kenny_c Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>Anyone feeling like leaving grain / dust / scratches in their neg scans these days? <br /><br />Lately I've been leaning towards having that film look... much like the traditional darkroom printers who printed full frame to prove the cropping...<br /> Just a thought.<br /><br /><a href="http://kennethchou.ca/index.php?/series/lg-toronto-fashion-week/">http://kennethchou.ca/index.php?/series/lg-toronto-fashion-week/</a></p><p>cheers</p><p>k</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitemistic Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>You mean the lazy, careless photographer look? Too much of that around already.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rory_rege Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>Kenneth,</p> <p>If you aren't already familiar with him, have a look at John Deakin's work, especially the book John Deakin: Photographs.</p> <p>Congratulations on your Masters. I like the work that you have on your site.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_leong_lee Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 No, I hate scratches and dust, it just shows I didn't care for my film well. Grain is a separate matter, it makes an image real and is a reason to use film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hal_b Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>Quality printers always removed dust and scratches by hand. If you aren't doing this on your film scans, you're taking the lazy way out. Dust/lint/scratches look terrible on any presentation, and are not part of the picture. Film grain, however, is just a part of the film and should be left alone.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny_c Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>Lazy? Maybe... maybe part of it is differentiating images from digital, I am not really sure.<br /><br />I do agree grain is as much of the film as noise on digital... which are factors of equipment / media. <br /><br />I do agree dust and scratches on prints are a no no, but as a web image... I am kind of striking out against all the new clean cut images out there... <br> Not that these are all valid points for myself, but I do like where this conversation is going.<br> k </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 It can work on occasion depending on treatment and context. BTW, your photo looks underexposed or the print needs to accept the exposure it has, at least in a conventional sense. Looks like you tried to lighten it past the exposure's capacity, and what you end up with that way is actually no true blacks. I suppose it's all subjective though, you're certainly free to do what you like. ... OK, looked at your other photos and they're not bad. Not sure the small amount of dust looks like it has an intention. Most people will probably not notice them or wonder why you didn't clean them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rory_rege Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>I really wonder whether this issue is quite as cut and dried as some suggest.<br /> <br /> Here is a review of the recent Francis Bacon exhibit at the Met. The review, like the exhibit, included this heavily damaged portrait, by John Deakin, of George Dyer: http://www.askyfilledwithshootingstars.com/wordpress/?p=971<br /> <br /> Here are Peter Hay Halpert's comments on Deakin, together with one of Deakin's photographs of Oliver Bernard, also damaged (moreso than is evident on Halpert's web site): http://peterhayhalpert.blogspot.com/2009/06/john-deakin.html . This piece, updated somewhat for the Bacon exhibit, apparently originally appeared in Aperture.<br /> <br /> Also, a brief review from The New Yorker on the book John Deakin: Photographs: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/07/14/1997_07_14_068_TNY_CARDS_000378477</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim gray Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>Maybe some big ass scratches and giant threads - I could see the appeal of that in some circumstances, the distressed film look. But dust on negs for me usually means 1-4 white dots, which are easy to fix, yet really distracting in the image. One little piece of lint doesn't give me the impression of distressed film. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sd_woods Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>I like the look of poorly scanned film, although it is an acquired taste and I'll admit that it only works in certain instances</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clark_yerrington Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>i only like it if it came from a cheap POS camera.<br />holga photos look great covered with dust.<br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerjporter Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 <p>Dang, i work really hard to get dirt and scratches on my images, you mean you guys work hard to take them off? I guess i need to get a scanner!<br> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerjporter/1337928127/<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/6391836</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now