Attn Ricochet

You said you'd like to see the original scan ("Morning Ferry"). Well, here you are. Didn't know if you were following that thread or not so I decided to start this related new one. Anyway, there're actually three scans. Here they are, unedited except for resizing to post.

The -1 is actually from a 4x6 print and dates from before I had my own scanner. Some people had set up a local store front work station and charged x number of dollars to use their equipment. The scanner they had was a flat bed and the print was scanned at 150dpi

My first scanner was an HP PhotoSmart that I got (if I remember correctly) some time in late 1997 or early 1998. It was primarily a film scanner but could also scan prints up to 5x7, and also had some minor adjusting capabilities. That's what the -2 and -3 were scanned on. The film was Kodak Gold 400 graymarket, and the scans were at 1200dpi. Not sure whether it was the -2 or -3 that the version I posted was derived from.

-1

-2

-3

Cool, I like the top one this post. Less grainy, nice warm color tones- looks richer. It's really a great shot.

I haver to say, regarding the "gray market" film stock, that I had a half a minute with some expired film. Shot 2 rolls, exactly. The first came out pretty cool, I liked it for its weird artifact-y effects. The 2nd was absolutely terrible. I was like, OK that's IT. MAYBE I'd shoot old expired film again IF I knew it'd been frozen since birth.

The point is that if you'd been shooting fresh (or first rate) film, this once-in-a-lifetime photo could likely have been better yet. Just my opinion based solely on my own minimal experience.

Still, tho- this is a nice photo.

Haha, you do (thankfully) get different opinions in 'critiques' and I always assume that you take away what's most helpful to you.

FWIW - in contrast to @Ricochetrider - I personally prefer the 'ethereal' atmosphere of version 3.

Just my opinion.

Mike

Haha, you do (thankfully) get different opinions in 'critiques' and I always assume that you take away what's most helpful to you.

 

FWIW - in contrast to @Ricochetrider - I personally prefer the 'ethereal' atmosphere of version 3.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Mike

"you do (thankfully) get different opinions in 'critiques' and I always assume that you take away what's most helpful to you."

Yes! (G)

and thankyou for the compliment.

Looks to me like #3 is the one you used for your original post for critique. Anyway, that's the one I'm drawn to most. I think your post work is pretty subtle and did add some dimension, but perhaps you lost some of the softness and delicacy of the original. Whatever you did in post added a layer of noise that was not in the original. I think it would be great practice to start again and do some post in the direction you went WITHOUT adding that noise. That should be well worth the time and energy spent.

I notice, in your post for critique, you cropped out some of the water in the foreground. While I like a bit more foreground water which surrounds me with more (negative) space, I get why you did that. Though I miss more of the water, the composition of the crop is a little more pleasing. That said, I wonder if you could work with the full frame and figure out a way to make that composition work. The oddness or the more unusual nature of having more foreground water might be a good point of departure to work with. Just a thought.

I think it would be great practice to start again and do some post in the direction you went WITHOUT adding that noise. That should be well worth the time and energy spent.

Funny you should mention that Sam. I've been thinking along those same lines myself. Not specifically for this image but in general. Up till now I've pretty much used PS CS3, Elements, and a couple of other editing programs PSP, Irfan, etc. to name a couple. Which one I'd use for what depended on what I was trying to do. Recently broke down and got Adobe's CC photography package (full version PS, LR Classic, and LR light (don't know what else to call it, can't see myself using it, but it came with the package)). Already had LR6 (last version on disk before they moved it into the CC world). Haven't been using the editing capabilities particularly (concentrating on its cataloging capabilities instead), but figure it's high time I started looking into those editing capabilities, and that seems like great way to do it (non-destructive, keeps a record, snapshots at various stages that I can always go back too). Seems like a good idea.

These are great

I concur wholeheartedly!