Hey, Shel. Here's another very different photo from the same roll for comparison. K1000, M28/3.5. Late afternoon, sunny. http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=25
On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Scott ... > > Well, you asked, so here goes: > > First, it's great to see someone else moving into the darkroom and > exploring the possibilities of B&W photography. Good for you. > > The lack of detail in your wife's hair, the blouse, and the shadow under > her wrist, probably the result of an under exposed negative, really detract > fron any potential this photo may have. Of course, there may have also > been a error in development time or the way you set the scanner. IAC, the > result is quite poor. > > There was probably no need for a yellow filter, although with proper > exposure and development it may have added something to the skin tones > depending on your wife's coloration and the color temp of the light. > > The image doesn't look particularly sharp, but that's nit, in and of > itself, a negative, especially if you wanted that extra bit of softness, > which can be nice in some portraits and pics of this sort. . My concern is > why it looks the way it does, and if it's something you did intentionally? > It's been mentioned many times, in many venues, that scanning a 35mm neg > on a flatbed scanner will generally produce poor results, and, according to > some reviews I've read when looking for a flatbed scanner, the Canon model > you're using has had problems producing well focused scans. > > The obvious grain on the wall seems way too much for contemporary TX, > especially on so small a reproduction. Perhaps you're a little out of > practice with your developing technique - too much or too vigorous > agitation, perhaps, or maybe not paying enough attention to the temp of the > developer, stop, fix, and rinse. > > The contrast of the image seems strong, regardless of the deep black in the > hair and shadows. This could be a result of over development, too high a > development temp (maybe the thermometer is off?) which is, essentially, the > same thing, or to frequent and strong an agitation cycle. > > Perhaps you can take a moment and let us know the time/temp/agitation cycle > that you used. > > Shel > > > [Original Message] > > From: Scott Loveless > > > Here's the new link: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326184 I deleted the > > original before I pulled my head out of my.......... > > > I haven't processed film myself in over 12 years, so I'm really > > starting with no experience. The following photograph is from the > > first roll I've developed. It's a portrait of my wife taken a few > > days ago. K-1000, Super-Takumar 135/3.5 M42 mount, medium yellow > > filter, Tri-X 400, D-76 1:1, scanned, unsharp mask, and removal of > > most of the dust. That's it. Feel free to criticize, critique, or > > laugh (at the photo, please, not my wife). > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com
