|
|
Rachel Leah
{K:26110} 1/4/2006
|
Very nice shot here! I like where you've placed her in this... she is a beautiful little girl, excellent work :)
~Rachel~
|
|
|
|
Andrius Maciunas
{K:2047} 9/16/2004
|
Lose of yeallow color produces unnatural look. Tighter crop can add here intensity.
|
|
|
|
Shane Brown
{K:1831} 7/10/2004
|
Thanks again Roger =) I will keep my eye out for one. I have been wanting a new scanner for some time. I hate the idea of not using my Canon Rebel, but I would love to someday have a really nice Digital Camera like the EOS Mark or 1D series. However, much like plasma t.v.'s, I'll have to wait until "the next best thing" comes out and the prices start falling! Ha! Oh yeah, this is my lovely daughter. I am very proud of her, thank you for your compliments =)
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 7/10/2004
|
Hi, Shane, nice to hear from you. If you have an Epson flathed scanner, they sell a "transparency adaptor" that plugs in the back and lets you scan negs and slides. Its not as good a true flim scanner, but it's a LOT cheaper, and quite good enough for the web and for prints up to about 8 x 11". Or in a month or so Epson is going to come out with a low priced film scanner... "low" still being about US$500 but that's MUCH less than dedicated film scanners from Nikon and Canon. By the way, is the lovely little girl your daughter? If so congratulations!
|
|
|
|
|
Shane Brown
{K:1831} 7/10/2004
|
Hi Roger,
Is that possible without a scanner that is setup to do that? I feel like I lose a lot from my images when I scan them in =(
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 7/10/2004
|
Am I right in thinking you scanned from the print? Excuse me if I'm wrong. Although you've seen what can be done by boosting the saturation, which certainly improves it a lot, the dynamic range of a print is usually less--sometimes a LOT less--than that of the original neg. Why not try scanning your negatives? That way you get more of what the camera originally captured to work on.
|
|
|
|
|
Shane Brown
{K:1831} 6/28/2004
|
Thanks Michael for your comments and help =) I hope that as I get to know photoshop better I will be able to bring life to my scanned photos. I am still very new to photoshop, so it's a work in progress. Thanks again.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
Michel Pettigrew
{K:975} 6/27/2004
|
The colors did look flat, maybe it's the scanner's settings. I added saturation to the colors with Photoshop and recroped a little. I agree with Ben, the Kodak portra 400 vc film has really nice rich colors.
|
Saturation corrected version |
|
|
|
|
Shane Brown
{K:1831} 6/26/2004
|
Thanks guys, all of your comments are greatly appreciated =) I'm going to continue working on this image and maybe I can get it just right.If I get it, maybe I'll add it into the comment area. Haha
Thanks Again =)
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
E. Haque
{K:433} 6/26/2004
|
This is good. Im sure the print looks a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Trish McCoy
{K:15897} 6/26/2004
|
this is a very sweet shot. beautiful flowers including the main flower with the beautiful eyes. captured nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Ricci
{K:805} 6/26/2004
|
I like the comp. of this photo. The girl is placed just off center. The flowers in the background does not take away from the photo. But, the photo is very flat in color. Could be the scan. I am not a big fan of GC 400 film. Use Kodak Portra Pro film. Well worth the few extras bucks. Nice Job...
|
|
0 
