(no subject)

[sublimatedangel]

Bad Amy, lack of updates.....
Yesterday...
Went to school. Turned in horrible ugly photos. Well, I think one is okay, but plan to reshoot and resubmit, so whatever. Psych was cancelled again. Went to Jay's and showed him horrible ugly photos from negatives. Whined about the calla lily. The more I look at the negative, the more gorgeous textural details I notice that decided not to come out on the print. Bah.

Anthro went well. Heehee... I love that teacher. She amuses me almost as much as my family does. After class I got Jay and took him to Best Buy so he could get a new computer chair with his gift cert. Chose a very nice one. I thought about getting one for Nate's bday, but thought we should wait a week in case he sees something he likes better at faire. So we built the happy little chair with many little comments typical to us, it was fun.

Came home. Had a headache that had started around 11:00 am so finally took something for it and settled down to do some reading. Reading didn't help, but my beloved got home, dealt with Mike (yah, he's over all the time now... but that is cool), and then made me all better. He's just able to do that - he knows exactly what I need and just being around him makes everything a little bit better. So felt better and slept well (although my dreams are deranged.) and now that I've caught up on my LJ and email, I am a happy girl. I think I will go have some cereal.

Comments

[katlyn.livejournal.com]

I know you said the contrast was good on the calla lily print, but did you try throwing a filter in the enlarger just for giggles? It may "snap" those details to the forefront.

Just occurred to me.

[sublimatedangel]

I was using the regular filters (started with a 2.5 then switched to a 4) to control contrast, are these the ones you mean, or are there special ones that might help? I am considering scanning the photo and the negative, but I'm not sure if scanning the negative will hurt it? I seem to recall someone saying you need a special scanner for negatives/xrays/etc?? But that could be something I'm remembering wrong - let me know if you know.

I'm planning to ask the teacher about it on Tuesday, to see what he says, and when I develop my second roll of film, I may try printing it again - maybe it was a fluke or something. It actually still looks kinda neat - it's just that I can see in the negative all the stuff that *ought* to be in the print but isn't.