asthetics (and a wee bit of ego)

[Joseph O'Neil]

Okay, here goes. I hate scanning, so my scans are too large, and full of dust spots. But a serious question, I ahve a couple shots, same subject, one two different angles, one two shots, same negative. Wondering which people prefer.

For whatever odd reason, my cheap flatbed scanner, even in greyscale, wants to put a blue cast on my B&W shots. Anyhow, raw scans, so beware they might be kinda big.

http://www.start.ca/users/joneil/bw6.htm

the other thing is, the scans are not very sharp. I do purposely leave some areas on some prints out of focus - kinda like the old portraits where just the eyes were sharply focused. But in this case, it's just the scanner - my prints are sharper than they appear. Scanning doen at 300 dpi. Shoudl I scna higher, then resample down?

joe

[Doug Dolde]

Have you been nipping the ale dude?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Joesph,

Of the images you show, I think the ones taken in the graveyard are the strongest. They don't feel too "crammed" and the light is more interesting. Also, if I remember correctly, there is a family connection to the graves which also makes them more intersting.

The images of the bridge are challenging for me as they appear to be taken around noon and the light is a bit harsh ( I might be wrong of course, but that is the feeling I get). Also, it is tough to make a bald sky interesting but I commend you for trying!

I hope this is the type of feedback you were looking for, if not my apologies.

Eric

[Jack Flesher]

Well I think I understand your point, but they just look like bad scans to me... Perhaps if they were more toward the warm-brown tones, the effect would work better?