Thank you! Nice to see you here, as well. It's been too long. :-)
The sepia effect was very much intentional. They're toned photos. What I'm wondering about is the brightness of the pictures. I get the impression my home monitor is far too bright and my work monitor is not nearly bright enough. Meaning that the highlights in my pictures are quite bright on my home monitor, whereas they're quite drab on my work monitor. What do the highlights look like on your screen? Are they white and shiny or rather a dullish grey? Do the pictures look dark overall? Questions, questions...
Glad to hear you're on FaceBook, as well. Cool. I'll look you up. Expect a friending request from someone with the initials MJ. :-)
every time i decide you're dead for sure, up you pop! nice to see you again.
these pics are quite nice. i wouldn't describe them as "drab," however i was a bit puzzled as to how they were made. i couldn't actualy tell if they were shot on color film or b&w. if on color, then i thought perhaps you had lowered the saturation until they were barely "pastel." i say this because the highlights have a definite pinkish cast on my monitor, but not seen in the shadows. if b&w, i thought you might have added a photoshop tone of some sort that accounted for the pinkish [not sepia]tinge. in either case, i wouldn't say "drab;" perhaps "subtle" or "understated."
in any case, they're nice pics, the second being my favorite. it's nice to see you back.
Thank you! There were times I myself doubted I'd ever return to LJ, but I decided I had too many pictures to share to turn my back on you lot for ever
( ... )
i should have known -- "black and white color film" -- the bane of archivists the world over. i have had so many go-rounds with subordinates trying to submit archival documentation on this crap. they all say, "but the lady at the drug store said this was black and white film." i just tell them if they see c-41 anywhere on the box not to buy it. the image is only colored dyes, not metallic silver salts, and in 30 or 40 years there may be no image at all.
of course, for artistic purposes perhaps it suits some need. even then, if you paid $50,000 for an ansel adams print, it would hurt to see it disappearing into thin air year by year. [of course this stuff wasn't around in his working years -- thank god.]
Hmmm. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the XP2 negatives, but I guess I'll have to wait another forty years to determine just how good the film is. I'm not sure I'll be using it again, but it seemed worth the experiment; I'm not regretting it yet.
I'm trying to picture the nightmare of seeing an Ansel Adams print fade before one's eyes. The horror, the horror...
Comments 55
The photos, though beautifully composed, do look very sepia.
In other news, I'm on Facebook! I just joined yesterday, as another friend invited me. Look for me as Helen Callaghan
Reply
The sepia effect was very much intentional. They're toned photos. What I'm wondering about is the brightness of the pictures. I get the impression my home monitor is far too bright and my work monitor is not nearly bright enough. Meaning that the highlights in my pictures are quite bright on my home monitor, whereas they're quite drab on my work monitor. What do the highlights look like on your screen? Are they white and shiny or rather a dullish grey? Do the pictures look dark overall? Questions, questions...
Glad to hear you're on FaceBook, as well. Cool. I'll look you up. Expect a friending request from someone with the initials MJ. :-)
Reply
42.
Reply
Reply
I'm glad to hear the pictures look all right on your monitor. I was beginning to get a bit worried. Thanks for the feedback!
Reply
P.S. The "creeks over the beach" are known as washouts.
Reply
(Forgotten your password again, have you?)
Reply
these pics are quite nice. i wouldn't describe them as "drab," however i was a bit puzzled as to how they were made. i couldn't actualy tell if they were shot on color film or b&w. if on color, then i thought perhaps you had lowered the saturation until they were barely "pastel." i say this because the highlights have a definite pinkish cast on my monitor, but not seen in the shadows. if b&w, i thought you might have added a photoshop tone of some sort that accounted for the pinkish [not sepia]tinge. in either case, i wouldn't say "drab;" perhaps "subtle" or "understated."
in any case, they're nice pics, the second being my favorite. it's nice to see you back.
"mother of all hair experiments"?
Reply
Reply
of course, for artistic purposes perhaps it suits some need. even then, if you paid $50,000 for an ansel adams print, it would hurt to see it disappearing into thin air year by year. [of course this stuff wasn't around in his working years -- thank god.]
Reply
I'm trying to picture the nightmare of seeing an Ansel Adams print fade before one's eyes. The horror, the horror...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment