>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>267650 Fuzzy. Looks like you underexposed it and either the scanner or printer pushed it since, as mentioned, ISO400 B&W shouldn't be that grainy. Great subject and composition, though.
>>267651 Awesome. Great scene. Would be better if the guy were facing more towards the camera, but still great.
>>267653 Again, great shot. Love the lighting, love the composition. This is the sort of thing B&W excels at.
>>267655 Meh
>>267657 Interesting because it looks like it was shot in 1953. Otherwise unremarkable.
>>267658 I don't like the big shadow over much of the frame and the fact that the subject is so tiny off in the distance like that.
>>268069 Unremarkable.
>>268070 Back to awesome again. Though I wish you'd waited for the girls to get a little further into the foreground or middle ground before taking the shot.
>>268071 >>268073 Unremarkable
>>268522 Really nice portrait. I think a very slight rotation so she didn't have a background line hitting her face and we got closer to a 3/4 profile would have improved it, though.
>>269809 Boring and snapshotty. And the tones are so boring that I had to check the exif because this looks oddly like a digital converted hamfistedly to B&W rather than your normal B&W film workflow.
|