Your first ever photo and present day

[EIngerson]

Then
IMG_0820 by Ingerson"PCD", on Flickr
Now.

MX 3 by Ingerson"PCD", on Flickr

 

[shents]

Then

MX 1 by Ingerson"PCD", on Flickr

Wow Thanks

 

[Tuffythepug]

This post has caused me to really think about whether I've gotten better in the 40 years I've been at it. I think the answer is yes, which should be encouraging to anyone starting out,. I'll post pictures that were made approx 40 years ago vs. pictures of similar type taken this year. I think I've improved don't you ? The first one is a picture of my oldest daughter then (1972) and now

 

[shents]

I love past and present I know I have no technical knowledge but artistically I love them spesh your daughter, I am a sucker for vintage photography , thank you

 

[mishele]

First post....

Last flower post....

 

[shents]

First post....

Last flower post....

Thanks mishele

The second pic I love, very Monet esk , thank you for sharing

 

[snowbear123 55]

OK. I found a few snapshots. These were taken about 1978 or 1979 - middle of a bright, sunny day in an open courtyard. Kodak Tri-X, Minolta SRT201 and a 50mm, maybe a Vivitar 200mm for the "closeups." Printed on Kodak paper, though I have no idea which one. These seem to have a slight greenish tint, I guess from the scanner software; the originals do not have it.


cmw3_srt201_windfall1 by cmwrenn3, on Flickr


cmw3_srt201_windfall4 by cmwrenn3, on Flickr


cmw3_srt201_windfall5 by cmwrenn3, on Flickr

 

[KenC]

Some of you apparently have better storage systems than I do. I actually still have negatives from about 35 years ago when I first bought an SLR, but they're in a box somewhere and I haven't seen them in quite a while. The oldest I can come up with is this one, which I took in about 1990-91 on TMax 400 and scanned in 1997 when I had just bought a scanner and was just learning. I still have a darkroom print of this that looks better than the scanned processed image.

 

[invisible]

I still have a darkroom print of this that looks better than the scanned processed image.

If this is the scanned processed image, it's nothing to sneeze at. In fact, I think it's great.

 

[shents]

If this is the scanned processed image, it's nothing to sneeze at. In fact, I think it's great.

Me too thanks everyone that is taking part in this thread

 

[KenC]

If this is the scanned processed image, it's nothing to sneeze at. In fact, I think it's great.

Thanks!

The scan was too light and too low in contrast. Either I hadn't learned to use curves in the scanner software, or its capability was very limited at that time; I just don't remember. At any rate, as a consequence I had to do a lot of manipulation in curves in PS to get it where I wanted it, and ended up with a sort of "comb" histogram where there are gaps and some of the transitions are a little abrupt. The print had better tonal rendition and highlight detail.

I still have a film scanner that I bought in 2004 and used for a few years, but don't know if I can get a driver for it, and then of course I'd have to find the negative :lmao: - there's just something about having moved four times in about seven years that's not conducive to finding old stuff easily.

 

[henryalg01]

Last flower post....

tell me how to do this lol

 

[mishele]

^^^Tell me why I should.

 

[AgentDrex]

Because good deeds bring good karma???

 

[mishele]

Because good deeds bring good karma???

F that...lol