elora - fergus ont. area 'Roots on Limestone'

How would YOU approach this type of subject matter in order to get a

superior result? Equipment? Composition? Film? Lighting? Best, LM.

A 4 rating and two comments extolling its virtues. Symbolic of the weakness of photo.net and it`s members. I love what you saw (nature`s abstract)  and what you attempted to capture. The lighting is far too contrasty. There are many areas where highlight information has been lost and the same is true for some areas in the shadows.

If i had to take this image in these lighting conditions I would have tried a 3 image bracket one stop apart. But to be fair, how many of us (including myself) had heard of HDR back in those days. Maybe you could have used a circular polarizer, most effective when the sun is 90 degrees to the polarizer,  and waited for conditions where the lighting was overcast and more even.

I know that you are not in the ratings game so I write this in response to the questions you posed but got no replies. I suspect that in 2012, you may not need the type of information in the aforementioned paragraphs.

All the very best,

Thanks for your most insightful & considered critique.  I had almost forgotten about this oldie.  The original post was from an entry level flatbed scanner of a 4"x6" cheap lab print.  now with a dedicated 35mm scanner and 10+ years more experience I have gone back to rescan the original neg.  Not all that bad.  The lighting was in deep shade with Fuji NPS 160 film and so shouldn't have been all that contrasty.  Your call as to whether this current version is better.  I know it's more pleasing to my eye.  Not much done in post except to re-size & sharpen it for the web.  As for ratings, I neither seek nor give them.  Gave that up sometime after this was posted.  In my opinion ratings are useless unless accompanied by a thoughtfully defended  critique.  Best, LM.

What an amazing difference. This newly posted version is night and day compared to the original.  I really enjoy the touch of red in this image.  Color negative film allowed much more dynamic range than color slide.

There are a few pockets of very dark areas  without details and while I strive to have a smitten of detail in those areas, I am not always successful.

Thanks for taking the time to redo it.

All the best,

PS I have a dedicated 35mm 4000dpi film scanner and a flatbed scanner. I have to stop taking new digital images and go back and rediscover a ton of slides and negatives that I have lying around.

Yah, the reds surprised even me.  I don't remember seeing them when I took this.  I was more interested in the root patterns.  Thinking in B&W I guess.  The darker areas never really bothered me.  I don't think there's anything in there that isn't apparent in the brighter areas.  Your 4000 ppi scanner trumps mine though I've seldom desired anything larger than the 12 mpx file mine provides.  If I had a state of the art digital camera I doubt I'd miss the scanning procedure & all the time I spend spotting the dust marks out of the images. I'd probably say goodby to film.   Of course, as you hinted, the scanners are still required for the remakes of all our old film stuff.  And thanks for being the catalyst in this remake.  It was a worthwhile effort.  Best, LM.