In Her Eyes


TPF Noob!
Jun 4, 2003
Reaction score
ok- i am so glad some of you are posting pictures of people!! I LOVE PEOPLE! well, in photos that is. especially if they are children- their emotion seems to be much closer to the surface. Anyway, this is one of my favorite pictures of my youngest (again) (( tell me when you get bored of her))

critical advice is welcome- i'm trying to improve and would like for people to play hardball when they comment, if they feel so moved.
I really liked this picture. The composition of the face was done pretty well. I was just wondering, the picture supposed to be grainy like? Can you post the same picture without that pixelation sort of look? Thanks!
I love the expression and the way you have framed it but I also think the grain does not suit the subject. I think young skin should be much finer. Thats 2 criticisms I've made in a row *must be having a bad day*
yes, i totally agree: the grain sucks. one of my goals is to create much crisper photos. this is probably so grainy because it is 1) shot indoors with asa 200, and 2) enlarged significantly from the original and maybe even 3) scanned from a 4x5 print
my thoughts to reduce grain: 1) slower film, more light 2) buy a $500 negative scanner and create photos directly from negs
anyone have any further suggestions/thoughts?
thanks for the feedback
You don't need to spend $500 to get a good negative scanner

The Minolta dualscan III is $300 and superb.
voodocat- can i assume you have one? can you tell me about it? i've been dying to make the investment, but i know nothing about them. is there a significant difference when you scan and enlarge directly from the negative? common sense says the difference should be huge, but i'm not sure to what extent the technology either stands in the way or facilitates getting a good, crisp enlargement...
I personally have an HP Photosmart slide/negative scanner and I have had MUCH better results with it than a flatbed scanner.

One of the biggest advantages is that you are getting the raw information from the slide or negative without having to deal with whatever "corrections" may have already been made on a print. I am also able to make larger scans at a higher quality.

So, I'll just leave it with the fact that I absolutely love my slide and negative scanner. :D
chaseman- what's the price range on that type of scanner? why do you prefer that particular model- are there any disadvantages to it? conversely, any glaring advantages over the model voodoocat suggested?
(yes, i am shamelessly picking both your brains- tell me if i'm a nuisance)
The Minolta scanner is a dedicated slide/negative scanner. The optical resolution is 2800dpi which will allow you to print up to 8x10 and slightly larger.

I don't actually have the scanner but the opinion is very high due to the price/quality.
The model I have is getting pretty old at this point, probably 3-4 years old, but it still running great. At the time, it was the only one anywhere near my price range and the quality was great.

That being said...I'm not even sure if they are still available.

For reference, it is 2400 pixels per inch and 36 bit color
hmmm. thanks guys. i'll have to do some more research and make that investment- sounds like it will be much less than i had thought. i appreciate the input.
A word of warning - the cheapest film scanners, made by Microtek but badged Primefilm in the US, are soon outgrown.
The hardware resolution, 1800 dpi, is too low for anything other than web use and small prints.
The interface, USB, is slow.
The DMax, which represents the density range that the scanner can handle, is also too low.

For reference, the El-Cheapo "Primefilm" scanner delivers a file size from a slide of just over 3Mb which will still give a decent 8x10 print but like everything else it all depends on your intended use.
The Minolta Dualscan III mentioned by Voodoocat seems to be a great unit with 2800 dpi which will deliver a file of over 10Mb, good enough for just about anything. Also it's interface is USB 2.0, considerably faster than USB 1.0 but personally, and for most peoples purposes, even USB 1.0 is plenty fast enough.
The Minolta Dualscan II is still available and I noticed it was selling at $189.99.
The main differences I can see is that the Minolta II is USB 1.0 and has a 12bit A/D converter and the Minolta III is USB 2.0 and the A/D is 16bit so I'd expect somewhat better resolution with the Minolta III, whether it would be noticeable is another matter.

Most reactions

New Topics