ScottGee1 wrote:
>To my eye, 'Havasu05' and 'Havasu10' have a different look than the
>others. Better exposures and clearer. The others seem a bit dark and
>kind of muddy.
>
>
I've been meaning to reply, but I can't seem to find my little color
corrected light box. So I can't compare what's on the screen with the
original slides for now. I did these web images before I had a color
calibrated screen, so they probably look a little different than I
intended them to look, but in what direction, I don't know. I've changed
monitors and acquired screen calibration capability since then.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't call them muddy, but then I'm not sure what that
means to you.
Numbers 2 & 3 aren't great, for sure. However, on a light box, they are
almost black, very badly underexposed. I included them both because my
first wife got a kick out of them, as I know she would, when I let her
know when I had this gallery up. So they are there for me and her and
her son who was born a year later, and as an example of what can be
salvaged with a decent scanner. Seriously, I'm surprised I didn't just
throw them out back when I got them back from processing. Being a pack
rat has its occasional advantages. I've also got a very overexposed one
I'm going to put in the new version to show what can be recovered in
that direction.
5 and 10 are both from the same roll as the ones surrounding them. One
significant difference between them and many others is the actual light.
This is a narrow, deep canyon in bright, desert sun. There are a lot of
deep shadows almost any time of day. I can bring them up, but the images
don't look right to me and my 35 year old memory of the place. Another
thing is that the walls around the falls and the levelish ground ARE
muddy colored, unlike the gray rock of the canyon walls. 5 is taken up
high in the canyon. 10 is shot looking down from a fall with the sun
vertical. Even so, you can see how brown the walls on the left are, just
light looking out of shadow.
The water is highly mineral laden, which explains the colors of the
pools. The spray from the falls dries into brown dirt. All the surfaces,
with traceries, holes, etc, around the falls, easiest to see in 4 & 16,
are, in fact, mud brown colored. There is even a light coating of
brownishness on leaves near the falls. And on our equipment, clothes and
bodies when we hiked out. Now that was a serious climb!
The solid matter the water is cascading over in 18-20 is also mud
colored, although it doesn't show much in those shots. No way I could
get both the sky and water detail and the dark parts on slide film. I'm
actually amazed at the exposure of those shots, exactly what I was
looking for, and I only took the three. I must have been good with
adapting match needle exposure to difficult lighting back then. Taknig
them was quite difficult, climbing on slippery rocks and shooting in
heavy spray. I was trygin to avoid falling with camera into the pool.
Something other than just a 50mm lens would have been a help. :-) The
dramatic overhanging structure of deposited minerals in those shots is
what fell down a few years later. Shots of the lower falls I've seen
since aren't as dramatic.
1-12 are from a roll of Kodachrome and the rest a roll of Ektachrome.
Moose
>On 2/10/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>swisspace wrote:
>>
>>>How brave are you feeling, fancy posting some links to slides
>>>(preferably kodachromes) you have posted stating which scanner you used
>>>so I can do a full evaluation,
>>>
>>Alright, here are shots of from the two rolls of film I shot in Havasu
>>Canyon in 1970. About half are Kodachrome and the rest are another
>>chrome. See if you see any big difference that says one can be scanned
>>ok and another not <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Havasu/>.
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|