >"typical" AMD scene will be a stream with (usually) green and/or
> >brown vegetation on each side.
>
> This is just my two cents, but what you are trying to do sounds a
> whole lot like that news program that got in trouble for using
> explosive charges to demonstrate how a particular vehicle was
> dangerous.
>
> If you actually go so far as to "touch up" the pictures to make your
> point, it could backfire on you if somebody finds out.
>
Struan Gray
> What I was asking was how to alter the contrast to
> convey the "something is wrong with the water"
> message in B+W.
If the water is a solid orange colour, no filter is going to
produce the same effect in B+W that you get in colour. Your best bet
would be to look for a place where the colour is uneven - perhaps
where a contaminated stream meets a lake or another uncontaminated
flow. Then you can use an orange filter to brighten the contaminated
water (or green/blue to darken it) and make the contrast between the
two flows more obvious. Rare-earth colour-enhancing filters will also
lighten any saturated colours, particularly reds, compared to greys
and whites but they're not cheap.
Another option is to look for subject contrast instead of tonal
contrast. AMD flows do a nice job of killing any leaves which dip
down into the stream, so look for a branch which goes all bare and
twiggy when it gets close to the water. If you find a suitable
meeting point with clean water, there may also be contrasts between
healthy plants and dead/stunted ones.
Finally, one dramatic way to show the water's iron content is to
precipitate or electrolyse it out. A more reactive metal like zinc
will substitute for the iron in the water and not add significantly to
the pollution. Leaving a galvanised steel plate half-submerged for a
while will lead to one half growing an iron fuzz. If you have copper
contamination from mine tailings runoff, leaving nails and other
iron/steel objects in the water for a few days gives them a nice
shiny coat.
Struan
Eric Hocking
>In color AMD looks horrible; no one has to "doctor" anything. If someone
>were to visit an AMD site they would instantly notice that the water is
>polluted.
>Soneone also suggested that I find an AMD seep that dumps out a lot of
>maganese; I will definitely try to check out a few of those sites.
As someone else noted, be very cautious about too much creativity -
especially if your photo is of a different site to the one you are
commenting on, or you have enhanced the photo. Remember your audience is
not photographers, if they feel you're misrepresenting the truth, it may
backfire on you. Small errors of judgement like this are the simplest, and
sometimes the most powerful, weapon for your opponents to shoot your
position down... and I assure you, if you have opposition to your campaign
they'll go looking for these little chinks in your armour.
I'm not being a party-pooper here, but considering the passion displayed in
discussions on these NGs regarding the "truth" of digitally enchanced
images, getting "caught out" as it were or, may do more damage to your
campaign's credibility than the publicity from a high impact image on your
poster.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" - P.J. O'Rourke.
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
William Wright
it is easy to forget that a photograph can never be 'accurate' because;
(A) no film can come close to capturing the same range of brightnesses
and colors that the human eye+brain 'sees', and (B) just because the
human eye can't see something doesn't mean that it's not there.
Every image -- by camera or human eye or any other method -- is
(and must be) a translation of what's really out there.
Tom
...snip...
>What I was asking was how to alter the contrast to convey the "something
>is wrong with the water" message in B+W. I'm not going to add a "dead
>fish" as someone had suggested, but I was considering the use of
>filters. I believe that using filters for B+W is an acccepted practice.
>
>To be honest with you, I have never used filters before with B+W; thus I
>don't own any filters. I read the Kodak filter book, but I am still
>unsure what to do; part of the problem is that I don't know if white
>water, grey water or black water would convey the message I want to
>convy. I don't want to go out and buy a dozen filters to that I will
>probally never use again. I can certanly go get the red+green filters
>that were suggested and test them out.
...snip...
If you want to simulate the effect of B&W filters without buying a
full set of them, scan a color image into photoshop (or a similar
program) and you can:
1) Separate the image into R, G, and B components (or CMYK) and view
each in component image in B&W.
2) Apply things like levels and curves to simulate filters that are
not pure R, G, B, C, M, or Y. Then convert the resulting highly
colored image into B&W.
While the simulation of a filter in Photoshop is not exactly the same
as putting a real one in front of your lens, you will get a pretty
idea of what can be done and see if you can get the sort of effect you
are looking for.
Good luck,
Tom
Washington, DC
PS - I agree with some of the previous posters that you should be
careful with your manipulations. I wouldn't put out a Photoshop'ed
version to the public, but I think B&W filters are ok, particularly if
you show (side by side) two images with the same filter, one of a
poluted stream, another which is not.
Edward Frank
Somebody wrote:
>especially if your photo is of a different site to the one you are
>commenting on, or you have enhanced the photo. Remember your audience is
>not photographers, if they feel you're misrepresenting the truth, it may
>backfire on you.
I made the comment about photographing another discarge with different
chemical parameters that may be a different color+ black, white, and
orange to give greater contrast to the picture.
Definitely do not represent a photograph taken from a different
watershead as a photo of the watershed in question. For a gneric
pamphlet use the best looking one you can find, but if it is watershed
specific use only photos from that particular watershed. Your
arguments, no matter how valid or logical, or impassioned, will be
disregarded if the oposition can show you cheated with a photo from
somewhere else. I would not use contrast enhancing colored filters
either. Again that will lead to credibility problems.
if you can't find a more distinctive photo site from this watershed,
convince the group to opt for color btrochures. Even if you print
less brochures in color than in black and white, their overall impact
will be much greater. This is the way to go.
Edward Frank
http://members.xoom.com/ed_frank/
Pam Niedermayer
stream. That way, dead branches will look dead, unhealthy
light reflection will look different than healthy, etc.
Pam
Edward Frank wrote:
> ...
> if you can't find a more distinctive photo site from this watershed,
> convince the group to opt for color btrochures. Even if you print
> less brochures in color than in black and white, their overall impact
> will be much greater. This is the way to go.
>
> Edward Frank
> http://members.xoom.com/ed_frank/
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com