Did I pull it off?

[Ysarex]

Over the past 30 years I've amassed a sizable collection of negatives that defy the successful creation of a darkroom print. On lazy (rainy) weekends I have repeatedly (decade or more) tried and mostly failed to scan one or the other of the bleepin' things and squeeze an successful photo out through Photoshop. So right now I'm pretty crossed eyed and have lost all sense of perspective, but I think I've gotten pretty close this time with one them. I could use some objective eyes.

Joe

 

[Josh66]

What was the question again?

I don't normally like landscapes, but I quite like this - so count that as a "yes" vote.

 

[squirrels]

I can only give you my inexpert opinion, but I'm kind of in love with this one.:thumbup: All of the texturey goodness.

 

[S.Pierce]

I think it would look nicer if you add a little more highlights to the clouds, BUT I still enjoy the photo as is.

 

[Ysarex]

I can only give you my inexpert opinion, but I'm kind of in love with this one.:thumbup: All of the texturey goodness.

Thanks, glad you like it.

What was the question again?

I don't normally like landscapes, but I quite like this - so count that as a "yes" vote.

I appreciate it -- especially since you don't like landscapes.

Joe

 

[amolitor]

It looks technically sound, neither the highlights nor the shadows appear to be gone.

The white material (rushing water?) in the lower left corner strikes me as a serious detriment to the picture, for a couple of reasons.

The mountain peak, which is the natural dominant visual element appears to me to be a little lost against the clouds, and is itself visually dominated by several other lesser elements of the frame. I feel like the heirarchy is not where it should be. The clouds upper right dominate, and then the peak competes about equally with the boulders in the river, and then we are led out of the frame and abandoned by the rushing water lower left.

It's still basically a pretty good picture. It's an attractive scene, and the overal layout of masses is quite pleasing and balanced.

 

[Ysarex]

I think it would look nicer if you add a little more highlights to the clouds, BUT I still enjoy the photo as is.

Yep, that's exactly it. I was losing perspective last night and this morning it's much more obvious. I don't have enough contrast in the sky. I'm not sure I can get it. I tried to improve what I had this morning and managed to produce this:

I'm not sure it's in the film. I exposed the original piece of film to record shadow detail in the foreground. I never could print it and successfully burn in the sky. Even a 16 bit single pass scan that retains detail in the face of that big rock in the foreground leaves me with a blank burned out sky. A scan that keeps any amount of cloud detail returns that rock as a solid black void. So this is a composite of three separate scans masked together. I scanned that bleepin rock by itself and inserted it into the composite of the sky scan and foreground scan. Maybe I'll go back and try for the sky yet again but I'm not sure it's really in the film.

Thanks,

Joe

 

[runnah]

Boy, St Louis looks nothing like I remember.

 

[nycphotography]

Can you do a series of scans at different brightnesses and then HDR (or manually composite in layers)?

That way you could get the sky punchy and moody with ALL the cloud details, and still bring up ALL the details lost in the black rock faces too.

 

[amolitor]

I am baffled at the nature of a scanner that is incapable of pulling everything off the film in one shot.