2008/7/8 Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It does one good to see traditional B&W every now and again, to give some > benchmark tonalities against which to compare our digital efforts.
I thought the same thing too. > How was the image digitized? Is this a scan from the film, or from a print? > If a print, was it conventional enlargement or "Frontier" (or similar) > printing? This was scanned from the negative with a Epson Perfection 3200 flatbed. > IMO the picture is too elongated, which kills its compositional dynamics. I > realize it's an uncropped frame, with all the altruistic baggage that > attaches, but to my eye the space from a little way below the intersection > of the awning with the left border is superfluous. Crop it there, and a > tiny bit at the top to compensate, and the composition will jump right off > the screen. Since I'm going all purist (ahem...cough-"bullshit*-cough), no cropping.after the fact :-) I do see where you are coming from though. > Nevertheless, I love it. Thanks Anthony. Cheers, Dave >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> David Savage >> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2641821115_4d4244aedb_o.jpg> >> Pentax LX, FA 31mm f1.8, about 1/2 second @ f1.8, Tri-X 400. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
