Winter of Life again
by GIULIO57
For MikeInDevon. I have scanned print using same scanner as previous upload. A bit less grainy than scanned film. Print is ILFORD Multigrade IV RC managed with sepia chemicals.
PS A dull flat result, IMHO.
PS A dull flat result, IMHO.
Uploaded06/11/2024 - 15:13
CategoryTraditional darkroom
BodyN/A
Shutter SpeedN/A
ApertureN/A
LensN/A
ISON/A
Focal LengthN/A
Views/Likes73/11
TagsN/A
Posted 06/11/2024 - 17:24
Link
This speaks to me.
Posted 06/11/2024 - 19:12
Link
MikeInDevon wrote:
Hi Guilo, well htere's really quite a difference between the two versions!
I downloaded both versions as 'Full Size' and can just flip between the two in my image viewer.
For myself I much prefer this version, the contrast is much more subtle and the grain is beautifully smooth. By comparison the version from the film (negative) scan is much more contrasty and there seems to be edge arctifacts at sharp contrast changes (e.g. around the man and his dog, the tree, the bench etc.) that looks like some sort of HDR effect which I find unnatural. Also with the dramatic contrast level the grain has become very spikey.
Best regards
Mike
Hi Guilo, well htere's really quite a difference between the two versions!
I downloaded both versions as 'Full Size' and can just flip between the two in my image viewer.
For myself I much prefer this version, the contrast is much more subtle and the grain is beautifully smooth. By comparison the version from the film (negative) scan is much more contrasty and there seems to be edge arctifacts at sharp contrast changes (e.g. around the man and his dog, the tree, the bench etc.) that looks like some sort of HDR effect which I find unnatural. Also with the dramatic contrast level the grain has become very spikey.
Best regards
Mike
Hi Mike. Thank for time you spent on my pics. I agree with you about this version. Previous one brings me back to 70s when grainy was a plus.
Posted 06/11/2024 - 20:12
Link
I prefer the truth of the original , grain and all, that comes with it.
Posted 06/11/2024 - 22:53
Link
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
Posted 07/11/2024 - 05:11
Link
Flan wrote:
I prefer the truth of the original , grain and all, that comes with it.
I prefer the truth of the original , grain and all, that comes with it.
Thank you very much. Traditional BW drives me to grainy and truth of original film.
My eyes appreciate grains and the style of 70s.
Honestly I am not able to choose. Brain and digital drive me to this version. Heart drives me to previous one.....but this (traditional ) has a special feeling to me.
Posted 07/11/2024 - 05:14
Link
davidwozhere wrote:
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
davidwozhere wrote:
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
davidwozhere wrote:
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
I would be tempted (with this particular shot) to go across the join of land and sky with a healing brush to obliterate the join altogether. This would concentrate the attention purely on the various objects, thus making the scene as 'minimal' as possible. .... Cheating, I know but artistic license has its place.
Right words. Artistic side First of all. Thank you for comment.
Posted 11/11/2024 - 15:17
Link
I know it's all down to personal taste but I think I prefer this version! All the principal features stand out, as they should, with the secondary features receding gently into the background. Good work Giulio!
Paul.
Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried! (Bill Brandt)
PPG
Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried! (Bill Brandt)
PPG
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
379 posts
9 years
Devon
I downloaded both versions as 'Full Size' and can just flip between the two in my image viewer.
For myself I much prefer this version, the contrast is much more subtle and the grain is beautifully smooth. By comparison the version from the film (negative) scan is much more contrasty and there seems to be edge arctifacts at sharp contrast changes (e.g. around the man and his dog, the tree, the bench etc.) that looks like some sort of HDR effect which I find unnatural. Also with the dramatic contrast level the grain has become very spikey.
Best regards
Mike