I really like the first and second ones for the contrast and the sensuality of the shot. I think I would like the third and fourth better if the left side of her head and the wall behind her were black as in the first two. I'm not sure how I feel about the last one although I think the mask is cool! :) Thanks for sharing! Lisa

Well, what kind of film did you shoot that on ? I think first of all that picking a better film will greatly improve results (in general I mean)...also, depending on the situation I think a green or yellow filter would make a big difference too. Anyway, about the photos, I think 3 and 5 are much better than 1,2 and 4....the contrast is a bit too high on the first 3 I think, although the 4th is very well done...I always like it when shadows on walls aren't too black and bold. Good job on that stuff. 1, 2 and 4 aren't cropped well enough to make them either balanced or very unbalanced, and I think the contrast is a bit too high. They are great photos, but looking at 3 and 5 I can see you can do much better than that ;) 3 and 5 are really awesome stuff. 3 is a bit underexposed, which is a bit of a shame. But with a bit more sharpness and most of all (try this out sometime) it would be absolutely world class with the lighting set up of 5.....you have a very pretty wife, and there's no reason why you should leave half of her beautiful face blacked out. But I like it anyway, very well done...could go on a front cover if you'd turn your camera 45 degrees. Oh, 5 is just amazing stuff......very, very good. Getting her closer to the lens would only destroy the impact, so very well done. Well, my compliments for all the great quality shots you got there! I'm looking forward seeing more of your kool work =) Bart PS Please don't see this as a way to bring your work down...I'm just thinking 'out loud' about how I'd do it...which doesn't have to be better than your own way :)

Wow, interesting reading your comments Bart. Almost opposite of mine. Well, either I don't know much about this or it's a matter of personal taste. Still, I enjoyed your critique and learned a bit. Oh, yes and APFrey's wife is very pretty. :)

Greetings, earnest but ignorant one. ...OK all -- am I who has to exibit the 'tough love' here and explain to the young man about how 'unsharp mask' works? ...How PhotoShop is used to RESTORE image sharpness BACK (just don't over-do it!) to what it looked like before the photograph was RAVAGED by a scanner? ...How PhotoShop's 'levels' allow a crummy hundred and fifty dollar computer monitor to actually DISPLAY some of the details in areas of a conventional photographic print that would otherwise be completely outside of gamut of said monitor? ...How scanning HUGE, and using a world class resampling algorithm, like that in PiantShop Pro (OK, let's not forget PaintShop Pro) will produce a TRUER representation of the original than just 'scanning it small'? OK, I've beat him up for a while -- someone else chime in here once, hey. ...OK, I'm wound a little tight now. ..anyway -- boy, for all he don't know, those pictures look pretty good, huh? Joe

I like all these images, and was interested to read the above comments by Bart and Lisa. I have no professional knowledge/experience of studio lighting set-up and basic composition; most of my images are composed on instinct and whatever natural light I have at the time...but this thread has made me want to try different lighting scenarios! Back to the images, Yes I really like 3 and 5, they are also my favs, I really like 3's lighting, it gives the picture (for me) a real YinYang feeling...You have a very beautiful wife Andrew, thanks for showing us these.

Hmmm, Mr. Ansel the Barbarian, now you've got me interested, how large should a 'conventional-size' photograph be scanned? (I don't have a transparency scanner)...how big is "Scanning it Huge"? :-)>

Uhhh.. Like Four times the size it'll be JPG'd at (..?).

Thanks Joe...

Rork- I used good old tri-x 400. I am a diehard fan of it. Finder- Let me clear something up here...When I say I don't believe in post work, I mean anything beyond restoring a photo back to it's original print quality. I sometimes adjust my contrast and remove dust spots, etc. By "post work" I mean things such as cropping or adding tones or filters. Things like that. When I scan, I scan about 5 or 6 times the size of my final jpg file. I know a thing or two about what I'm doing. I'm not completely ignorant. You mentioned restoring a scan to it's original quality. I'm all for that, but as far as MY work is concerned, that's where it ends. If I didn't crop a photo correctly on the film itself or if I used poor judgment of depth of field making my picture out of focus, than I failed. I won't shoot sloppy photos knowing that I can crop and mask the hell out of them when I scan. The ultimate goal for one of my photos is to hang on my wall. The best of my work gets displayed in my home. I'm not going to put a scan on my wall. I'm going to put a print on my wall. I only scan to share my work. What you see on Render is an exact copy of what may someday make it to my wall. Scanning is only for exposure for me. For others, I think post work is fine. As I said before, I love paintings but I'm not a painter. Finder, while it may seem that I'm lashing back, I do appreciate the criticism. I totally agree with what you said, however I wanted to communicate how I feel about my own work. My beliefs aren't for everyone. By the way, I use the world's cheapest scanner anyway. I'm not trying to impress the digital market! Punkclown- I'm glad I could inspire you! Thanks for the compliments... Everyone- I love the criticism everyone. Please keep it coming! Andrew

Ouch. Good points, Andrew. (seriously, Andrew; the tone of my post is totally a flight of sarcastic wit, on my part -- I sat for, like, twenty minutes LAUGHING.. typing.. backspacing.. typing.. laughing. I get such a kick out this forum.) Hey -- what you're talking about has been on my mind alot lately. As I've been getting steadily more serious about photography over the last couple of years (only), I'm realizing what you're talking about. In only the last couple MONTHS I've read about some of the great master printmakers. I'm serious; I about get choked up when I look at "Portrait of a Boy" by Jean-Louis Swiners, or "My Father" by Imogen Cunningham, or "Scanno" by Mario Giacomelli. Masters! If you know about B&W taking or darkroom techniques, I'll be appreciating some conversation with you. (gotta run, I'll talk to ya soon) Joe

I'd like to see #1 closer cropped to the eye. #3 is my favorite. The look in her eye is so intense I don't know if I'm about to be seduced, or slashed by a psycho killer (great song by the Talking Heads). #4 is my second favorite. I like the "I don't give a shyte" look in her eye. I don't have much reaction to #2 and #5. I love the high contrast. Nice stuff, and she's good! And gosh Finder, what a great idea! Thinking enough of yourself to post your own mug shot on your forum comments!

This would be a good topic for a Learning Center tutorial; what are the best ways to prepare a photo for digital presentation? [Personally, I don't get bent out of shape by moving the pyramids, etc., as it is all artifact anyway...] But some basic tools and tricks would be helpful to get the presentation looking most natural. I've not tried scanning at 4X and reducing, though it makes a lot of sense, (this is what I do with some of the fractal computer art to "smooth" detail). I usually sharpen, but must admit I really don't understand how to manipulate unsharp mask to make it do what I want it to. And the "sharpen" filter is often too coarse. This has been another interesting thread. A difficulty often is understanding the skill levels of the posters and responders. [Who would ever say that someone's wife is not absolutely beautiful?] Thanks for the lively thread!

OK, let's take a vote tally. Here's what we have for favorites so far: 1,2 5,3 3,5 3,4 3,2 1,5 (I didn't mention before; these are MY favorites.) So.. It looks like it's #3, then #5.

Alpha- I see what you're saying about overexposure, but I must say it was intentional. My biggest regret of these five is in #5 the eyes lost all detail. I could have used a reflector but then I would have lost the strength of the shadow. I had several shots where I didn't overexpose quite as much and they didn't work for me quite as well. Finder- As I said, I wasn't lashing back. I just like to let people know how I feel. That is the ultimate goal of an artist, is it not? Unfortunately, I guess one's photos don't always totally communicate the thoughts of the photographer. That is my downfall. I do not do my own darkroom work but I am all for custom work. It is important to get your prints the way you want them. You'd be surprised how much control a one hour photo has over your prints. But they have the responsibility to make your prints look how you want them too also. Wherever your prints are made, the bottom line is, make sure they come out like you want them to. IMO, a good custom lab SHOULD give you results just as good as what you can do in your own darkroom, you just have to communicate to them exactly what you are looking for. (Same with a one-hour lab for that matter) Enough rambling for me...I love black and white work and I get more excited about it with each roll I shoot. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me and I will do the best I can to answer them. You can do wonderful things with B&W and I encourage everyone to at least try it. For those that do not have there own studio, you don't have to worry about special lighting or halogen-balanced film. Ordinary household lamps can give you the effect you want and no one will ever know they are "yellow" lights. For those people that can't quite get exposure right, B&W has tremendous latitude. 5 to 7 stops versus 3 or 4 of color film. I'm rambling again. What can I say, photography excites me! Hope to hear from you Finder... Thanks again for the criticism...It's good stuff! Keep it coming! My wife aprreciates the compliments as well. She doesn't tend to believe me that I think she's attractive. I guess no wife believes their husband. Andrew

Lisa - It's a matter of personal taste I guess :) Punk - I have no (pro) experience with studio work at all, so like I said, I'm only saying what I would have done...don't mean to say it would be better though APFrey - There's nothing wrong with the quality of the scans, so no worries about that ;) Great work...like I said, I love to see more =) Alpha - you're right, those were the words I was looking for ;) Nice to see that so many people want to say something about photos....great =)

What's been on my mind lately, though, is the idea that a picture ISN'T FINISHED until it's printed and mounted. ..I guess what I mean, more specifically, is not so much that is isn't 'finished' or 'complete', but that - speaking photographically - it isn't a PICTURE! I think it truer that we refer to our works presented here online as "images". This has been on my mind much lately. This is because I've been studying the works of master photographers and printmakers. Have you ever read about Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946), and his lifelong work and passion to get photography respected as art? We should maybe have more discussions here about printing and mounting photographs. We could also learn about how to go about getting our works on display.

Finder- I couldn't agree more. I think it just sounds too much like we're discrediting digital photography on a digital medium like Renderosity. It has always been my opinion that these two mediums are apples and oranges. They both have there place in the world of art because both are forms of expression. The digital world just isn't my gig. Alpha & Syyd- I think it would be great to have more discussions about finalizing a photograph; printing, mounting, etc. Maybe I'm just asking too much old fashion stuff at a digitally dominant place. I do think, however, that this area of interest is the missing puzzle piece at Renderosity. Because of Finder, for the first time I know I'm not alone in wanting to see more about the subject. How can we encourage more people to express themselves at Render beyond the digital medium? Andrew

I was reading all the comments untill it occured that previous coments shouldn't and dont affect my opinion. I'll proably restate what has already been stated anyway. #3 is a killer! The top most interesting and the best in my opinion. I suppose five comes next HOWEVER it also is different because of the mask. The next is 1. Followed by the yin/yang of four and the siloutte of two. Very interesting stuff of course. IT's the hair that realy makes it so diverse and intersting. What could be done to make them better...That depends on what you want. The siloette of 2 may have been better if the cropping was not as close but that's my opinion. 1 is blown out on the lower right but that simply draws the attention to the eyes. Which is fine in my opinion. IF you were to post work the photo or attenpt the picture again it would be interesting to see what would happen if you also overexposed the upper section of the head. Four. That lamp you should kill that thing. It's a bit too strong. The Yin-Yang concept is great but there is just too much light on the right side of her face. I think. 5. There is so much potential and creativity and things you can do with this. Not to say you didn't do them. Just a comment. The cropping alone makes it the fun that it is. Some may say there is too much space on the left or the camera is too far. Personally I like it just as it is. Leave 5 alone. 3. Similar problem if it is a problem as #1. Blown out on the right side of her face. However It could also be left alone. It's pretty good! On second thought leave three alone too. The Slight greenish tent. IT could be your scanner. Have you tried nudgine the controols a little. Finally I know you dislike post production. BUT since you scanned them have you considered changing some of the pictures to a sepia tone? Thank you oh so much for sharing. Bsteph

Bsteph- Thank you for the critique...I'm surprised at the greenish tint you have. I scanned the photos in totally monochrome so there couldn't be any color. They show up black and white on my monitor. Anyone else see green? Sepia tone is not beyond my realm experimentation. Since sepia can be done in an actual old fashioned print, I like to sometimes play with it. I'll try it and see what happens. Thanks for everything Bsteph. You've been very helpful and so has everyone. Andrew

I really like them all.....but #1 is definitely my favorite...the look in the eyes in so strong.