Some of my b&w after a little editing.

[naptime]

thought i would share some of these.

these were shot in b&w film. didn't have an understanding of metering at the time, and had some issues scanning the negatives.

but after some editing, my park hotel photo had some nice reviews. and personally, after seeing these, i'm much happier than i was with the original result.



Cherry Street Bridge by jaythomson, on Flickr


River Front by jaythomson, on Flickr


Asia on the River Front by jaythomson, on Flickr

 

[KenC]

First thing that struck me was the banding in all of the shots - vertical lines in this orientation, most pronounced in the second one, probably because it is higher contrast than the others. Could this be a scanner artifact? If you guys are going to shoot a lot of film it might be better to get a dedicated film scanner.

Otherwise, a few comments. The last one should have been a vertical. The legs and the chain are cut off, and the left hand and top of the head nearly so. Meanwhile, there is nothing interesting happening in the right half of the frame. The washed out area around the sun also is not that attractive. The first two are OK, but not really that interesting as compositions. The vignette also is a little overdone and doesn't really improve the images (true of the last one as well). The branches in the top half of the first encroach too much on the bridge.

 

[Derrel]

Naptime, you are like that monkey writing the novel on the typewriter, dude!!! You didn't read the manual, you don't know how to use a light meter,you barely have a clue as to how to develop film, your scanner's not even set up to scan transparent materials so you MacGuyvered both negative holders, AND you managed to CREATE A TOP-SIDE illumination source using typing paper and sheets of glass!!, and after less than a week you're out there, making images!!!

Pretty damned impressive display of "Git 'er done!". [I'm being serious here. Your entire attitude impresses the hell out of me. Your kids ought to be proud of their old man!]

The bridge shot actually looks "okay". The scanner artifacts are, after just a few seconds, really not that bothersome. It's like of like that human perception phenomenon where one can arrgane the lrettes in any gorup of wrdos and mkae preeftct snese as lnog as the frist and lsat lrettes are in the rghit pclaes...after a while, the scanner artifact lines become almost like a Holga-esque, artsy-fartsy kind of thing!

 

[naptime]

First thing that struck me was the banding in all of the shots - vertical lines in this orientation, most pronounced in the second one, probably because it is higher contrast than the others. Could this be a scanner artifact? If you guys are going to shoot a lot of film it might be better to get a dedicated film scanner.

Otherwise, a few comments. The last one should have been a vertical. The legs and the chain are cut off, and the left hand and top of the head nearly so. Meanwhile, there is nothing interesting happening in the right half of the frame. The washed out area around the sun also is not that attractive. The first two are OK, but not really that interesting as compositions. The vignette also is a little overdone and doesn't really improve the images (true of the last one as well). The branches in the top half of the first encroach too much on the bridge.

yes, we have determined that the banding came from the scanner. it's just an hp all in one scanner that i rigged to scan our film since we discovered it couldn't be done elsewhere reasonably. this was our second day shooting, and our first day with black and white. we certainly have a long way to go. and i appreciate your comments.

also, we are looking into purchasing a film scanner, as soon as the budget allows.

in the last photo, it's actually much larger, her complete legs were visible and there was more to the left and right. i cropped it down because of to the right there was a pier tower, and i felt it drew attention from the kiddo. maybe i went overboard with the crop? i post the original uncropped. and let you decide.

the washed out area... uuuggghhh.. yeah, i had a complete ignorance of metering when we went out. but i had a sunny16 chart. so we were a little off. my editing enhanced the wash out. intentionally. i just thought it looked older. same with the overdone vignetting. again, just was rying to make the most of my crap and at least make them look like old crap

thanks for the tips

 

[naptime]

Naptime, you are like that monkey writing the novel on the typewriter, dude!!! You didn't read the manual, you don't know how to use a light meter,you barely have a clue as to how to develop film, your scanner's not even set up to scan transparent materials so you MacGuyvered both negative holders, AND you managed to CREATE A TOP-SIDE illumination source using typing paper and sheets of glass!!, and after less than a week you're out there, making images!!!

Pretty damned impressive display of "Git 'er done!". [I'm being serious here. Your entire attitude impresses the hell out of me. Your kids ought to be proud of their old man!]

The bridge shot actually looks "okay". The scanner artifacts are, after just a few seconds, really not that bothersome. It's like of like that human perception phenomenon where one can arrgane the lrettes in any gorup of wrdos and mkae preeftct snese as lnog as the frist and lsat lrettes are in the rghit pclaes...after a while, the scanner artifact lines become almost like a Holga-esque, artsy-fartsy kind of thing!

thanks. funny you say the lines holga-esque... in an effort to salvage the images and give me something i could live with, i used the holga-ish effect in picasa, that's where the vignetting came from.


and thanks for the compliments.

i try hard to remember myself, and to teach my kid, that when you don't know how to do something, you seek answers from those that do. and if you are gonna do something, give it your everything.

my eye might not be where my daughters is yet. but she can vouch that i live and breath photo articles, how-to's, tutorials, etc... it's the OCD.

and i never get upset when someone with more experience tells me what is wrong with something i have done. i learn from it, and do better next time. or at the very least i attempt to do better.

 

[PhotoTish]

I really like the Cherry Street Bridge. I think it is great that you and your daughter are learning photography together - you make a good team :thumbup:

 

[loopy]

Naptime, you are like that monkey writing the novel on the typewriter, dude!!! You didn't read the manual, you don't know how to use a light meter,you barely have a clue as to how to develop film, your scanner's not even set up to scan transparent materials so you MacGuyvered both negative holders, AND you managed to CREATE A TOP-SIDE illumination source using typing paper and sheets of glass!!, and after less than a week you're out there, making images!!!

Pretty damned impressive display of "Git 'er done!". [I'm being serious here. Your entire attitude impresses the hell out of me. Your kids ought to be proud of their old man!]

The bridge shot actually looks "okay". The scanner artifacts are, after just a few seconds, really not that bothersome. It's like of like that human perception phenomenon where one can arrgane the lrettes in any gorup of wrdos and mkae preeftct snese as lnog as the frist and lsat lrettes are in the rghit pclaes...after a while, the scanner artifact lines become almost like a Holga-esque, artsy-fartsy kind of thing!

I totally agree, I've read some of your threads and not only are you supporting your daughters emerging passion but you are getting involved and I think that's awesome.

 

[unpopular]

I wonder ... what would happen if you insist they try to scan your b/w negatives - or even lie and say that they are a special type of C41?

 

[naptime]

I wonder ... what would happen if you insist they try to scan your b/w negatives - or even lie and say that they are a special type of C41?

it wont pull it in or something.

one lady at rite aid was nice enough to try on new years eve.

she spent 15 minutes trying to get the machine to "take" the film. whatever that means. eventually she gave up, apologized and returned the film.


we'll get a film scanner in a few weeks.

i've got a few more things to try on this current scanner with some back illumination.

will be interesting to see how much more information i can get from the negs.

 

[unpopular]

any idea what film scanner?