|
|
|
Willy Maes
{K:118} 11/19/2005
|
SarahJayn,
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "corrected". The only thing I wanted to do with photoshop is coming nearer to the result you would have had, when your film and paper processing had been ok.
For me Photoshop, scanner etc are just tools that enable me to make my artwork, the picture. As long as it respects the moment, the way your eye and the lens sees it, the use of an extra or other tool will not diminish your artwork. There is certainly as much artistic insight and judgment needed in using Photoshop as in using the other tools in photography.
In painting eg it is not because you paint in acryl and not oil, that you will have better or worser art.
Willy
|
|
|
|
|
SarahJayn Kemp
{K:141} 11/19/2005
|
er - i just reread what i posted and i'm not sure it comes off right. basically, all i'm saying is that i appreciate your suggestion, but i try to stay away from photoshop unless its a picture for like a publication or other utlitarian thing. not for artwork.
|
|
|
|
|
SarahJayn Kemp
{K:141} 11/19/2005
|
that's not what i was saying. the photo isn't the best. it's blurred on the negative. i understand about scanned images. i also understand all about photoshop. i don't really love it because i think digital photograph is really taking the soul out of the art form that is photography. that's just my opinion, of course.
i think the term "corrected" is weird because art's so subject. how can something be corrected in art? (that's a hypathetical question, btw). i dunno. i just thought it was strange word choice is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Willy Maes
{K:118} 11/19/2005
|
Hello again SarahJayn,
Of course it is not ideal to work with an already scanned picture.
Once you make a scan you have a digital image and PS is then the appropriate "darkroom" fot it.
However I had the impression that or during the film or during the paper development the right side of your picture got fogged.
Maybe it was your scan. Did you scan from the negative or from the paper print?
I always find it a pity when a good picture loses some of its effect simply because of some technical incompleteness.
best regards,
Willy
|
|
|
|
|
SarahJayn Kemp
{K:141} 11/19/2005
|
i find the term "corrected" a little weird . . . i dunno. i really try to stay away from "enhancing" anything outside of the darkroom. photoshop, i assume? anyway, thanks for your imput. i had an slr x-7, my mom used the x-700. i actually don't remember the lens as this one was stolen. it was the one it came with. no zoom, no nothing.
|
|
|
|
vanessa shakesheff
{K:68840} 11/19/2005
|
Nice composition ,lovely expression between them,regards vanessa
|
|
|
|
|
Ian V
{K:1730} 11/19/2005
|
nice shot, you really captured the emotion here.
|
|
|
|
|
Willy Maes
{K:118} 11/19/2005
|
Hi SarahJayn,
I tried to enhance a little bit your picture. I'm attaching it.
What do you mean by Minolta SLR fixed lens. Do you mean a non zoom lens? Which lens was it? I have also a Minolta X700 with several lenses. "Fixed" lens to me means attached to the camera without possibility to remove.
cheers
Willy
|
corrected picture |
|
|
|
|
SarahJayn Kemp
{K:141} 11/19/2005
|
thanks. these people are lovely. i agree that the shot isn't the best. i was happy to capture them in that moment, though. i was interviewing them and they were talking while i was doing something else and i just happened to see them like this. she's from norway, he's from oregon.
|
|
|
|
|
Willy Maes
{K:118} 11/18/2005
|
Good moment, nice composition of hands. Technical rendering rather poor.
|
|
0 
