So what do you think about the vintage style?

This one isn't even faked (I don't care for faked vintage processing too much), it's the negative scanned without ICE (infrared scanning correction) activated. Scary how damaged the negative is isn't it? Considering I treat my negatives very carefully, and it's only 2 years old. I think the damage is from the many journeys to the lab for printing.

i like the vintage style! a bit too dark maybe but the perspective is great.

I really like the vintage style as well, I think I like the darkness of this photo, the silhouette the bridge makes is very interesting and eye catching, I also like the diagonal lines of the suspension, great photo!

I'm not sure this feels like "vintage style" or just an abused negative. The style of the design in the bridge says "modern" as does the tonal range of the scan. A real bummer that ICE doesn't work for b&w negatives isn't it...

Thanks for the comments,
@Beamer
Well ICE does work nicely for this image, but you can see where it corrects the huge scratch around the ropes. That can be fixed easily in photoshop. I just liked the shabby look of it.

Is this a silver based b&w negative?? Because ICE is know not to work at all for b&w negatives. The only b&w negatives that can be cleaned with ICE are the C-41 process, dye based negatives, I thought?? When I try to force ICE on with my Nikon Coolscan and then scan a TriX or FP4 negative the results are totally useless.

Oh yeah I didn't think about that, yeah, this isn't a real B/W negative. It's one of those Kodak fake B/W negatives which are regularly processed C-41.
Interesting that ICE doesn't work with real B/W negatives, thanks for the information.

hey die kratzer machen das bild erst toll ;) ohne siehts eher langweilig aus...

Gee, I get hammered for having *real* grain evident in scans of FP4 and HP5 and then this!! The problem (if you can call it that) is C41 b&w negs tend to have very smooth tonal range, making it very difficult to fake the vintage look. I like the perspective you have of the subject, but there are just too many inconsistencies to be convincing in a vintage sense because it is too polished (and why does a hair or some other dirt on a neg - shown as a white line - skip the dark bridge????).

Yeah I see what you mean, and I agree, but considering it's small age of 3 years I'd say this negative looks pretty vintage :)