File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Comment/critique thread.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>95140
>>95141
>>95142
>>95143
>>95144
>>95147
Oh, almost forgot. No EXIF data on these because:

Camera: Nikon N65 (Manual)

Lense: Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm

Film: Kodak Color (200 Speed)
>> Anonymous
the geometry in the first one is cool, but the others are kinda meh
>> Anonymous
>>95163
Thanks,

Do you have a suggestion for the perspective on>>95143
?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Seeing as you asked I'll nitpick where I can and voice my opinion.

>>95140

I like this one. Interesting geometric shapes and architecture. No complaints.


>>95143

I'd have liked to have seen more of it as it's an amazing and detailed object as it is. I look at that and feel I want more.

>>95141

I'm guessing the lion was the subject here, but it feels confusing in that I don't know what I am supposed to be looking at. The eye isn't drawn to or across anything and there isn't a balance to it. What's the subject or feature of the photo?

>>95142

The choice of subject is good, but the framing seems off. It'd have looked a little better if I could see all of the statue in a portrait aspect instead, rather than the legs cut off at the knees and the rest of the pattern, arch and column attached on their heads to distract me.

>>95144
>>95147

I like the shots of the guards, but I think they'd look better if you'd shuffled around and framed it a little differently. In the first one you can see the subject at the front has his feet cut off, which annoys me and there's a lot of wall and window space at the top that isn't adding anything at the same time. With the second one this isn't so much of a problem because of the swords pointing up that gives the space a little more meaning, but maybe you'd have been better off framing or isolating the two saluting in some way. It still feels a little dull and unexciting though, like a good but standard tourist snapshot of the changing of the guards. Perhaps you were restricted in where you can go, considering this wasn't just an open park, but that is what niggles with those ones.

>>95149

The couple in that shot were what would have made it for me and my eyes were drawn to them as the point of interest, but they look like they are almost dropping off the frame and were in it by accident. I think the photo would have benefited from making them more of a feature of it. It's very nearly very good.
>> Anonymous
These look like age old reposts.
>> Anonymous
And oh.. Kodak is grainy crap. Use some other film.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:11:27 20:19:40Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height665RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>95140

smaller files. my internets is slow. :(
>> Anonymous
I like the first one but the rest seem to be more snap shots than anything else. Take some more time to decide on the composition of the frame, and really try to fill the frame effectively. Many of these would be better if they were cropped or if you got in closer to really focus on something
>> Anonymous
whoops, shit, definately meant to start a new thread with that, sorry.>>95337
>> Anonymous
>>95313
90% of negative film is trash.

No matter what people tell you negative film is very technically inferior and has many built-in aspects that correct for faults in the chromogenic process (that brown acetate they are mounted on is not brown "just because")

Negative film was just created for convenience in making colour prints. It's terrible for archival purposes and very poor image quality.

Slide film FTW!
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95420

Slide film? Pretty rare now, I'd imagine.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95454
>Slide film? Pretty rare now, I'd imagine.
Gone are the days when you could find slide film at the average grocery store, but you can still find it at most reasonably good specialty camera stores. Most people who still seriously shoot color film (i.e., people who do it because they're good photographers who prefer film rather than because they can't afford digital or are old people frightened of change) use slide film.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>95457

Nice to see it's still going. I've got stacks of old slide film in plastic bags. I was scanning them in for archival purposes and they've held their IQ well over the years. A pleasant surprise. I was worried there would be little left in them after years gathering dust.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>95454

oh trust me, there's plenty of slide film of all sorts around.
>> Anonymous
OP here.

thank you to>>95169for the critiques. I agree with nearly all of them.

Also, I'm too cheap for better film than Kodak as I have to buy it at a local shop and it's around $8-10 per roll of 24 exp...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>95580
Jesus, is that *before* development?

I consider $6/roll to be expensive film. And that's for 36-exposure rolls. Are you in the US? Is there some weird currency conversion issue I'm not realizing?
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
It can be pricey in the high street in the UK. Not sure where the OP is buying it though. It's often cheaper to buy in bulk by mail order or through the internet.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>95580

Holy crap, that's WAY too much! Especially for negative film! I can pick up a pro pack of 20 rolls of Provia for 5 dollars per roll, or 100 for the pack.
>> Anonymous
OP here. To

>>95585
>>95588

I live in the U.S. in Louisiana. My choices for film are either cheap run of the mill Kodak film from Wal-Mart or a grocery store or the expensive film I was talking about from a local camera store. They're so small they have to have very high prices to stay in business. I know, it's ridiculously overpriced. That's why I don't buy it.

Speaking of this, anyone know any good sites for high quality film with negligible shipping costs?
>> Anonymous
>>95585
Agreed. I recently got some velvia 50 for $4 CAD a roll, but normally I'd be paying $6-$7 before developing.
>> des
>>95591
B&H, mang. Just buy a lot at once and don't worry about the shipping.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>95591

I actually go through Calumet photographic here and they work out well for me, www.calumetphoto.com , though I know others recommend Adorama (spelling?) and B&H.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>95595
>>95596


Thanks guise