contrary

[mysteryscribe]

to urban myth and legend studio photographers twenty years ago did go out on location for a portrait occasionally. The difference was a studio photographer had the option.

 

[skieur]

It seems over-exposed and slightly soft focus or perhaps the shot did not age well.

skieur

 

[mysteryscribe]

I had to soften it to get rid of the huge grain. But it might have been a little soft I went through a soft focus period for women and girls. My hollywood wannabe days.

over exposed, Frankly I would prefer you took a minute and fixed it rather than tell me, since I need to see it in order to agree. Besides others can see the two images and maybe avoid doing the same thing.

 

[skieur]

I had to soften it to get rid of the huge grain. But it might have been a little soft I went through a soft focus period for women and girls. My hollywood wannabe days.

over exposed, Frankly I would prefer you took a minute and fixed it rather than tell me, since I need to see it in order to agree. Besides others can see the two images and maybe avoid doing the same thing.

As requested:

A little on the rough and ready fast side, but hopefully you get the idea.

skieur

 

[mysteryscribe]

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I would make the same change I think it is a good alternative and probably technically better. Just not sure it is what I would do myself. It is much easier to see it than to just talk about it though.

Wonder what the others thing. This is a good chance for ME to learn something. If the people here can put on their customer hats and not their photographer hats, lets see what they think. I'm sure you will win hands down but lets see. I'm dead curious now.

Especially the ladies, if these were your only two choices which way would you want it to look.

Ps... I wouldn't pay for either is not an option....lol

 

[Alex_B]

the first one looks more natural to me in a way

as for the softness... well you lose some sharpness in scanning ... and then if you want to get rid of the grain, things easily get worse.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I noticed the grain thing but I think I have been scanning wrong. I believe it would be better to scan for the size I need rather than a higher resolution. The grain seems to get worse as I raise the resolution which is the case with prints from a neg as well.

I think 3000x2000 pix is more than enough. I might even go down some to about 2000x1500 since 8x10 is as large as I plan to go with anything from an 35mm negative.

 

[The_Traveler]

Did you start from a 4x6 print?
In any case, I don't think it's going to be a good judge of lower sat to work on a teeny image like that.

Scan it as high res as your scanner will work well and then post a 800 x 800 block of that.
Maybe a slide that includes the face and some green.

 

[mysteryscribe]

WEll I scanned the negative and it scan way more than 800 pix I cut it down for this... I have packed the negative away it was just to test the scanner so I guess it doesn't matter the girl is probably thirty by now.