10999909

I had problems getting the colors right scanning negative film. Also, until you scan it you don't even know what other issues there are. So I went back to using chromes. You know immediately before scanning whether it was exposed right. Plus, the scanning is simpler.

 

Since I shoot landscapes mainly, I like Velvia with its higher saturation. I've got a lot of examples on my FLickr site. Provia is a good not so vivid chrome which I've started to shoot. If shooting people or looking for a more natural palette, Portra is a good selection. Although it's a negative film, it scans very well losing that orange mask easily. With medium format, I usually bracket, not with 4x5.

Thanks. This is medium format - not sure I can afford bracketing with the cost of film, but maybe it pays off in the end!

This, for me, is a photo about atmosphere. I'm mostly struck by what feels to me like discoloration and some muddiness. I know that the combination of lens with mist, fog, and haze can cause strange color effects, and in this photo, I'm very conscious of them. I get a purplish, sickly feel from much of the foreground grasses and a bit more of a brownish/dirty than hazy feel from the farthest tree branches. The sharpness of the low foreground grasses also pulls at my eye. I wonder if there was more potential for photographic lyricism here than has been realized. I don't know that the composition as much as a different approach to exposure and post processing would bring out the poetry of the scene.

Thanks for your comments. This was the first colour film I've ever developed at home and maybe I made some mistakes, or maybe the exposure could have been better. However, I've found that with scanned colour negs there is not a great deal of room for adjusting colour balance in post processing.

The rule of thirds isn't the issue as I see it. The path, in the center, which is fine, drawers the eye into the picture. But then there's nothing there. No subject. Just some fog. So then my eyes bounced back to look left and right at some trees that look the same. Again no subject. It's like not finding the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

I think that is a fair criticism - I have been feeling there's something missing from the shot too. If there had been a convenient dog or walker it would have been better - unfortunately, nobody was so obliging :). As noted by John Seaman, the shot is meant to be more about the mood than any particular subject, but I can certainly see that having something extra would improve it. I've attached another shot from the same morning, where I think the fallen gate provides the missing subject.

Thanks for your helpful comments.

The rule of thirds is one of a number of aids to help artists achieve good composition, dating from before photography. It suggests that important features of a picture should be placed not at the centre, but at or near one of the four intersections of thirds. Your picture does not really have strong individual features, rather it's an expression of the mood of the scene you encountered, and perhaps an invitation for the viewer to speculate what it would be like to walk down the path into the mist. I think the picture works very well in this way and the central composition does not get in the way at all.

Thanks - that's what I was trying to convey.

Was it? Did the critique state that?

 

WW

Yours is a good point - looking back at the critique, that was not explicitly stated. I have inferred that that was behind the suggestion because the person in question raises the rule of thirds in a lot of her critiques of photos (often correctly). Maybe I was being too sensitive or over-interpreting her opinion :). In any event, I didn't mind the critique because she, and Mike Morrell, may well be right that a shift in angle might have improved the shot. Just interested in peoples' views as to how important, as a rule, it is, and whether I could have improved the angle on this shot (whether by applying the rule or not).

This photo has been criticised on another site because the critic said there was too much white space in the middle. She would prefer the path to be to one side (with the angle of view shifted to the left). I understand the rule of thirds, which was driving the criticism, but I'm not sure it's always necessary, particularly in a square format like this. What do people think?

(Rolleicord III, Portra 400)

OP hasn't been seen since Jan 19, 2019

Oh, OK, thanks Sandy.

Yesterday, I took out the old scanner glass with very great difficulty to rotate it 180 degrees so the scratch will be less likely to interfere with the scans. Instead of the top left, the scratch is now in the bottom right of the scan area so it will only show up with A4 scans. I repositioned the glass with good quality double sided mirror tape (flat tape not foam tape according to original specs). That will help until I can get a replacement. The underside of the glass really needed a good clean!

 

The glass is 2.5 mm thick. It measures 37.8 cm x 24.9 cm with smoothed edges to make it safer to handle. I'm not an expert, but it looks just like standard picture glass to me. I am tempted to source some picture glass and replace it. By default, the top of the glass will be at the correct height once positioned in the plastic frame as long as thin flat double sided tape is used.

 

Kind regards

Chris

I know this is an old thread, but I have a question, if you are still looking :)

How did you get the glass off the tape? was it easy? And what about removing the tape to replace it?

Thanks for any advice!

Jon