Why the bad scans? Shouldn't have to make excuses for your work. Interesting shot BTW. Would like to see a good scan. Are you scanning from the negs or a print? What res?
1. My not liking it is just personal preference. It looks like you pulled off what you wanted to and had good control of lighting. I just like a straight ahead more traditinal portrait. Also, kudos to you my fellow film shooter.
2. From what I've learned, scanning is an art unto itself and you'll find many people who treat it as a VERY important part of their workflow. I think you (and everyone, myself included) should take it more seriously. With us film guys, the developed print or the digitized image are what people see and judge us by. If my developed print does not represent what I initially visualized when I made the exposure, I failed. Same with the scan in my opinion.
Thanks for the continuation. I understand your second point. The reason I have not put any thought behind it is because this was a university project, and I just wanted a few of my prints in digital form to show some buddies. I thought someone on FM may enjoy it, as well. I definitely hear you about having your digital copy matching your print copy exactly. It's just that I dont plan on doing anything with my scans other than showing a few people that do not live in my immediate viscinity.
pawlowski is right: scanning is a critical part of your workflow, and if you intend to share your work over the internet, it would behoove you to practice (he is also right in noting that scanning is an art; its a skill that depends on practice). Remember, your work is what represents yourself as an artist, and you should want that representation to be as good as possible.
You said this is for a school project - does your school not have any decent scanners? If you only need to scan your images in order to share over the internet, by no means do you need a top of the line scanner. In any event, you might be surprised what a cheap scanner can do. You just need to be prepared to spend a little time controlling the process so that you can get the scan that your image deserves.
Regardless of the above, I'm afraid to say I don't see how a better scan would help your image too much as it stands. Sure, its grainy, but anyone familiar with film (and scanning it) will be wise to expect said grain. You've got a very well defined egg on your face - I wish that I could see into your eyes to garner a sense of character to go along with the very moody lighting. Your body is extremely blurry, and so I believe some increased DOF to include all of yourself in the shot would be beneficial. Perhaps someone more adept at portraiture could provide better insights, but I couldn't help but throw my 2 cents in, as I like to chime in as much as possible when people are shooting film. Best of luck.
Ive already addressed the scanning issue. So, if you dont mind, I will just respond to your last paragraph. The downfalls of the image, in your eyes, were intentional. I was going for exactly that. I wanted to show the texture in my cheeks and the direction of my hair loss. These are two things that define where I am in my life. I wont go any further into the meaning of the shot, but I was told self portraits were supposed to mean something. The fact that my entire face isnt visible is important to the shot. I am young, and I have yet to come into my own.
