dark forest

• Claire Senft

• Jun 11, 2005

For my taste, it is 1 to1 1/2 grades to contrasty and printed overly dense. I think there is a lovely photo lurking in here.

 

• colivet

• Jun 11, 2005

I agree. two more stops and a few minutes less in the developer would reveal lot more.

 

• 

  thomas_m

• Jun 11, 2005

Thanks for the comments! Much appreciated The underexposure and overdevelopment was 100% intentional, going for a look akin to Sudek's garden series, just a little sharper. I like it but whether it works or not for anyone other than me is another story. LOL

 

• 

  adrian_freire

• Jun 11, 2005

I dont think showing all the detail is the best for all the subjets. In my opinion this picture is amazing this way. Good picture!

 

• 

  gma

• Jun 12, 2005

To my taste this subject has plenty of detail. A quality graphic image, IMO.

 

• 

  blackmelas

• Jun 13, 2005

Thanks for linking to the larger scan. 650 pixels is not enough for this one. I like it alot and can only assume that the print is (or will be if its only a neg scan) head and shoulders above what my monitor shows.
Best regards,
James

 

• 

  gma

• Jun 14, 2005

Yes, thank you very much! I wish more members would provide links to higher res images. I have this beauty on my monitor background for today. I hope that is OK with you.

 

• 

  thomas_m

• Jun 15, 2005

No worries - glad you liked it. More coming when I can catch a break from my 9-5...

 

• 

  Bob Carnie

• Jun 16, 2005

thomas m
I like this image immediately , reminds me of the dark forest in lord of the rings, I would not want to step into this scene, and I think this was your intention.Very nice image.