What's (in) the Picture?

Chris Breebaart Photography – finding stories

B4 Retouch: Ephesus

The old remains of Ephesus near Selcuk in West Turkey.

The B4 retouch series:
I browsed my archive for pictures to publish in – an originally – small series.
That series caught on a bit more than I thought.
All of them are not retouched yet.
Scratches, dust and stains are not removed.

20140204-000135.jpg

Turkey, Selcuk – October 1999

Shot with Nikon F90 on Kodak TriX, scanned from film and edited using  Snapseed andMarksta
Click the picture for a bigger version

23 Responses to “B4 Retouch: Ephesus”

      • vastlycurious.com

        I was on a cruise and it was very rushed. I did like that you could actually climb on the ruins respectfully but it was a crowded zoo and the tour was short as it was a shorter in port day.

        Like

        Reply
        • Chris Breebaart

          Did you arrive in Kusadasi? I saw one of them boat loads when I was visiting there. Crowded and fast indeed.

          Like

        • vastlycurious.com

          It was 2 years ago. I don’t remember but I will look as now I am curious . It was a whirl wind day!

          Like

        • Chris Breebaart

          My first visit was in 1983, hot day at noon, no one around, climbing all over the theatre to the top! was quite grand but a lot was not excavated then. Last visit was 1999, and the library area was enormously enlarged then. Beautiful. If you visit my website there is a turkey section there, not a lot of pics but some

          Like

        • vastlycurious.com

          I would have preferred to be alone rather than in vast moving rude hordes .

          Like

        • Chris Breebaart

          Yep, on my blog is a picture of boat loads of tourists seeing maria’s house and coming out. when i was travelling on my own i loved to be able to step aside and just watch them, doing my own stuff 🙂

          Like

        • vastlycurious.com

          I am now weary of travel alone but I used to love it!

          Like

        • Chris Breebaart

          Well not only in images, but talking and expressing while being there with people who listen and talk back even 😉

          Like

  1. M. R.

    (Lemme see if I’ve got this straight, Chris: you have somewhere an archive of frames that you intend to retouch, and by that verb you mean simply get rid of neg marks?
    But this one’s been post-produced. What’s your association between retouching and post-producing?)
    Ephesus. Mind-blowing. Would prefer it less sharp. But there you go: we both know I’m a grumpy old fart. [grin]

    Like

    Reply
    • Chris Breebaart

      I have scanned my negative archive, b4 retouch is as it comes out there: scratches, dust, blurs. These pictures are indeed post-produced: a bit of contrast or mid tones, structure. that is all. They are definitely not photoshopped and done on the screen of an iphone.

      Like

      Reply
  2. M. R.

    What I don’t understand is why you, a brilliant photog., bother to even do that! I reckon I could guarantee your frames as shot would be terrific …

    Like

    Reply
    • Chris Breebaart

      Well, old negatives used in the darkroom have sometimes damages called ‘telephone wires’: scratches over the length of the negative caused by pulling it throught the enlarger. On screen you do not see a lot of that, but if you print them on a bigger format you do. My framing is nog always accurate by the way, and I love to frame afterwards if the result is better. Working digital creats a lot of flexibility and freedom in working on the result. Changing tones, lighten darks, making highlights detailed etc is possible. And the originals might have some mishaps in lightning etc.
      So working on shots is fun afterwards, but it starts by making up your mind before you make the shot! Working digital gives instant feedback, but working analogue was different. you had to wait till you got the developed film to see what was there! Both are fun! But toning, adjusting a tat bit, not photoshopping, gives a better result no screen as well.

      Like

      Reply
      • M. R.

        I suppoe it’s the digital that gives me the shits. I used to love Chic’s doing work on his negs for reprinting: it was skill. But I’ve come to loathe the almost-always-evident digital enhancement – by which I don’t mean the kind of repairs you mention, but actual ENHANCEMENT. The version I hate most of all is when it’s done to water. How anyone thinks it can’t be seen is beyond me.
        Enough rabbiting on, M.R.!

        Like

        Reply
        • Chris Breebaart

          I agree with you. I too do not like enhancement or improvement that change a picture in some kind of fantasy object far from reality. Who is Chic?

          Like

        • M. R.

          He was my husband. My book – but you’d have to read my blog to know anything about it- is about our life. He was a stillsman on feature films.

          Like

Comments, remarks and feedback are well appreciated!!!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: