dave_whitehead1

I take your point Michael and thanks for taking the time to make it. I think this is a visually pleasing image, it hangs above my stairs in a good frame and I do like it. But does it have no more substance than, say, a catchy pop song? Does it matter? Should we all stop searching our belly buttons and get on with producing images that simply appeal on the face of it? I suspect that for the time being, I will continue to wrestle....

I suppose it's pretty obvious what has gone on here. I am wrestling

with the difference between doing things digitally because I can, and

making a worthwhile image. Hmmmm.... what do you think?

I have not got round to printing this yet. This is a scan from the

neg. The colour came about by telling the scanner it was scanning a

B&W neg, but leaving the setting on colour, instead of grayscale. The

neg was developed in Pyro PMK.

Thanks for taking the time to look.

The only shot that stands out as different in style from the series

of Southport photographs. It looks like the surface of the moon. This

is a scan from the print. I usually scan the neg, but I had split

toned the print in selenium and wanted that effect rather than trying

to create it in Photoshop. So the scanner was told it was scanning a

colour print.

Shot as part of a series of photographs on the beach at Southport. I

want this etherial feel to the series. I decided to leave the sun out

of this one and concentrate on the highlight and sand texture. The

film was exposed accordingly and the print required very little

darkroom manipulation to get the effect I visualised at the time of

exposure. I can't keep using my "New to digital" excuse any more. But

I am! You guys should know - it's a steep learning curve. Previously,

I have been scanning in the negative. This is a scan from the print.

I did this because I printed it on Forte Polywarmtone paper, then

give a light selenium split tone. (Pulling the print when the tone

moved up to the lower mid tones). Because of this, the print was

scanned in using the colour setting on the scanner software. As

always, I value your comments.

Thanks you guys for taking the time and trouble to comment. I take on board the idea of a vertical format, but this is the way I "saw" the image in my minds eye. I exposed for the "blackness". I don't agree that areas devoid of detail are, by virtue, wasted. One of the best photographs I have seen was of a black 35mm shape oblong. In one corner was a silvery spiders web. The black was as important as the web. Cropping in tight on the web may be the aproach many photographers would take. Right or wrong, it would result in a less "interesting" image. Anyway, confession time: I must admit the idea of a vertical format never occured to me at the time. As I said, thanks for your comments, I WILL take them on board.

Thank you Trevor.

Yes Cliff, I agree with Vincent. Those small tweaks have made an already superb shot into a fantastic one. Are you sure you didn't use Fuji Velvia for this one......?

I did a whole series of shots on Southport beach. Many I have treated

in this way, but not all. Over the comming days, I plan to upload

them all, so if you know your way around photo.net, you can view them

as a small body of work. This is a scan from the original negative. I

think I could just about manage to get a print into my scanner, so I

may upload one of the prints, just to see the difference in the way

they come out. They do LOOK far superior to the image here, I guess

we will see if that is still the case after I have done my best with

Photoshop. The strange effect around the sun is a result of me using

Photoshop to try and match the print.

There is an unusual artifact in the sky around the sun. This is not visible on the print. It is a result of scanning the negative and trying to match, in Photoshop, the visual quality of the print, coupled with saving the file for the web. I suppose I am slowly getting there with digital, But I have just finished printing this series on Forte Polywarmtone, then split toning them in selenium. They look fantastic, even though I do say so myself. Over the comming days, I will upload the rest of the series and you guys can give me your collective comments and wisdom.

Ian, no star filter was used, I must agree with you - I'm not a fan of them myself. As I needed "front to back" sharpness, I used the hyperfocal setting with an aperture of f32. The small aperture has created the "starring" of the sun. However, this technique I have found useful in night photography, where the small aperture (f11 and smaller) gives a pleasant, not overblown star effect to small point lights within the shot.

Another of my trips to Southport. I never tire of taking photographs

like this. What you are looking at is a direct scan from the

negative. In the darkroom I printed it up on Forte Polywarmtone and

split toned it in selenium. Please Make allowances for my hamfisted

digital bunglings.

Again, a little of the "sparkle" has been lost in the digital

transfer, however I think this is an interesting study that bears no

relationship to how the image looked in the viewfinder! Shadows

placed on zone II, developed N+1.

Yes Didi, I realise this now. Although I have been a photographer for many years, the digital domain is something new to me. I have been experimenting with it since Christmas. I'll get there in the end. File sizes are still a little confusing to me right now. However, thanks for taking the trouble to comment.

Your "hard work" has paid off Hans! It's a fantastic shot of which you should be proud. Very proud.