It came quite as I wanted it after that push 200->400 together with underexposure. Or is perhaps the boost of contrast too much? I'd be very glad for any comments.
Just always say what you think, Visar! You don't need courage for saying that to me. Go straight and that's it!
What I wanted was some exaggeration of the difference of light and shadow together with coarse grain, but I think too that the underexposure went too far. There is some detail on the mountains themselves but not really "immediately visible". It is too weak under that darkness. So I'll have to try that out again. One thing is sure - it should be exaggerated, for making the silence more crucial, but still it will have to be less dark on the mountains.
The more I think, the more I think I should prepare my bag for a long trek on there!
Thanks a lotfor the nice detailed comment, Gustavo!
Well, that's the sense of a push and underexposure. Grain and darkness. (Grain! Not noise!) A way to produce a dark pointillistic look without the need of PS overkill.
But surely I'll retry this with stronger exposure. I guess I'll also need some stronger push then. Let's see!
Indeed, Ian, the control of noise (or grain in my case) seems to have been sacrified on the alter of some kind of "perfection" that is none, for me at least. The technology is really available for mastering noise and controlling it the way we like, but there seems to be no big market for such things. It's "norming" what they rather sell. As long as you move inside that well normed region you can find almost anything. Go one step further and the problems begin.
With film it is... oh well, really not much better. Actually I only guestimate what the image will look like, based on the usual "getting used to" /lens/fim combination. Most of the time it works for me now, but it is not real control in the strict sense of the word. When I use some other film camera I am again clueless at the start. But with digital at least you see directly what the image looks like on the mini screen, or do I see that too optimistically?
Still I prefer the analog grain, but I don't really know why. It just looks better to me.
the 'American Night' effect is well realised here, though, i think a landscape is not the choice i would choose Nick. maybe because it only outlines mountains, fields, trees etc and leaves much to wish for. you have to pardon my ignorance, if i happen to miss something, but i think it just does not work. and i do not know where am i taking this courage to say that.
All the world may yet crave emulsions, and their dried residues on film and paper, beautifully left here. I'm in the market for a new digital and see no huge improvement on noise control with ccds over my old 6meg pentax (except for the full frame jobs).
0 
