Options

Young Pam...

D_C_NCD_C_NC Registered Users Posts: 144 Major grins
edited November 30, 2007 in People
Pam.jpg

Comments

  • Options
    leaforteleaforte Registered Users Posts: 1,948 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2007
    This has a cool, 70's - 80's feel; hip and grainy. I like the eyelashes, earrings, bangles, and tweed. Thanks for sharing.
    Growing with Dgrin



  • Options
    ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited November 28, 2007
    Pretty girl. Picture looks grainy and udnerexposed for such a close shot. What settings were you using?
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • Options
    binghottbinghott Registered Users Posts: 1,075 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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.

    15524779-Ti.gif wow, leaforte, that is exactly how i feel.
    i really like it!thumb.gif
  • Options
    Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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.
  • Options
    urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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.
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • Options
    D_C_NCD_C_NC Registered Users Posts: 144 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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.Pam2acopy.jpg She had a golden tan and a slightly sunburnt face when the shot was taken..I appreciate the comments....
  • Options
    nicoleshillidaynicoleshilliday Registered Users Posts: 549 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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!!
    Nicole
    D3, and other Nikon goodies
    Shilliday Photography
    Blog
    Facebook
  • Options
    Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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.
  • Options
    leaforteleaforte Registered Users Posts: 1,948 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    15524779-Ti.gif What he said.
    Growing with Dgrin



  • Options
    D_C_NCD_C_NC Registered Users Posts: 144 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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....
  • Options
    D_C_NCD_C_NC Registered Users Posts: 144 Major grins
    edited November 29, 2007
    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.girlxs-1.jpg Same one in the young ladies mouth...
  • Options
    Scotty_RScotty_R Registered Users Posts: 108 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2007
    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.
    Scotty
  • Options
    SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited November 30, 2007
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.