What with the rain and the price of diesel, I spent an hour checking through a few older negs. Both these had originally been printed by the local print-lab of the time and then cast aside. The labs had applied the usual auto-everything, so with the full frame scans I've also gone auto on colour and contrast.
The gargoyle was shot in the early afternoon of a hazy day and overexposed. I was stretched out in the only position possible between the protective fences and used a cheap 35-80 zoom at max to get what I could. Converting to bw cuts down the apparent haze a little, and some tweaking with the tones and contrast makes more sense of the image. Or so I like to think. What do you think?
1. 1998 Notre Dame Gargoyle (cropped and toned)
2. 1998 Notre Dame Gargoyle (35mm full frame)
The river scene was shot on a dull day (typical Devon, UK :-( ) and underexposed. The only lens I had was a 50mm and I was standing of some sort of mooring, which meant it was likely I would have to crop the final image. A little burning, toning, and sharpening has helped, but has it helped enough? And do you think a 4x5 ratio really works for the bridge?
3. 1983 Mr and Mrs (4x5 ratio)
4. 1983 Mr and Mrs (35mm full frame)
It's great when you can use the full neg space and frame the shot as final, but even with a range of focal lengths to hand that's not always a practicality.
Any thoughts on any aspect you'd care to mention? Fire away.
