Nude

[Emil Schildt]

Anna.

Liquid emulsion on heavy paper.
Pol 665 pos/neg.

[-88-]

Anna.

Liquid emulsion on heavy paper.
Pol 665 pos/neg.

Lovely.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"
"decrial
Dagor 240mm
8x10 Delta 100"

"Her skin sort of bothers me. Has it been smoothed in photoshop?"

I just scanned this entire thread from start to finish so all the photo display the same.

ustas,

which Dagor 240 are you using? Coated or un-coated?
The tonal rendering definitely has to do with that 240 Dagor.
I guess Andrew is right.

[Darin Boville]

Darin,

I wonder if the strong highlights seen in the skin are really issues with copying the pictures for posting. There could very well be fine detail in a careful print.

Is the apparent blowout of highlights, (maybe only here in this jpg file for the web), what bothers you?

Asher

Hey Asher,

I don't want to make too big a deal about this--ruins the fun--but my issue is that the skin looks plastic--too smooth, too lacking in detail. Looks plastic.

Please take my comments in the off-hand, casual way they were intended.

--Darin

[Asher Kelman]

Hey Asher,

I don't want to make too big a deal about this--ruins the fun--but my issue is that the skin looks plastic--too smooth, too lacking in detail. Looks plastic.

Please take my comments in the off-hand, casual way they were intended.

--Darin

Well, Darin,

Now I'm a tad confused. I'm really used to evaluating totally digital processing. I often ask for the RAW image so I can work through the processing myself and understand how robust the image really is. With film, however, we can have some of the alterations in tone appearing just though level of aggressive contrast in processing a print or else use of a contrast mask. Then the scanned picture can be altered in Photoshop. At leach stage, the amount of data in the skin can get thinned.

You see a plastic skin where I only see entire limbs and blown out areas. Where it's not a highlight, the light may just be flat, naturally or because of how it was processed to make a print or when it was scanned. I'd really need to see a blow up of the arms and face to be able to recognize "plastic" skin here. You might be picking it up based on some learning you've had seeing such images and then seeing the blowup and confirming that yes, the skin is plastic. Sort of how machines learn how to recognize the letter "A" even when scribbled or distorted. So you might be correct, but I really don't see that at this magnification there's enough information for the average person to recognize anything is wrong.

I must admit I'm fascinated by your acuity and perception. I must be far behind. No sarcasm here, I just think you might recognize something that I am not skilled enough to do, as yet. That's what I find so fascinating, since, at least for digital photography, I have excellent radar for plastic looks.

So I'd love to see blow ups to know how blind and behind I am!

Asher

[Darin Boville]

Now, Asher,

Aren't you going to feel silly when Ustas comes on and tell sue that the pict is of a mannequin?

--Darin

[ustas]

Paul,
It`s an early un-coated Goerz Berlin Doppel-Anastigmat.

Emil,
very nice shot!

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Paul,
It`s an early un-coated Goerz Berlin Doppel-Anastigmat."

Like the pair I just sold, 240 & 300mm. Figures.

[jonreid]

Anna.

Liquid emulsion on heavy paper.
Pol 665 pos/neg.

Beautiful gandolfi....

[ustas]

"Paul,
It`s an early un-coated Goerz Berlin Doppel-Anastigmat."

Like the pair I just sold, 240 & 300mm. Figures.

Almost the same.