File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, did a photoshoot with a friend of mine today. Used my point-and-shoot in combination with an analog SLR. The SLR shots are a lot better, but are currently being developed.

Here's one of the point-and-shoot shots. Critiques plz? (PS, I'll post one or two of the SLR shots after they get developed tomorrow)
>> Anonymous
how do you know the slr shots are a lot better?
>> Anonymous
OP again, forgot to mention that this is my first time working with a model.
>> Anonymous
in before tits or gtfo
>> Anonymous
annoying tilt is annoying.

and stop bumping your own stupid thread
>> Anonymous
>>123055

I agree. The tilt in combination with the lines of the bench make it extra distracting. The excess bench at the bottom just draws my eyes away from the model.
>> Anonymous
dull
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
Yeah, the tilt sucks. And like 123070 said, the bench at the bottom is bad. The lines are pulling my eyes away from the model instead of toward. And you cut off her foot.
>> Anonymous
>>123040
>analog SLR
for fuck's sake, just call it a film SLR. i hate faggots who call it "analog"
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>123117
isn't SLR automatically film.. and anything digital is called dSLR?
Could be wrong, but yea analog sounds annoying as shit.

Anyway, boring messy photo is uninteresting.
Post the SLR stuff later, hopefully it is better.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Ok, so apparently I need to work on my technique. Here's another.

>>123117

You hate people just because they use a different term than you? Seems pretty stupid to me.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-N1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:09 00:20:08Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating64Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length15.60 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width802Image Height602RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>123161
No.
Shadows don't flatter model's face. Model is pulling stupid looking expression.
Overal composition and colors suck. It just doesn't grab me.
>> Anonymous
>>123158
No, anything with an mirror that flips back and forth to alternatively direct light to the viewfinder or a sensor is an SLR.

Doesn't matter whether it uses film, a CCD, a CMOS, or if you really wanted to, glass plates. "Digital" or "film" or "analog" or whatever are just getting more specific.
>> Anonymous
>>123161
To me, it seems like you are undermining her features. You seem to interested in centering her in the shot.. then with what would accentuated her the most. Also remember, so is the topic... not the bland scenery.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>123173
Ah, thanks.
I'm a retard

>>123212
Good critique
>> Anonymous
>>123117
Splitting hairs. Film IS analog, dumb shit. Learn English.
>> Anonymous
>>123225
Actually if you wanted to get into the strictest definitions of each word, film actually records light in a digital manner - either enough light hits each individual grain to darken it, or it doesn't. Meanwhile an electronic sensor measures light in an analog manner, so that's why digital cameras have analog to digital converters as part of their processing (seen as "14 bit A/D" or similar in the marketing literature)
>> Anonymous
>>123235
Film doesn't encode in binary, though. Its grains sample light in increments. I see your point, but the logic is flawed.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here,

>>123212

Thanks for the input. I'm quite new to photographing people, and so I haven't gotten then hang of it yet. I was trying something quite a bit different with the SLR shots (using a Canon Rebel GII with a 35-80mm f/4-5.6 lens), so I'm hoping to get some better results from that roll.

Also, here's an example of my usual style of photography.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-N1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:09 02:33:16Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating64Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.90 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height800
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
     File :-(, x)
>>123236

wat
>> Anonymous
>>123251
nice shoop.
>> j
>>123235

Learn what analog and digital means.

Film is analog, because each grain can be any arbitrary value of darkness, and that value is *analogous* to the light that hit it. Hence analog.

Digital records incoming light with a sensor and writes a value for it in integer form, in the case of DSLRs this is usually a 16 (or is it 12? In the case of RAW, anyway.) digit binary number. It's taking some value, and encoding it as a number.

You're always going to have less possible different values in digital than analog, because analog basically has an infinite amount of different values. But digital can be written with a big enough number that the naked eye can't perceive the difference.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>123426

>Grain particles are binary. An individual film grain can only be either black or not-black, on or off, exposed or not exposed.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
>> Anonymous
>>123426
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Grains of silver halide are either exposed or not exposed. There is no "analog" to it. They are exposed and converted into metallic silver in the development process or they are unexposed and washed out in the fixing process.

Film is much more digital (remember that digital does not mean electronic in ANY WAY) than many people think.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hey, OP again. Sorry for the unnecessary bump, just wanted an opinion on this last shot.

Any suggestions (other than "OMG TOO MUCH FILM GRAIN", I already know) would be much appreciated.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2008:02:10 19:35:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height919
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>124055
I like this one the most. :]
Good job OP
>> Anonymous
>>124055
I think that you should have filled the frame more. I'm assuming that the model was the subject here, yet I am drawn to looking at the scenery in the background. I also think that a bit more light on the model's face would be nice.
>> Anonymous
>>124084

Thanks. This is what I meant when I said the SLR shots were better. Unfortunately, my sister borrowed my camera over christmas and had been using ISO 400 film. When she gave it back to me she said she had put a new roll in for me. Too bad I didn't realize she put a new roll of 400 in, or else the SLR shots wouldn't have had so much grain.
>> Anonymous
>>124090

Photoshop is your friend.