Young Pam...

D_C_NC

leaforte

This has a cool, 70's - 80's feel; hip and grainy. I like the eyelashes, earrings, bangles, and tweed. Thanks for sharing.

ShepsMom

Pretty girl. Picture looks grainy and udnerexposed for such a close shot. What settings were you using?

binghott

leaforte wrote:

This has a cool, 70's - 80's feel; hip and grainy. I like the eyelashes, earrings, bangles, and tweed. Thanks for sharing.

wow, leaforte, that is exactly how i feel.
i really like it!

Scott_Quier

This is way cool. Love the grain. I do think I would bring up the mid-tone brightness a touch - her face is a touch dark to my eyes.

urbanaries

Love this shot! One of my faves you've posted so far! I like her relaxed pose and expression, and the grain is lovely. +1 on Scott's comments.

D_C_NC

urbanaries wrote:

Love this shot! One of my faves you've posted so far! I like her relaxed pose and expression, and the grain is lovely. +1 on Scott's comments.

Thanks for thje help once again , this is my 2nd attempt at B & W in photoshop. She had a golden tan and a slightly sunburnt face when the shot was taken..I appreciate the comments....

nicoleshilliday

Don't take this the wrong way!!!!

When i first looked at the shot i thought it was a scanned photo from the early 80s. I think everything about it works!

Enjoyed looking!!

Scott_Quier

I don't know what it is, but I like the first one better than the "redo". It lost something and I can't quite put my finger on what it might be.

leaforte

What he said.

D_C_NC

So do I but , I am still learning this digital stuff. First one has more Depth , richer to me? Anyway thanks for looking and helping me try to learn.... Thanks again make me learn photoshop....

D_C_NC

ShepsMom wrote:

Pretty girl. Picture looks grainy and udnerexposed for such a close shot. What settings were you using?

It is grainy for it is film not digital and as far as an exposure , whatever my trusty L-398 said , I shot , no fill or anything this shot. Same one in the young ladies mouth...

Scotty_R

Scott_Quier wrote:

I don't know what it is, but I like the first one better than the "redo". It lost something and I can't quite put my finger on what it might be.

Agreed...the first image is much more pleasing to my eye because the contrast between the highlights and the shadows is much richer in the first image. To say that an image is "under exposed" or "over exposed" is a subjective observation--every image is exposed in a certain way in order to create a specific effect and often times the photographer doesn't even know what that effect is going to be when he or she starts making the image. Contrast between light and dark is one of the things that gives a two dimensional image depth, and if it's lacking in a black and white image then all you have is, well, lots of boring grey.

System

Scott_Quier wrote:

I don't know what it is, but I like the first one better than the "redo". It lost something and I can't quite put my finger on what it might be.

To my eye the retouched photo lost those rich contrasts and I see an increase in the apparent grain. (Especially around her hair.)

When I see B&W prints there's an intimate feel to them, that slightly underexposing seems to intensify. I love grainy B&W if it's done right.