File :-(, x, )
N.C.F.
Girl writing in the sand. B&W conversion is cheap.


Critique.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40XCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern838Focal Length (35mm Equiv)157 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:07:31 20:46:08Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/4.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height803RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypePortraitGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I can't think of anything to say about this shot other than that I really like it and don't think it should just fall off the board with zero comments.

(In b4 "same person")
>> Anonymous
Take it directly in B&W or don't take it at all.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>66591
Just plain bad advice for digital.

There's something to be said (several somethings, in fact, come to mind) about shooting film in B&W if you want B&W shots, but for digital, all putting it in B&W mode does is loses you some information that you could use to make a better B&W shot later.
>> Anonymous
I would like it to fall off the board with three (3) comments.

Good photo too.
>> Anonymous
>>66594
Who said OP had to use digital to take B&W?

Even so, how convenient it is to shoot everything in colour then convert into B&W... shitloads. One doesn't think in the same way whether one uses colour or B&W film/mode. Therefore such a convert will possibly result in a crappy picture. In that case it's not informations you lose, it's everything.
>> Anonymous
>>66596

Absolute rot. If you take it in B&W mode on your camera you'll lose vital information from the scene which will allow you greater control at the processing stage.

If you need your camera in B&W mode to think about B&W compositions properly that's your loss.
>> Phesarnion
nice photo, a little bit low-contrast for my tastes, but I like it.

I'm not saying that this is how you shold have shot it, after all, its personal prefrence, but taking the photo without cutting off the edge of the dress may improve it and make it feel a little more open whilst still maintaining the intimacy of the image.
The B+W conversion was DEFINITELY the right choice for this image though.
>> Anonymous
>>66599
Of course you can switch your brain on "B&W mode" while shooting colour, but on a set of say 72 pics, alternating B&W and colour thinking on an irregular basis... I don't think it's usefull in the long run.
>> Anonymous
>>66601
If you lose so much infos because you're not using colour mode, then there's a little problem: your camera is simply not worth buying it.
For the rest, see my previous post.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>66610
>I don't think it's usefull in the long run.
See, you're wrong, though. Don't generalize your preferred shooting style as the One True Shooting Style. It might not work for you, but I think the OP's picture shows that it works quite well for him.

>If you lose so much infos because you're not using colour mode, then there's a little problem: your camera is simply not worth buying it.
With film, the loss of color information comes with some plusses (generally, the option of much finer grain or faster speed at the same grain). When shooting digital, the sensor records the information anyway, regardless of whether you have it output color JPEGs or grayscale JPEGs. Having it output the color JPEGs (or, even better, shooting RAW) means that you can apply different layers of filters in post. Ansel Adams would have burned down a forest in exchange for the amount of postprocessing control that digital gives you for making a B&W print.

And, as an added bonus, if the shot looks better in color, you can just leave it in color.
>> N.C.F.
>>66599And from what I know of NCF, my guess is that he doesn't own a good film camera.

Dunno, is a Canon t50 (almost two decades old) any good?

Digital is much easier for me to shoot in, not only because I've grown up in the digital age (I'm a youngster).
>> Anonymous
>>66620

all the 1980's film cameras are great. since you shoot with a D40, consider a Nikon before anything else. You can't use your DX lenses (you can, but you'll get massive coverage problems), but you can start building a collection of older lenses that you can use later. Or get a canon and try another brand.

Oh, and I'm a big proponent of shooting in black and white with digital when you're first starting out. I won't dare question the value of shooting in color first and then converting to black and white in post, since that's what I do myself. But nothing beats black and white for developing for your eye for lighting and composition. Color is too distracting when you're first starting out (the first year or two).

Seriously- photo students aren't even allowed to touch color film for at least the first year, and even after most of the studio work is done in black and white.
>> Anonymous
>>66614
You're wrong. Read again. I said "I don't THINK it's usefull" not "It's NOT usefull".
OP pic is... one pic. Just one.

Again, if your camera is not able to give you correct files (correct for what you'd expect) then it's not a good camera.
If some complain because they don't have enough informations to rework heavily their files under Photoshop... the should learn they can also think BEFORE shooting so they don't have to Photoshop their mistakes.
>> N.C.F.
>>66622

I already own the Canon, it was passed down to me by my father. A few lenses with it too, just never took the time to inspect it. Will do so later.