Uglyness

[Battou]

Corrected image

Previous image
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/battousaiofnphiles/Photos/uglyness800.jpg

Lol Ugly Sticks.

 

[Battou]

poorly named huh?

 

[Battou]

I know it's a boring picture, but some one could atleast say something, I burned up more than a full rolls worth of frames to get the lighting and DOF right.

 

[Jamiebear]

Its too blurry and grainy...sorry, not a good pic at all in my opinion

 

[Battou]

Its too blurry and grainy...sorry, not a good pic at all in my opinion

Thank you, The blurieness I can fix to an extent but the grain however I can't really do any thing about at this juncture.

 

[The Phototron]

It's not too blurry, because the focus is on the sticks.

With a picture like this, a frame is crucial.

 

[LaFoto]

So what kind of sticks are they? Are they knitting needles? I can see the dust on the second one, so there is some sharp focus there, no doubt!

So who does the scanning for you and what do you scan?
The negatives or the prints?

Unless you have access to an excellent negative scanner (so I come to think), you cannot produce the self-same short of sharpness and clarity in analogue-later-digitalised pics than you get out of digital photos, so scanned prints will ALWAYS have this amount of "blurriness" and "grain" (which may be the paper structure of the print, too) that you cannot really avoid. (Only cigrainger had a set of analog photos of late that showed up BRILLIANTLY here, I wonder how he got his digitalised!?!?!)

 

[Battou]

It's not too blurry, because the focus is on the sticks.

With a picture like this, a frame is crucial.

There is still some blur to the fishing poles that I will be fixing as soon as I get home from work tonight, It occured during PP and I realize it untill tonight.

So what kind of sticks are they? Are they knitting needles? I can see the dust on the second one, so there is some sharp focus there, no doubt!

So who does the scanning for you and what do you scan?
The negatives or the prints?

Unless you have access to an excellent negative scanner (so I come to think), you cannot produce the self-same short of sharpness and clarity in analogue-later-digitalised pics than you get out of digital photos, so scanned prints will ALWAYS have this amount of "blurriness" and "grain" (which may be the paper structure of the print, too) that you cannot really avoid. (Only cigrainger had a set of analog photos of late that showed up BRILLIANTLY here, I wonder how he got his digitalised!?!?!)

They are name brand fishing poles, Good rods in my oppinion

I currently scan my prints with an HP all in one printer, scanner, copier dealie. for a wile I was doing pp on multiple programs causing problems beyond that of just scanning prints. I am looking for a neg scanner to add to my equipment list but untill I can find one suited to my needs I will have to work with what I have. Now that I have found the majority of the problem I can start showing far clearer images than I have been, though not quite up to par with digital.

 

[Sideburns]

it might have worked better if they weren't dusty...but I don't like the picture...sorry.

You did get the DOF right at least...

 

[Battou]

it might have worked better if they weren't dusty...but I don't like the picture...sorry.

You did get the DOF right at least...

Thank you, that means a lot to me. DOF is tough to figure out even when you understand it in theroy. Theroy and practice are two completely diffrent things.

You are right about the dust, It accumulated during the many attempts to take the shot, when and if there is a next time I will make sertain to wipe the object down before each shoot.