File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Camera: Mamiya M645 1000S
Film: Velvia 100
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
couple more
>> SAGE
why is it so tiny
>> Anonymous
what is a good size. i resized to 600px width
>> Anonymous
1000 or 1500 long side.
>> SAGE
>>285627
950 is a good starting point
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Camera: Mamiya M645 1000S
Film: Velvia 100
>> SAGE
>>285631
oh boy a flower. man i should get right on framing that for my wall.
>> SAGE
are these all from the 80mm?
>> Anonymous
all at 80mm f/2.8 with the exception of the landscape.
>> Anonymous
>>285631
Cool leaf bro!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> SAGE
>>285634
any from the wide angle?
>> SAGE
>>285636
you best be trolling with that pic
>> Anonymous
no, i have quite an extensive foliage collection. giclee prints are available upon request.
>> Anonymous
Dude, I have some 1000s shots too. You want me to post? Except they're all people...
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>285640
how about this i got it on video

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark II NPhotographerJim ColmanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:22 00:17:47Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>285642

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark II NPhotographerJim ColmanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:22 00:17:40Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>285641
post em up
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
what is this one

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark II NPhotographerJim ColmanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:22 00:17:25Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length43.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I use my 1000s for street portraiture. It's easier to charm a stranger when you're using an exotic camera.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:28 01:55:57
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:27 00:20:15
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:27 00:14:24
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Don't give me shit about how clean my negatives are. I already heard it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:24 00:43:07
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
That's all for now. C&C would be awesome.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:24 00:43:02
>> Anonymous
>>285649

Dig this one, man. What kind of lighting/speed/ etc...
>> Anonymous
>>285658
Oh, who knows. It's probably 1/30 @ f/4 or f/2.8 with a green filter. Always natural light. I don't use flash for candids.
>> Anonymous
>>285652
>>285649
>>285646

Do like.
>> Anonymous
nice colors, man!
>> Anonymous
C&C incoming.

>>285623
3/10
Is okay, nothing spectacular, your average landscape. Colors are a bit washed out.

>>285625
1/10
A flower. Boring, cliche, washed out colors, uninteresting composition.

>>285631
1/10
A flower. Boring, cliche, washed out colors, uninteresting composition.

>>285636
1/10
A leaf. Boring, cliche, washed out colors, uninteresting composition.

>>285642
1/10
Snapshot. It's a camera, nothing interesting to see. Colors are nice.

>>285643
1/10
A flower. Boring, cliche, okay colors, uninteresting composition.

>>285645
3/10
A flower. Boring, cliche, good colors, interesting composition.

>>285646
3/10
Is okay. Okay composition, potentially interesting subject, sharp, however you fucked up the negative during development. There's underdeveloped spots due to air, which are quite annoying.

>>285648
2/10
Bad picture. Uninteresting composition, boring and annoying "Just-missed-it" facial expression, washed out grey-tones, slightly distracting background.

>>285649
2/10
Bad picture. Uninteresting composition, boring and annoying "Just-missed-it" facial expression, nice grey-tones, and good cleavage.

>>285651
5/10
nice, would have preferred a larger DoF to get the cigarette sharp as well. I only see gray tones, there's no black anywhere in the picture. Work on your levels. Clean your goddamn negs. There's a reason why people give you shit about it.

>>285652
2/10
Okay composition, boring and annoying "Just-missed-it" facial expression, no highlights in the face make me look at his shirt first, washed out gray tones again, crop out the border.
>> Anonymous
>>285751
Cont'd

@ The person posting the portraits: After composing, focusing, setting shutter speed and aperture, do not look through the viewfinder. Look at the person and keep your finger on the shutter release, so you can actually see what you are photographing and stop taking pictures of closed eyes and a likes. It makes the pictures worthless.

@ The person posting flowers: Go and get some good photobooks, and for each picture you like, find out why and write it down, analyze it beyond "nice colors" and things like that. See what makes a good subject, and a good composition. Because there's nothing of interest in your pictures, at all.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285752
I got tired of taking pictures of people staring straight into the camera. It's not that hard, and I find it to be hardly interesting. In these, I was trying more to capture that side glance that people make a lot when they are uncomfortable, so it's not an accident.

Since I shoot more with a waist level finder, I'll try what you said about not looking.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "washed out gray-tones" but this might be a stylistic choice. Are you implying that you to see higher contrast? Or just better midtone seperation? pic related.

You might want to show me what you like in terms of dark tones. Also, when you say "uninteresting composition" what do you mean? How can I frame it better? or rather, what makes it awful, if that's an easier question.

Thanks

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:02 06:34:39
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285759
I get what you mean, however, pinched eyes and looking away doesn't make it uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is that look where you can read a person's uncertainty in their eyes, where all "Ohlawl pictare time" is gone from their pose and emotion. 285648 shows genuine uncomfortably, but still fakes his pose and his smile even more so. This doesn't make it look interesting, it just makes it look like he's bored and you're taking too much time to take a shot. I hope you realize that.
Picture is by Rineke Rijkstra, a dutch photographer who in my opinion manages to catch this expression I think you are looking for.
I realize you're shooting with a waist level finder, that's why I gave the advice.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285783
Cont'd.

About the gray tones: The edge from your pictures is empty, and in 'real life' would result in complete black. If you were to make a good darkroom print, it would be the purest black. This might get fucked up while scanning, but is changed in post with some quick levels.
This does seem to increase contrast, but you should realize this contrast is already in the film, so you're not increasing the contrast, but by not doing so, just saying black is actually gray. If you want to shoot low contrast, use a low contrast film or pull your film, as you generally always want actual black (The border) to be black, and the other way around.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:02 14:15:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width750Image Height1000
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285786
Cont'd.

About your composition. All compositions are centered or use the rule of the thirds. Center compositions do not always work, and rule of the thirds is a really safe way to get a decent composition.
285646 is a good example of this. It is a decent composition, works, but not in any way exciting. 285651 is already a bit better, as you are using the surroundings to create a setting. I'd advice play around more with where your subjects are located, and try and look up some good articles on negative space. Try and frame more then just "oh hi im a person", try to create a story around your subject.
285649 seems to work in some store, together with some guy. If we would see this guy glaring from behind, and we could see an engagement ring around her finger, there would be a story. Stories generally make a picture more exciting.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285783
Thanks for the name dropping. This is the most productive thread I've had on /p/ in a forever, so I'm glad I actually posted today.

The thing is that I interview people, and talk to them for a while, but I'm always afraid that I'll get the scene out of focus, so I always duck in the viewfinder to check focus, etc. I'm guessing your answer would be not to shoot wide open?

Damn, I've still got shittons to learn about contrast control. I normally push Neopan 400 to 1600 because I shoot quite a bit indoors and evening, so I try to lower the contrast during developing and scanning. During PP, I use LR to lower the shadows, but I'm always afraid to clip the blacks, because then I have to go back and dodge and burn the important stuff. It's hard to use something like levels because there's so much grain on the edge of the negative as well, so it's not even a pure even tone. pic unrelated, just for more discussion.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:02 08:44:44
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285794
Sure, you can check focus, but you shouldn't want to shoot wide open all the time anyhow. DoF control is important, don't shoot wide open because you need the speed, shoot wide open because you need that particular DoF. Your camera has a DoF preview right? Use it.
Pushing a 400 film to 1600 is a bad idea. Sure, it works, but as you might notice it comes with a price, the neg will become very contrasty. You can't counter that with developing. You'd be better off using a fast film instead. (Last time I checked Neopan 1600 wasn't that much more expensive then 400.)
Most of the grain on the edge is dirt. As I said, clean your negs. You don't have to use the color picker, you can also do it manually. Also, if you right click with the color picker, you can select a 5x5 sampler, or true point sampling. This gets a nice black average from which you can start your manual levels.
Interviewing is a good idea to get comfortable with people, so if you want them to look uncomfortable, that won't work. Unless you make them feel like total crap. You can ask the some harsh questions to make them realize they might be throwing their lives away. ("So whatever happened to becoming a writer? Gave up?")
I'd also advice that at one point you just let them be, stop interviewing, but ask (Or just do so, more effective.) if you can hang around them / stay in the store for a while. That way you can take shots that seem more natural, as they progressively forget the camera.
The picture you posted is better then the rest you've posted, but the same comments count.
Also take a look at high-key and low-key compositions, if you mostly do black and white work. (watch out for articles / people that think low/high-key just means mostly black / mostly white or overexposed / underexposed, since that's definitely bullshit.)
Sorry for the long post, I'm bored as hell.
>> Anonymous
you can't get neopan 1600 in 120 dude
>> Anonymous
>>285806
My bad, I've only used Neopan films for 35mm once or twice.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>285800
The developer(Clayton F-76+) that I use allows for a modicum of contrast control by changing the dilution. Also, I've been experimenting with stand developing and the like, to get the most tones out of it as possible.

>Unless you make them feel like total crap
I guess I've been kinda doing that.

Thanks for all the info. Because I've been learning this on my own, I've never even heard of this high key/low key stuff. pic sorta related?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:21 02:51:36
>> Anonymous
bump so I get more help
>> Anonymous
bump for good photo threads
>> Anonymous
Not a bad mix and some good info
>> Anonymous
Fucking javascript
>> Anonymous
He anon who did all the critique in this thread, do you have a call sign or an email or something, so I can email you more of my shots.

I know if I post them here I'll get no comments and end up on page 6 with all the other shit.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>285636
crop down to a square to further focus on what is interesting

Overall you have a bunch of plant shots that are not doing much or interacting with anything. Also you are using nearly the same composition, and not an interesting one at that, for all of your portraits.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>285636
expansion of what I said earlier