Sorry for budding in here with a "nit-picky" that doesn't really matter for the image at hand...

The thing about underexposure film/or digital doesn't really matter

Ahm - when you're talking film, it does in the sense wether you use negative or slide.
An underexposed negative gets "thinner" ( less density ) whereas a slide gets "thicker" ( more density ). This since the exposure curve for a slide film is turned "upside-down" to that of the negative.

In practice, an underexposed negative looses detail since less dense ( most loss in shadow parts ) - which is generally bad for negatives, and a slide gains detail since more dense ( most gain in hi-lights ) - which is generally good for slides.
When overexposing the absolute opposite applies.

To make a general rule out of this:
Negative film gains from slight overexposure - slides gain from slight underexposure.

// Sorry... it's the old Photo Teacher in me that pops up here .. ;-) //

As for the image:
Well, call me a sexist too but I agree with Michelle A here.
This is a "hunk" image ( and I'm a normal hetero guy ) and as such the original colour image works. If converted to B&W I'd like to see the qualities in Misha883's first image, where the shadows have been opened up and balanced
Think it picks up Kamal's male facial features in a favourable way as well as it still feels as "warm" as the original colour image.

Bakkti.

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.org

coolj001 !

Library eh? Sounds like a most excellent idea.

Trust me - it is ! :-)
I've done photography since 1976 ( worked as a Photo- and Image Teacher for some years ) and there's lots of books written on the subject. Some good - some not so good ...

I have already scratched my Panasonic's Leica lens.

Ouch !!
Scratches on lens surfaces has the effect of scattering the light rays hitting them and thus affects sharpness, but if it's a very small scratch it may not have too much an overall effect. A filter is a very cheap insurance aginst damages like that.

On your scanner thoughts:
No, you can't scan a negative/slide in a flatbed without a proper adapter. Neg/slides are "see through" and flatbeds work as reflectives.
Even if you would manage to make a scan it won't be of any comparable quality at all.
Your best go is to scan your hard copies.
Sorry ...
.......................

Erlik:

I have no intention at all to start some variant of "Platform Ware" here, so I let your post stand as is.

I've done photo since 1976 and I've tried both classic and digital. Both have their advantages and their drawbacks.

Let me just say that my customers are very happy when I can deliver them 3000x2250 pixels 300 dpi Tifs as workfiles for their printing. Some even want 4700x4700 pix 300 dpi's and larger. You do the math...

Buying the Minolta I mentioned instead of a digital equal left me money to invest in a hi-quality slide/neg scanner ( enough for 5000x5000 pix 1200 dpi ) and to hot up my puter such that I can handle files those sizes without PS slowing to a crawl or choke on the job.

It all comes down to what you need your photo equippment for...

Bakkti.

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.org

Hehe.. ! :-)

Reading all posts makes me understand better why I had a hard time deciding...
Yes, I kinda like the green(-ish) hue in the original colour slide ( it grew on me in due time ), but Doug has a point there. It would most probably look "bad" when printed since green has a tendency to stand out in printed images. There are not many other colours there to compete with it.

But, I'll have a go at it in PS during weekend to see what I can come up with.
If I find out something useful it will turn up in the "Misc" department of my site.

Thank you all for your opinions.
They were very much help.

Bakkti.

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.com

Bakkti.

Bakkti.

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.org

Hi coolj001 !

Nice seing there are "still" fans of "chemical photography" out there ! :-)
Congratulations to having bought a really nice camera ( meaning Minolta ).

You're quite right about film cameras.
I bought my Minolta Dynax 505si with 2 lenses for a bargain price and getting a digital equal would cost me about 4 times more.
Ok - I spent more on my slide/neg scanner, but on the other hand i don't need to fill my pockets with expensive memory cards when I'm out in the field shooting landscapes...

I would like to learn more about traditional film & SLR photography

Visit your local library. There's lots of books written on the subject.

Yes - if it's the only lens you've got, leve it on the camera. Protects the delicate mechanics of the shutter from dirt.
Also, you should put a filter on the lens to protect the glass surface from scratches. A scratched filter is much cheaper to replace than a scratched lens.
I see you've got a 55mm thread so there should be filters in most camera stores. If you're shooting Colour Slides I'd recommend a "Sky Light 1B" and if it's B&W or Colour Negatives a "1A" would do ( it's ok with 1B, too ).

Welcome to the world of chemical photography !

Bakkti

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.org

tvernuccio !

Thank you for positive responses on my image(-s)!

Reading your last comment here I think you understand my indecisivenes. You "sound" almost like me trying to make up my mind .. / LOL /

Ok - I think I'll go for both versions.
Have to wrestle PS a bit to find out best method to enhance the feel of the colour version.

A bit of tech behind the image:

Shot from a hill with a Pentax K-1000.
Ectachrome 64 - unfiltered.
35mm lens, f/8 at 45 sek exposure.

( ... and it was bl**dy freezing !! )

Take care now !

Bakkti.

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.com

Now that was fast !
Just about an hour since I posted and already 3 replies !!
Were you guys/gals just waiting for it ? ;-P

dBgrafix:
Thank you for your suggestion. I didn't think about that solution at all but I can see it can be worth experimenting with.
I was more thinking I would try to filter the green cast out using a complementary colour (to green) in some creative way I haven't quite figured out yet.
Thanks for a great suggestion !

tvernuccio:
I perfectly understand your opinion about the "watermark".
Unfortunately it has proven to be a necessary precaution when you sell imges on-line.
If not marked in any way you never know where they end up... Marking makes them useless to steal.

On the other hand I haven't disabled right-klicking on my site, so the 72 dpi's displayed can be saved and used for making dummies and for lay-out control.
You give some - and you take some ...

But - of course - who can resist a request from a lady ?

Bakkti.

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.org

webmaster@jiger.org

www.jiger.org

Sorry, bonestructure. Specularity map only in Poser or 3DS Max won't get the effect I'm looking for ... Just the basic wet skin effect - no drops or ripples ..

Retrocity ! Hehe - I'm getting "flooded" here .. :-D Sorry, no - but this looks like a very useful technique. Nice rendering of watery effect, there ! It's for keeps. Definitly ! Thanks ! -- Bakkti -- www.jiger.org

Thank you, never_again for your reply. Those tut's are just great, but alas, not the one I was loking for. They are quite similar to Toxic Angel's post technique and usable as such. I'll save those too. Thank you for your efforts ! :-) -- Bakkti -- www.jiger.org

Yes, but I don't do final renders in Poser. Honstely - it sucks... Did I say that (looking innocent) .. ? I use it to generate "humans" and pose them as needed for the image at hand. Then I export everything to Max, texture the stuff there and render it out as Tif's. After that there's some hours of post to do in Photoshop before the image is ready. // Look at "Girls" at my URL // Max Material Editor and light parameters for shaders - as well as shaders themselves - makes it quite easy to get the the effect you describe for a basic wet look. It's just he dropplets and trickles missing ... -- Bakkti -- www.jiger.org

No worries, guy Sam X Theraphy ! :-) If I don't find this blasted tutorial I'll do it in Post the Toxic Angel-way. Downside of that is I'll have to do it in every pic. A good way to make wet skin textures would save a lot of time. Well, hunting continues ... -- Bakkti -- www.jiger.org

SamTherapy and gwhicks! Thanks for your replies. I forgot to tell you I'm still on P 4.03 here so I can't resort to P5 or P6 related solutions. Sorry - my bad ! gwhicks - the tutorial you pointed at uses 3ds max. That's quite ok since I'm using Max 5.1 for most of my work. I'll check that one out and see if I can make use of it. Thanks guys(?) ! -- Bakkti -- www.jiger.org