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.


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 thoughts on “B4 Retouch: Ephesus

  1. (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]


    • 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.


  2. 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 …


    • 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.


      • 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.!


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.