MrAndMrsIzzy

O.K. This is actually going to be in three parts. I would've preferred one part, but the last time I tried that (Empire State Building) it didn't quite work the way I wanted it to , so three parts it is. Also. I don't know if I'm violating any posting rules, but if I am, please accept my apologies. Now! Technically, this should probably be in "Techniques", but it was described in answer to a question posted here in "Critiques" so here it is. I didn't get around to digitizing this image till 2018, at which time I no longer had the negative to scan. I did however still have the print. That being the case I set up a table top studio (shoebox with one end and the top removed, Digital Rebel with Tamron 28-300 lens, on a tripod a couple of feet away). Light was provided by a fixture hanging from the ceiling, and the print was propped up at the closed end of the shoebox. This is how the first shot (unedited except for resizing to post) came out.

Thanks all for the compliments. Ric I see your point about the balance and I'll keep that in mind going forward.

Eric, Sandy, Ric thanks for the compliments. Ric Question. "3rd iteration" Do you mean the color version which appears in the third spot of the post, or the grayscale version which was supposed to be in the third spot of the post?

Reflected is right. I'm guessing the distortions are at least partially due to irregularities in the surface of the glass. Not just in this image but others as well, and not just in the glass of 10 Jay. Also, 10 Jay and Brooklyn Bridge Park are on The Brooklyn side of The East River. The Empire State Building is halfway across Manhattan on the other side of The East River and to get the image to a viewable size I had to really zoom the lens. That may also contribute to the distortion. Personally I think it adds interest, but that's me......Izzy

Grayscale. Ooops! This post didn't quite work out the way I intended. "As it came out of the camera" is ok, but the post editing grayscale and color versions somehow switched places

Enter Brooklyn Bridge Park (Brooklyn's DUMBO neighborhood) at Jay street. Walk to between the first and second set of benches and you'll see a small hill or knoll on your left. Climb to the top of that knoll and you'll see the Western side of 10 Jay Street. I don't know if it's mirrored or just highly reflective glass but that's where this image of The Empire State Building was captured. The first image (except for resizing to post) is how it came out of the camera, and yes it is digital (Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70). The second image is after initial editing. At that point I said to myself. Self I said. This image might be better as a grayscale. Comments\critiques welcome. As it came out of the camera.

Ehhhhh (shrug). A decade and three quarters maybe (give or take a couple of months). Don't think two. Do keep shooting, but have slowed down considerably.

Yes, but! The old film shots are (with very few exceptions) what (at this point in time) I've got sorted, catalogued, and keyworded. It's an ongoing process, and eventually I will get to the digitals. Until then it's the film.

Yup! Mike in answer to your ?, Heckscher's on The South Shore of LI (Suffolk County) at the Eastern end of The Southern State Pkwy. It's pretty small as far as SP's go. Basically a big picnic ground. That was in 1996 and I doubt that its changed much.

Here it is dc. 1996 Heckscher State Park, NY, about an hour or so East of where I am. Knew about it but had never been there. Seemed to me more like a big picnic ground rather than an SP, but there is (or was) a little patch of woods and that's where this critter was. Probably early March. Vaguely remember thin snow on the ground and a couple of flurries. MichaelLinder wrote Izzy, forgive me for being blunt, but I hope you get the opportunity to shoot more deer photos. No problem Mike I feel the same way.

I like it. Can't really tell but based on the observation that he's looking right at you, I'm guessing you were pretty close. That said, I'd probably have moved to the right a little in the hope that he'd have turned his head to follow allowing for a more head-on portrait, little less back, and a bit more room on the right for cropping. I've got something similar (in the sense that it's a portrait) from a bunch of years ago. I'll find it and post.

First off I'm not a professional photographer, artist, or art critic. That said, any critique is that critiquers opinion, and at the end of the day the most important critique about any artist's work (and a photograph is in fact a piece of art work) is the one provided by the artist him or herself. Between these two images I like the second one better. I think it would be even better with the first images sky. The image reminds me of a book I recently finished reading "Arthur, The Bear of Britain" and no it wasn't one of the usual King Arthur stories. It was written more as a historical novel. The novel takes place in the 6th or possibly early 7th century. Rome is gone and England or what will eventually become England is an assortment of tribes. Each with its chief, and each jealous of the other. Lots of squabbling. The country is being invaded. Saxons, Jutes, and Angles from the East. Picts from the North. Arthur is one of those chiefs, has served locally as a legion commander in the roman army, and now commands an army of former legion members. His goal is to end the squabbling, unite the tribes, and drive out the invaders. He manages to do that, but it doesn't last. The tribes fall back to squabbling and the invaders take over. I don't know if that's the image you were going for but I do think the second image with the first images sky would give it that brooding look, supposedly depicting that period of history.

Nice shot just the same Dc. As you point out saturation and contrast not particularly high, I likely would've increased one, the other, or both. Not much mind you just a little or possibly lowered the brightness a bit (that might be my screen though). Either way it's a good environmental shot. Her coat looks thick and full. Do you remember what time of year this was?

Scanned from the negs and\or slides (for those which I still have the negs and slides for). In those cases where I no longer have or can't find the negs\slides for but have been able to find prints. I set up a tabletop studio (shoebox with no top and one end removed), or something equally makeshift and simple, a tripod, and a digital camera (don't have a flatbed (document) scanner). Take a picture of the print, and voila. A digital image. The cameras I use record the image on CF or SD cards. Take the card out of the camera. Pop it into a card reader. Etc.

No. It's just that those old film shots comprise the bulk of what I've got catalogued, keyworded, and sorted (at this point in time anyway). It's an ongoing process.

This was shot on film. At the time (2001) as near as I can recall, digital wasn't available yet (not at a reasonable price anyway). In any case, I didn't start coming over to the dark side until 2004, and it wasn't until 2006 or 7 that I went completely digital. Still have the film cameras though, and a few rolls of some very expired film someplace. One of these days (if and when I get around to it). I'll find where someplace is, call B&H to see if batteries for the cameras are still available and give it a shot.

Thankyou.

Thanks Sam! I took another look at both images, with the saturation (as indicated in your first reply) in mind. I see your point. I'll go back to both images with that in mind and see what happens. Aside from that. Do you know who I have to talk to to get "MrAndMrsIzzy" changed to just "Izzy"? "MrAndMrsIzzy" is the name of the album I created, not my screen name.....Izzy

And this is the re-edit. Also, in the original post all the editing was done in PS. Without going into the details of how and why etc. The re-edit is part LR and part PS.

This is the higher rez rescan

Thankyou. The was edited from a lo-rez scan of the neg. The film itself was gray market Kodak ISO400 and the shot would fall under the category of grabshot. The light was there, the deer was there, I grabbed the shot, and both light and deer were gone. I did rescan the neg at a higher rez and re-edited. This is the original lo-rez scan resized for posting.

Thankyou both! I'll see what I can do!!...Izzy

Don't know if this is ok or not but didn't think it'd hurt. Top is unedited (except for resizing to post). What I was going for was an air of mystery. You're walking along a rain forest trail. Triple canopy, dense vegetation all around, etc. You round a bend and come across something like this. Covered in vines, trees all over the place, etc. Who built it? How? Why? Why here? When? Why did they leave? Etc. Etc. Etc. Thought that grayscale would capture that atmosphere better.....Izzy

Getting mooned by a deer isn't exactly my idea of a good wildlife pic, but I liked the light. Critiques, comments, etc. welcome....Izzy

Thankyou!