D, but it still looks flat. Needs something
Dave
> Anyone that knows b&w and have some spare
time to help me...
>
> I'm playing around here with some old scans that I have from a trip to
> Thailand, and found this photo that I like but didn't quite get good
> exposure (bright light in the back, no flash to fill-in, yadda, yadda,
> yadda...). Basically the background is somehow overexposed and the subject
> is underexposed. Anyway, while I wait to send some day the rest of my stuff
> to Canada, I thought about playing around with this bad print scans, hoping
> to apply the same process to a better future negative scan.
>
> So here I am, decided to try a b&w version to hide some defects of the photo
> and end up with 4 versions. I kinda have my personal choice but would like
> to listen some input from a more knowledgeable audience.
>
> Here's the link:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/72057594064899026/
>
> you'll find 4 b&w version, plus an attempt to restore some color (best I
> could do, with diff. layers for highlight and shadows, but don't like it
> anyway) and the original(just for demonstration purposes).
>
> Your vote? A, B, C or D?
>
> Thanks
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new
> MSN Search! Check it out!
>
