Peter Figen wrote:
\"You have over exposure and under exposure in the same negative and no drum scanner can remedy that.\"
No negative here. As with most transparency film, you expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. The skin here is not over exposed, and at the time of the shot, her hair was jet black, so any detail there would be questionable anyway.
\"A good example is her hair which looks smudged - but its actually under exposed to the point of being pure blacks -- that\'s what happens with 5 stops of DR.\"
The hair isn\'t smudged, but most likely out of focus due to shooting at f/2, which is something that was done, stylistically, and on purpose.
\"And finally that is a very unflattering image of a lady, first of all with a 35mm and that close the distortion is nasty and every pore in her skin shows due to sharpening. \"
If all you\'re out to do is try and tear down an image, then I guess you\'re good at it. You may not understand the type of image I was making, and that\'s okay, but let\'s just say that you\'re the first out of many many who have seen this image to call it unflattering. That\'s okay. It\'s your opinion, but it has nothing at all to do with why it was posted in this thread. In fact, you\'ve help make the point by noticing every pore in her skin. You wouldn\'t have seen that if it hadn\'t had been resolved.
Sharpening? No, this image has had zero sharpening. The detail scan that is. The low res jpeg was sharpened for that size viewing on a screen, but the detail had no sharpening either in the scanner or in post processing. Since I\'m the one who did it all from soup to nuts, I would know. Not seeing the halos you\'re referring to either, but thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Not to forget the halo around edges - once again thanks to sharpening.
Most amateur photographers live in a world of mutual appreciation and complete disconnect from the real world of photography and its harsh reality. Most people who replied to you said that was a great image but I told you otherwise because I don\'t know you and I don\'t wish to lie to you -- I told you what another honest photographer who knows what his talking about will tell you. Don\'t take my word, send this image to a photographer whom you respect and ask for their feedback... Forums are great for gear stuff, and for most amateurs the thrill does not go beyond the gear so its understandable but when you try to use an image as an example of technical superiority of film, at least you should know what technical superiority means in regards to what an image should look.
I did not tear your image, in fact its irrelevant what I said, if you care about your photography what you should be thinking about is how could someone else have such a different opinion of one of your images that you regard very highly --- people actually pay to have their images \'torn\' so they learn but when that critique comes for free, its tearing an image and trolling...
The bottom line today as far as color photography is concerned:
1-The image must have a correct white balance
2-It must look balanced and not too saturated
3-It must be sharp where it matters, not every nook and cranny
4-no blocked shadows and blown highlights
5-detail in the shadows and soft highlights
6-smooth out of focus areas
7-no halos around high contrast edges due to sharpening
And your image fails in all of those seven basic categories.
Aug 06, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Previous versions of altern3's message #10863177 « PLEASE Convince me about film ... »
