File :-(, x, )
What does /p/ think? Phesarnion
Film: Ilford HP5, 135 Format, @ 400
Camera: Nikon F401x
Lens: 35-70 @ 35mm, F8
Expousure: 12s

Scanned from negative and adjusted in Photoshop (nothing that couldn't be done in a traditional darkroom)

So people: critique, comments, thoughts?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution4000 dpiVertical Resolution4000 dpiImage Created2007:02:08 20:20:49Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width629Image Height1000
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
What the FUCK dude. Where have you been?

This is awesome. God damn near perfectly taken. It's my personal taste that I would've liked to have seen some people in the foreground, but for all I know, there WERE and your long exposure knocked them completely out.

God damn brilliant.
>> Phesarnion
     File :-(, x)
How about a second one?
Landscape format this time, and I think with the same settings on the camera

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon COOLSCAN V EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution4000 dpiVertical Resolution4000 dpiImage Created2007:08:02 14:05:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height644
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>66568
Doesn't work at all. The first one is gold. This one feels cluttered and busy. Your first one is all about the vertical elements of your subject, IMO, and so is the second one... except that landscape orientation butchers those vertical elements.
>> Phesarnion
Oh for the want of a wider lens.

The thing I like about the second one is the interaction between the wheel and the lights, of which there is less in the first.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>66570
I feel like the dynamism of the wheel is lost in the clutter of the trees. In the portrait version, yeah, you lose a good half of the wheel in the trees, but you've got the upper portion back, to complete that full circle that we lose in the landscape version.

Simply, everything just flows in the first one you uploaded. Compositionally, it's flawless.

And dude, 28mm lenses are dirt cheap! I even saw a 20 2.8 the other day for like $200 at my local camera store. Now dat's wide.

Of course, you're only really pro if you get the Voigtlander 12mm Heliar.
>> Phesarnion
>>66577
I have a 28mm F2.8, but i don't usually use it for a number of reasons:

1. I can't use the internal lightmeter, which means bringing another piece of equipment.

2. It's made by tokina, nuff said.

12mm is getting a little silly (and pricey, i would think), unles you're doing something like photographing the inside of a small room.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Huh. At first, I thought you'd scanned the negatives and just left them negative.

I really like both of these. I'm not sure I agree with Heavyweather's issues with the second one--I think he's just poisoned by the first shot (I.e., he really liked the first one, so is looking at the second as "The first shot, minus it's good elements" rather than its own picture).

The first picture, as he said, is all about the vertical elements. The focus is the wheel, and the lighted trees are a frame. In the second shot, the wheel is looming in the background but the focus is more the trees. The trees act to lead the eyes instead of just framing. The reorientation makes them completely different shots.
>> Anonymous
>>66564
Maybe you should have waited longer, the Eye is either too much blurred or not enough.
Photoshop adjustments are crap.
Not a bad shot overall.
>> Phesarnion
>>66592
and you can say that the photoshop ajustments are crap without seeing the original image.... How?

Also. the concept of critique is to help somebody to improve by pointing out things which need to be improved, and making suggestions on how to do that. Not just saying "its crap"