Re: PESO and enablement

[Cotty]

On 3/5/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I just ordered Powell's copy of 'One Mind's Eye'.  Thanks for the
>head's up and the compliment!

Oh wow - it's a superb book, you will enjoy flipping through that. Look
for the stunning portrait of Harry Truman amongst others. Look at how he
juxtaposes the sitter with their environment. There's also some great
text into how Newman works, and even a contact sheet or two. You will
absolutely love it.

And nice pic, once again!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

I just ordered Powell's copy of 'One Mind's Eye'.  Thanks for the
head's up and the compliment!

On 5/3/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Har, nice one. I'm a big fan of Newman. I've got 2 books - the one by
> Philip Brookman, and 'One Mind's eye'. The last one I would encourage
> anyone interested in portraiture to have as required viewing :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well done Scott.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Cotty]

On 2/5/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:

>On 5/2/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Very Arnold Newman.
>
>Thanks, Cotty!  That's very generous.  I like most of Mr. Newman's
>work and you've caused my ego to expand rapidly.  

Har, nice one. I'm a big fan of Newman. I've got 2 books - the one by
Philip Brookman, and 'One Mind's eye'. The last one I would encourage
anyone interested in portraiture to have as required viewing :-)





well done Scott.





Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: PESO and enablement

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Scott,

It's interesting to note that this pic seems better exposed.  Most of the
frame, but for the top, would translate as mid grey - the grass, the stones
and monuments.  The camera meter would not be influenced as much by large
bright areas, as it may have been in the photo of Christie.  Thanks for
posting this one ;-))

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Scott Loveless 

> 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

Re: PESO and enablement

[williamsp]

Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scott, what color is the wall?
> Boring cookie-cutter off-white.
> 

Shel, please select your prize from the top shelf.





This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PESO and enablement

[williamsp]

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Scott, what color is the wall?
> 

Indeed that wall is suspiciously dark in tone (along with the face).





This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PESO and enablement

[williamsp]

> On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But Frank, it seemed to me that Peter wants to learn how to do B&W
> > correctly

His name is Scott, not Peter.





This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PESO and enablement

[williamsp]

Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> ...I went through my notes and
> discovered that this roll had been exposed at 320ASA.
> So I've underexposed...

Scott you have got that backwards. In rating a nominal 400 ISO film at 320 you
have actually given greater exposure than normal, but only by a small amount
that would be well within the tolerance of Tri-X.

Remember "pushing" film is where you rate it at a higher speed than the makers
do (intentionally under-exposing it), then give extra development to compensate.
This gives higher than normal contrast and poorer shadow detail.

Going the other way "pulling" can be used to control extreme contrast, you
expose for the shadows and curtail development to keep the highlights from
becoming too dense (on the neg).




This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/2/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very Arnold Newman.

Thanks, Cotty!  That's very generous.  I like most of Mr. Newman's
work and you've caused my ego to expand rapidly.  



-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott, what color is the wall?
Boring cookie-cutter off-white.

> 
> Shel
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: William Robb
> 
> > > Thanks, Paul.  Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg.  I
> > > believe it's been over-exposed and over developed.  Shel responded
> > > with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my
> > > response to him.  So stay tuned.
> >
> > Underexposed, and over developed.
> > Anyone who follows the manufacturer's instructions runs into this
> problem,
> > methinks.
> >
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Shel Belinkoff]

I've only read through a few of the posts pertaining to Scott's photo.  My
first thought is that Scott needs to calibrate his system, adjusting his
exposure to the meter reading, and the development time/temp/agitation to
the thermometer reading and the accuracy of the timer used, and so on.  The
rudimentary meter in the K1000 may have been unduly influenced by the
large, bright expanse of the wall, giving an underexposed result to the
entire photo.  That there's no shadow detail on the neg lends some credence
to the theory.  

Scott, what color is the wall?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb 

> > Thanks, Paul.  Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg.  I
> > believe it's been over-exposed and over developed.  Shel responded
> > with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my
> > response to him.  So stay tuned.
>
> Underexposed, and over developed.
> Anyone who follows the manufacturer's instructions runs into this
problem, 
> methinks.
>

Re: PESO and enablement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement


On 5/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Try this
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/stuff/3326184.jpg
Thanks, Bill.  I appreciate the time you've put into this.  I do like
the crop.  But I also like having a little space to the right.  It's a
matter of aesthetics and I haven't quite made up my mind yet on this
one.
I took that crop somewhat farther than I needed to, mostly to make a point.
If you had left any more empty space in that picture, you could have charged 
rent on it.

William Robb 

Re: PESO and enablement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault"
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement


I don't think the lack of shadow detail is the death of it.  In fact,
it makes it a bit different, but I rather like different.
The heavy skin tone combined with the yellow filter doesn't help the 
picture, but if its what you like, thats fine. It's not for me though.
He's got a way to go before the arm blows out, he could raise it a full zone 
and it would still not be blown out.
If the neg hadn't been under exposed, Scott could have been selective about 
the amount of detail in the hair.

William Robb

Re: PESO and enablement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement


Thanks, Paul.  Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg.  I
believe it's been over-exposed and over developed.  Shel responded
with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my
response to him.  So stay tuned.
Underexposed, and over developed.
Anyone who follows the manufacturer's instructions runs into this problem, 
methinks.

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

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

Re: PESO and enablement

[frank theriault]

On 5/2/05, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Thanks, Frank!  I like the way you think!

Well, you shouldn't, because apparently, according to ~some~ list
members, I think wrong.  

(sorry, Shel, couldn't resist - I was being completely tongue-in-cheek )

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO and enablement

[frank theriault]

On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Frank, it seemed to me that Peter wants to learn how to do B&W
> correctly, or perhaps relearn the techniques.  It's probably a good idea to
> learn how to do it right, what was done wrong,  and then INTENTIONALLY get
> different results.

I understand that.  I didn't say, "do this all the time, don't learn
to do it any other way".

I acknowledged that shadow detail would have been nice;  I merely
opined that in its absence, it's none-the-less an interesting photo
for me.

Mind you, other than not focusing properly, and moving the camera, I'm
also somewhat notorious for way too much contrast.  So, you're right.
He shouldn't listen to me.  

cheers,
frank



"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/2/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like others, I would like to see maybe a bit more shadow detail (or,
> to be more accurate, any shadow detail at all ), but you know what?
>  I don't mind it's absence completely.  I think it looks kinda cool.
> Her skin is properly exposed, as is the wall behind her.  It's an
> interesting profile;  I like the framing.
> 
> I don't think the lack of shadow detail is the death of it.  In fact,
> it makes it a bit different, but I rather like different.

Thanks, Frank!  I like the way you think!


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Shel Belinkoff]

But Frank, it seemed to me that Peter wants to learn how to do B&W
correctly, or perhaps relearn the techniques.  It's probably a good idea to
learn how to do it right, what was done wrong,  and then INTENTIONALLY get
different results.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Like others, I would like to see maybe a bit more shadow detail (or,
> to be more accurate, any shadow detail at all ), but you know what?
>  I don't mind it's absence completely.  I think it looks kinda cool. 
> Her skin is properly exposed, as is the wall behind her.  It's an
> interesting profile;  I like the framing.
>
> I don't think the lack of shadow detail is the death of it.  In fact,
> it makes it a bit different, but I rather like different.

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

It's under-exposed and over-developed.  I mis-spoke in my earlier
response to you, Paul.  Sorry.  The negative is thin.  There are bare
spots.

Thanks, Paul.

On 5/2/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there's no detail in the shadows, it's probably underexposed. If it
> was overexposed, you would lose the highlight detail. However, the
> large grain seems to suggest overdevelopment, unless it's an extreme
> crop. Is the negative very thin? Are there large areas of bare acetate,
> such as in the hair? That would indicate underexposure. Black hair on
> an overexposed neg would show considerable detail, but the face and
> wall would have very little detail.
> Paul
> On May 2, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> 
> > On 5/2/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Interesting pose and composition. I like it. However the shadow detail
> >> is all blocked up, and the image is a bit dark overall. It may have
> >> been overdeveloped, but it's hard to say without seeing the neg.
> >> However, if there's detail in the neg, you can bring it back with an
> >> appropriate scan and some ps work.
> > Thanks, Paul.  Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg.  I
> > believe it's been over-exposed and over developed.  Shel responded
> > with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my
> > response to him.  So stay tuned.
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Loveless
> > http://www.twosixteen.com
> >
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Scott ...

Hi.

> 
> 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.

Thanks.  I've been looking forward to it for quite some time now.  I
don't quite have a darkroom, but a daylight tank and a changing bag. 
Hence, the scanner.

> 
> 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.

I had a few rolls of Tri-X which I failed to label.  So I just picked
one and developed it according to the directions on the chemical data
sheets for Tri-X exposed at 400ASA..  I was very careful to make sure
all the chemicals were the same temperature - in this case 69F.  After
seeing the exposures on this roll, I went through my notes and
discovered that this roll had been exposed at 320ASA.  So I've
underexposed and overdeveloped, which, according to several responses
to my photo, could be the cause of my problems.  The scanner is brand
spanking new.  I turned it on and started scanning negs at 1200 dpi. 
I also used the scanner driver's unsharp mask and adjusted the
settings for monochromatic negatives.  I'm sure there is plenty of
room for tweaking, but it's a new toy and I just had to try it out. 
:)

> 
> 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 yellow filter is something relatively new for me, as well.  After
looking through a red filter, I decided that yellow is dark enough for
my tastes.  I almost bought a range finder just so I wouldn't see
yellow all the time.  I'm still experimenting with it.

> 
> 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.

I used a Super-Tak 135/3.5 screw mount lens for this photograph wide
open.  I suppose that could contribute to the lack of sharpness.  I've
read several reports about scanning film on a flatbed.  Most agree
that it's an inferior method of aquiring images from a negative.  I
would like to have a dedicated film scanned, but I need to be able to
scan 120 negs.  Those are a bit too pricey for me right now.  I chose
this one because it's "good enough" and it comes with a 120 carrier. 
I hope to replace it some day with an enlarger.

> 
> 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.

I'm definitely out of practice.  It's been over a decade since I
processed any film.
> 
> 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.

9 minutes 30 seconds in d-76 1:1, 69F, agitation for first 30 seconds,
agitation for 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter.  Agitation was
done by revolving the tank once along the vertical axis and then
inverting it.

> 
> Shel

Thanks, Shel.  I appreciate the comments.
> 

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[frank theriault]

On 5/1/05, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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..

Like others, I would like to see maybe a bit more shadow detail (or,
to be more accurate, any shadow detail at all ), but you know what?
 I don't mind it's absence completely.  I think it looks kinda cool. 
Her skin is properly exposed, as is the wall behind her.  It's an
interesting profile;  I like the framing.

I don't think the lack of shadow detail is the death of it.  In fact,
it makes it a bit different, but I rather like different.

cheers,
frank



-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO and enablement

[Paul Stenquist]

If there's no detail in the shadows, it's probably underexposed. If it 
was overexposed, you would lose the highlight detail. However, the 
large grain seems to suggest overdevelopment, unless it's an extreme 
crop. Is the negative very thin? Are there large areas of bare acetate, 
such as in the hair? That would indicate underexposure. Black hair on 
an overexposed neg would show considerable detail, but the face and 
wall would have very little detail.
Paul
On May 2, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:

On 5/2/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting pose and composition. I like it. However the shadow detail
is all blocked up, and the image is a bit dark overall. It may have
been overdeveloped, but it's hard to say without seeing the neg.
However, if there's detail in the neg, you can bring it back with an
appropriate scan and some ps work.
Thanks, Paul.  Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg.  I
believe it's been over-exposed and over developed.  Shel responded
with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my
response to him.  So stay tuned.
Thanks again!
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/2/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting pose and composition. I like it. However the shadow detail
> is all blocked up, and the image is a bit dark overall. It may have
> been overdeveloped, but it's hard to say without seeing the neg.
> However, if there's detail in the neg, you can bring it back with an
> appropriate scan and some ps work.
Thanks, Paul.  Unfortunately, there is no shadow detail on the neg.  I
believe it's been over-exposed and over developed.  Shel responded
with a lengthy critique and I'll try to address those issues in my
response to him.  So stay tuned.

Thanks again!


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

On 5/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try this
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/stuff/3326184.jpg
> 
 
Thanks, Bill.  I appreciate the time you've put into this.  I do like
the crop.  But I also like having a little space to the right.  It's a
matter of aesthetics and I haven't quite made up my mind yet on this
one.

On 5/2/05, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Scott and William
> I like the portrait and would leave it uncropped as it is.

Thank you and see above.

> I would correct the specks better and use some kind of noise filter for the
> grey parts.

I'll try that.  I'm digital imaging illiterate, so I've got a bit of a
learning curve ahead of me.  But thank you for the suggestion.


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Shel Belinkoff]

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).

RE: PESO and enablement

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Scott and William
I like the portrait and would leave it uncropped as it is.
I would correct the specks better and use some kind of noise filter for the
grey parts.
I do not like the cropped version of William, it destroys the free look to
the right imho.

thanks for showing it
greetings
Markus


>>-Original Message-
>>From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:42 AM
>>To: Pentax Discuss
>>Subject: Re: PESO and enablement
>>
>>
>>Try this
>>http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/stuff/3326184.jpg
>>
>>
>>William Robb
>>
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Scott Loveless"
>>> Subject: Re: PESO and enablement
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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..
>>>
>>> H.
>>> Thats not really an improvement, is it...
>>> So much for my critique.
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: PESO and enablement

[Paul Stenquist]

Interesting pose and composition. I like it. However the shadow detail 
is all blocked up, and the image is a bit dark overall. It may have 
been overdeveloped, but it's hard to say without seeing the neg. 
However, if there's detail in the neg, you can bring it back with an 
appropriate scan and some ps work.
Paul
On May 1, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:

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..
On 5/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: PESO and enablement
Can you see any detail in the hair in the negative?
No.  There is no detail that I can see on the negative.
It looks like it is printed dark for the filter used, which should be 
used
to lighten skin tones in this sort of thing.
Other than that, I'd like either a bit of space behind her head, or 
else the
crop tightened up on the left so no background shows between shoulder 
and
hair.
Agreed.  The original was not cropped, so there is no space.  So I
cropped the left.  I also took a little off the top and bottom and
cleaned up a few more dust specks.
For the most part, I don't really see the need for a subject to be 
looking
at the camera with either mock joy or angst when sitting for a 
portrait.
I like your choice of subject position.
Honestly, she was working on a photo album and raised her head to look
out the window.  I didn't ask her to pose for me.  I'm horrible at
directing people, so I just wait until I see something that looks good
to me.
William Robb
Thanks for the comments!

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).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065


--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[Cotty]

On 1/5/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:

>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..

Very Arnold Newman.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: PESO and enablement

[mike wilson]

Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy, gang!  I finally aquired the necessary tools to process my own
film.  I also bought a Canon 8400F scanner - mostly, because it comes
with carriers for 35mm slide and print film, and for 120 film. 
Basically, I've the means to process, proof and print my own
photographs.  It is, obviously, a hybrid process, so I guess I'm
"tradigital".
That probably means that your output will be a "tradigity".  8-)
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).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065
Deleted picture, according to Photonet.

Re: PESO and enablement

[William Robb]

Try this
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/stuff/3326184.jpg
William Robb

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless" 
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement


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..
H.
Thats not really an improvement, is it...
So much for my critique.

Re: PESO and enablement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless" 
Subject: Re: PESO and enablement


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..
H.
Thats not really an improvement, is it...
So much for my critique.
William Robb

Re: PESO and enablement

[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..

On 5/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Scott Loveless"
> Subject: PESO and enablement
> 
> Can you see any detail in the hair in the negative?  
No.  There is no detail that I can see on the negative.

> It looks like it is printed dark for the filter used, which should be used
> to lighten skin tones in this sort of thing.
> Other than that, I'd like either a bit of space behind her head, or else the
> crop tightened up on the left so no background shows between shoulder and
> hair.

Agreed.  The original was not cropped, so there is no space.  So I
cropped the left.  I also took a little off the top and bottom and
cleaned up a few more dust specks.
> For the most part, I don't really see the need for a subject to be looking
> at the camera with either mock joy or angst when sitting for a portrait.
> I like your choice of subject position.
Honestly, she was working on a photo album and raised her head to look
out the window.  I didn't ask her to pose for me.  I'm horrible at
directing people, so I just wait until I see something that looks good
to me.
> 
> William Robb
Thanks for the comments!
> 
> 
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO and enablement

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: PESO and enablement

Can you see any detail in the hair in the negative?
It looks like it is printed dark for the filter used, which should be used 
to lighten skin tones in this sort of thing.
Other than that, I'd like either a bit of space behind her head, or else the 
crop tightened up on the left so no background shows between shoulder and 
hair.
For the most part, I don't really see the need for a subject to be looking 
at the camera with either mock joy or angst when sitting for a portrait.
I like your choice of subject position.

William Robb


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).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065

PESO and enablement

[Scott Loveless]

Howdy, gang!  I finally aquired the necessary tools to process my own
film.  I also bought a Canon 8400F scanner - mostly, because it comes
with carriers for 35mm slide and print film, and for 120 film. 
Basically, I've the means to process, proof and print my own
photographs.  It is, obviously, a hybrid process, so I guess I'm
"tradigital".

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).

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3326065

Thanks!

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com