Sizwe

[Dubbs5050]

This is another shot from my negative archives that I just scanned...From my trip to South Africa in 2004. We went to a tribal village for a festival and dance, and this is a boy named Sizwe. I hate to dig up old photos, but I always loved this shot and would like to get some feedback. Thanks.

[Frog]

Love his face and eyes.
I would crop the bottom just above his belt line and then the sides to balance.

[Shebang]

No matter the land -- boys will be boys! Great expression. Any chance of lightening his face just a tiny bit so the detail in his eye lids and brow can be seen? I can barely see it but not quite.

[Dubbs5050]

this is a scanned negative, and any manipulation further than what has already been done on the computer would compromise the photo. I could probably fix it up more effectively in the darkroom, but unfortunately I think the shot was too dark to lend me that sort of flexibility.

[OldClicker]

this is a scanned negative, and any manipulation further than what has already been done on the computer would compromise the photo.

Just as an aside, do you mean that you do not think a film image should be digitally manipulated? - TF

[Dubbs5050]

Just as an aside, do you mean that you do not think a film image should be digitally manipulated? - TF

no, what I meant to say is that this is a poor scan of the negative, I should really clean it up and scan the negative again at a greater resolution. However, I do feel that to get the most out of a negative, the most effective way would be to work with it in the darkroom, no?

[OldClicker]

no, what I meant to say is that this is a poor scan of the negative, I should really clean it up and scan the negative again at a greater resolution. However, I do feel that to get the most out of a negative, the most effective way would be to work with it in the darkroom, no?

Don't know, that's why I'm always interested. My 'film career' never went past bad exposures developed at the local 1-hour photo. – TF

[Dubbs5050]

Don't know, that's why I'm always interested. My 'film career' never went past bad exposures developed at the local 1-hour photo. – TF

yeah, see my photo career is quite the opposite. I am really just now starting to get a handle on this digital thing. While I consider myself a bit of a purist, I am just now becoming of the opinion that digital is a superior medium.

When I scanned these negatives, I was unable to control the amount of light coming through, the exposure, etc....Maybe I was not familiar with the program I used, but these are things I could control in the darkroom.

[GB1]

I like you shot in general, but think there is too little detail in the dark areas to be truly effective. I would lighten it up a bit, esp in the shadow areas. The angle it was shot at, while there is nothing wrong with it, seems awful 5 1/2 - 6 feet high to me, which is the standard height that most every photographer shoots at, which can be a bit common.

Film shots should not be digitally manipulated TF..? Is dodging and burning in the darkroom the only acceptable editing then? Just curious.

G

[Dubbs5050]

I like you shot in general, but think there is too little detail in the dark areas to be truly effective. I would lighten it up a bit, esp in the shadow areas. The angle it was shot at, while there is nothing wrong with it, seems awful 5 1/2 - 6 feet high to me, which is the standard height that most every photographer shoots at, which can be a bit common.

Film shots should not be digitally manipulated TF..? Is dodging and burning in the darkroom the only acceptable editing then? Just curious.

G

you could do a number of things, with filters to work with the contrast, burn/dodge, all that, but the technique in the darkroom is not what Im worried about (that stuff is obviously easier in photoshop). I think the quality would be better because the light is projected through the negative directly on to the photo paper...rather than being digitally rendered and processed through a couple of different programs. I guess you could look at it like sending a fax, it works fine, but never really looks exactly like it should (bad analogy but you get the idea). Like I said, I am going to try to scan it at a larger resolution and see if I like that...but as for this print, it came out a little darker than I would like..it just seems a bit off...I'm not sure if I can control that....

This kid was definitely not 6 ft tall, and while I do not remember my position when taking the shot (it was 6 years ago) I am pretty sure I had to get down a bit.

anyways, thanks for the comments folks.

[daq7]

If you want the ultimate in resolution right now,digital is inferior. In every other way it isn't even close. Film is like using leeches to cure cancer. Of course nothing really cures cancer, so I am not sure what my point is.

[OldClicker]

Film shots should not be digitally manipulated TF..? Is dodging and burning in the darkroom the only acceptable editing then? Just curious.

G

I was just asking the question of a film user. I'm totally a digital guy and condider the job half done when I click the shutter. - TF