I made this picture two weeks ago. I asked their dad if I could take their picture. You must grow up a little faster when you're a bartender's kids. I'm really thinking about switching to all black-and-white phtography. One problem is that all that beautiful exposure lattitude - especially the shadow detail - is lost when you try to digitize the image. The proofs from this roll look tons better than the scans. Any suggestions?

Oh - I forgot to mention: Tri-x Pan film, Rokkor 58mm lens at f/5.6 (I think - maybe f/4), Tripod mounted, 1 second exposure. Joe

Cute character shots of the kids Joe, sorry I can't help with the techie stuff!

Wow, that's a great shot...especially when shooting kinds at a long exposure, without having them move or do anything funny :) Great work.....love that dark Tri-X btw!

That's a great shot Joe! Very grainy looking here....does it look this way in print?....or is that from the scan?

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

Don't know what you are using to scan. You and Rork should compare notes as he seems to be getting beautiful results. I've found when scanning B&W PRINTS on a flatbed scanner I get better results scanning them in "color" mode than "grayscale." More depth to the tones; guess its because it is using three different black and white points (a curve for each color), rather than a single curve. I do not know if something similar would work when scanning a B&W negative as a color slide. You are right about color negatives having more exposure latitude. The C-41 based B&W emulsions are supposed to get some of this back. But then you lose all the control of developing your own. I usually shoot color negatives and convert to B&W in photoshop, but I'd guess I'm losing something. Neat picture BTW.

OK - for one thing, I over-processed this one a bit. One of my problems is that these proofs were not focused correctly in the enlager. (I've got to find some good B&W processing. My last experience was even **worse**!) I attempted to 'grit it up a bit' with the post processing. Now that I look at it again, I'm thinking "OY! what did I do?". So - in a nut shell we've got blurry enlargement on a cheap scanner, over-processed to try to compensate. Here you see a detail - untouched, except for .JPG'ing - from the original scan. Notice that the boy stood pretty still, but the girl moved quite a bit during the 1 sec. exposure. If I were to (..and I **will**) bring this neg' to a good B&W 'salon' (once I find one), it would be a *beautiful* print. Talk with ya'all soon. Thanks, Joe

Here: This one looks better, and includes the full 58mm lens perspective. Plus, they stood pretty still for the long exposure, and I think it scanned a little better for some reason...

Very cool pics, both of them, you captured the kids' "attitudes" beautifully - and I bet that lil boy is a handful! :-)

Now I like the second one the best. Also, now I know that I don't want to crop the framing, either. I love all the stuff that's surrounding them: the jars of jerky at upper left, the booze bottles on the shelf, the glowing bottles in the illuminated coolers; the stacks of shining glasses, the decorative beer tapper handles at upper right, the cash register - then in the forground is the mixed drink, and ashtrays on the bar top. ..And I love how the girl is hiding behind her big brother a bit. I think that there is extraordinary balance in this picture, especially considering that the sheer number of objects that were photographed could tend toward a cluttered appearence. My eye follows a comfortable, easy path - but keeps bringing me back to the people. I'm not kidding when I say that as I've spent hours studying this picture over just the last few days, I have gone through a turning point in my whole understanding of photography, and I can begin to see the direction that my work is taking. Thanks all, Joe