Lotus Flower in B&W:

Film: Ilford HP5+ rated at ISO 400/Mamiya RB67-250mm lens on tripod. Black backdrop was added to simplify the background. Scanned directly from negative using Microtek Scanmaker 4. Exposure: 1/250 @ f-16 using a normal exposure of 1/250 @ f-32 from the sunlit petal using a Pentax digital spotmeter.

-- Bahman Farzad (exposeit-right@spotmetering.com), August 11, 1999

Answers

Wonderful photo.

The highlights look burned out in this scan however. I expected to see more detail in the top petals.

-- Keith Clark (keith@clarkphoto.com), August 12, 1999.

Keith: Thanks for your comments. The detail is there on the negative! Unfortunately due to the long tonal range of the subject (and the negative) and small petal's area, it is almost impossible to scan correctly and make the technically correct for the .jpg format and the net. Also, I am still struggling with my scanner in scanning B&W negatives! Thanks again. Bahman.

-- Bahman Farzad (exposeit-right@spotmetering.com), August 12, 1999.

Bahman,

It really is a very nice photo.

If your scanner allows pixel perfect registration between scans, try making two scans, one exposed for good highlight detail, and one for good shadow/midtone detail. Then you can layer the two scans in Photoshop and combine them through use of a layer mask or dodging/burning, using one layer as a mask.

Cheers,

Keith

-- Keith Clark (keith@clarkphoto.com), August 12, 1999.

Keith: Thanks. There is so much to learn! I will try the technique. Bahman

-- Bahman Farzad (Exposeit-right@spotmetering.com), August 12, 1999.

Bahman, I think pretty well all the flower pictures you have posted here and at photocritique.net are both technically superb and refreshingly different in their look and feel. That said, this one doesn't quite make it for me. I love the overall layout, but the shadows on the petals are too random and jumbled for an image that otherwise displays a very restrained and exquisite sense of shading and form. Perhaps you wanted a bit of imperfection in the image, but for me it's distracting rather than intr

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 13, 1999.

Aaarghhh. Photo.net's random post-chewer strikes again.

The end of my post should read: "it's distracting rather than intriguing."

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 13, 1999.