Some of the images I have posted are upwards of 10 years old. The scanners have changed a lot, as well as the photo editing software, I have have begun to take a second look at some old images that I kept in storage, but didn't scan for one reason or another. On some of these 'questionable' images, I decided to give them a try with a Nikon 9000 ED scanner and CS3 now that I have some minor level of proficiency with both. I thought I'd post a couple of experiments and see not only what other people thought, but also to see if others are going way back in the archives and seeing if they can bring back 'dead' photos to life with the better technology.
This first image was taken in 35mm, Velvia 50. This was scanned in once with some gain control while reviewing the histogram. I then did some heavy post processing to get this to reseble what I hope is a realistic portrayal.
Here is a second photo. I did one scan on the image with no gain for the sky. The second scan had increased gain for everything else but the sky. I blended the two together and then performed very heavy duty post processing from there.
It would almost be worth it to see a "before" version of your images for comparison. As presented, both photos elicit a "Why'd you ever ignore these in the first place?" I agree, the increase in hardware and software technology has made possible the saving of some images that I had long given up on. I usually key on one image in particular that I used in my "14,000 Feet" book. It was dark, I used a Tiffen ND-grad filter with a ghastly red tint, but with improved PS skills (thank you, John Shaw's Photoshop Field Guide!), I extracted a really nice image out of it. That's just one example of dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds.
Todd and Tony, here are the originals without any increase in gain on the scan and no edits whatsoever aside from the resizing.
While I saved these slides, I have kept them stored and probably haven't looked at them for 10 years. I only scanned and have looked at images that I really liked. I also used to be of the mindset I wouldn't correct anything in post or crop a single image (as if I violated some sacred code of ethics). I've totally dumped the concept of not correcting exposure issues, although I prefer to not crop an image to make it work if I can. I've been working recently on blending two different exposures on current work, but this was one of the first time I tried two scans of the same image to address exposure latitude problems. I think it worked pretty well on the second image which utilized that process.
Both are nice saves, Steve, but I'm really digging that second one. Given that my 4x5 has max 300mm bellows extension, I've relied on cropping quite a bit to get some telephoto comps that I couldn't have otherwise. I personally don't have an issue with it whatsoever. If cropping helps to better express your vision, why not do it?
Discussion
7 repliesThis first image was taken in 35mm, Velvia 50. This was scanned in once with some gain control while reviewing the histogram. I then did some heavy post processing to get this to reseble what I hope is a realistic portrayal.
Let me know your thoughts!
While I saved these slides, I have kept them stored and probably haven't looked at them for 10 years. I only scanned and have looked at images that I really liked. I also used to be of the mindset I wouldn't correct anything in post or crop a single image (as if I violated some sacred code of ethics). I've totally dumped the concept of not correcting exposure issues, although I prefer to not crop an image to make it work if I can. I've been working recently on blending two different exposures on current work, but this was one of the first time I tried two scans of the same image to address exposure latitude problems. I think it worked pretty well on the second image which utilized that process.