Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I rock my 200mm to compensate for the [PHOTO]

16667697172100

Posts

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Harsh "Cow hates everything" criticism GO! As an overall problem it looks like you need to try and isolate the subject of the photo from all the surrounding stuff.
    Antihippy wrote:
    DSC00202.jpg
    Those skate boards are kind of cool but a large portion of the photo has nothing to do with the skateboards. The right 1/4 is just random shop background. The left 1/4 is a cool red wall color, but it kind of distracts from the actual skate boards. When in a situation like this again try and move away from the wall some then rotate the camera in so the skateboards take up the whole frame.
    DSC00197.jpg
    This is pretty cool. It could be a tiny bit brighter and it looks like it is tilted to the left ever so slightly.
    DSC02477.jpg
    This is pretty cluttered with all the colorful stuff hanging behind the woman. Also it would be nice if you had captured it with her eyes open.
    DSC01265.jpg
    DSC02617.jpg
    DSC00943.jpg
    These three are just all around bland without much of an interesting subject. The last one is especially lacking in any coherent subject.
    DSC01318.jpg
    This one is nice and could use a little more brightening up. That could easily be done in PS.
    DSC01758.jpg
    Those glass things are cool but they are slightly out of focus and have those distracting lights hanging in front of them. You want your subject of the photo to be the brightest most prominent thing in a photo. The glass bowls are just too dark and those lights are just too bright.
    DSC02207.jpg
    Nice architecture shot. It would be even better if you could have used a tripod and did a long exposure making the people blurred or so blurred that they don't show up in the photo.
    DSC01319.jpg
    once again pretty dark.
    DSC02000.jpg
    I like this image but I would crop off the metal bars on the left side of the frame.
    DSC02467.jpg
    I know I am guilty of this from time to time, but super shallow depth of field can be cool and it can also just detract from the image. This case I would suggest shooting a little wider dof and maybe find a way to get light on some of the bead strands and not others to make them stand out a bit more.
    DSC01137.jpg
    This is an uh....interesting photo journalist style shot but it so very cluttered and weird. I'm sure some people will disagree with me but I just don't like light up jesus with the commercial building and light post behind him.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Antihippy wrote:
    Thanks for the answer. Seems like I really need to work on my judgement of lighting though.

    What is dynamic range? I always thought it was how a camera shows colours and highlights, which I thought it can do pretty decently. The skies in singapore are very cloudy though, in a very light grey colour.

    Also anybody has any experiences with the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm/1.4?

    Some more shots.
    Spoiler:

    These shots are a little worse than the first set. 1,2, and 4 have some sort of possible interesting subject but the execution is off.
    1. has an odd composition with extra stuff on the right side. You probably should have pointed the camera a little to the left.
    2 and 4 have really shallow DOF that don't quite have anything perfectly in the focal plane.
    3 Is a shot of some toys in a store. There is nothing interesting about this. How would you feel if I went into toys r'us and took a picture of a barbie play set on the shelf? Would that photo interest you?

    I wrote some basic stuff on choosing subjects and rule of thirds stuff a while ago maybe you should check it out or go hit up a library and find some intro books on photography. I'm sure most of the authors out there have done better than my few hundred word post.
    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/18681601#Comment_18681601

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Uncle_BalsamicUncle_Balsamic Registered User regular
    Just another photo for some criticism:

    6745314485_7e5369716d_z.jpg

    6wVwf51.gif
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Couple more photos for criticism.

    6721219909_061e133682_z.jpg

    6702237379_83f9419447_z.jpg

    The first one is really cluttered. However the light on those stairs in the middle of the frame is really interesting. I think you could make a good photo out of just that. Try cropping off the top half of the photo above the stairs. You also might want to try cropping the trash can at the bottom.

    The second one is a lot cleaner with a much clearer subject. Compositionally I think it could be shifted to the right or the left more. The lit up bars are a little too dead center for my taste.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Uncle_BalsamicUncle_Balsamic Registered User regular
    Thanks, man. I'll play around with them some.

    6wVwf51.gif
  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Thanks alot for the criticism Communistcow. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Basically what I really need to learn, besides sorta technical thing like learning to judge the right exposure and learning how to properly focus, is to find a subject and the best way to shoot it without clutter and distraction?

    And yeah, the second set are the ones where I like the composition and subject but thought the execution (especially focusing, still need to learn how to judge the how to manual focus on my camera) was off.

    Also the link you gave was really useful. Do you have any books on photography to recommend btw? I'm more interested in subjects of street photography and product photography.
    Antihippy wrote:
    You know, that one single statement made me understand what DR is more than any other camera review. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Though I didn't really look too hard into it.

    Is there anyway to compensate for it?

    Use a tripod and bracket then merge the multiple exposures back into a single image. Or just make sure you focus on a point that is halfway in between. For example if you have a bright sky and a mountain try and focus / pick your exposure point right on the edge of the mountain and sky. If you focus on some cloud in the sky the mountain will be too dark. If you focus on some lower part of the mountain/foreground the sky will be too bright. Even doing things this way you will not get a perfect dynamic range. The human eye has WAY better dynamic range than a camera sensor.

    Is this HDR photography?

    Also took a few more photos tonight, though I thought only 2 were ok. Not really sure if I've properly applied what I've learned from you guys. :P

    DSC03004.jpg

    Tried my hand in BW photography. Not sure how to go about it really other than playing with the BW filter in photoshop and adjusting the levels and curves.
    DSC03011BW.jpg

    Original. I know that the main figure needs to be in focus more. Still need to learn how to properly judge the manual focus on my camera.
    DSC03011.jpg

    Antihippy on
    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Antihippy wrote:
    Thanks alot for the criticism Communistcow. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Basically what I really need to learn, besides sorta technical thing like learning to judge the right exposure and learning how to properly focus, is to find a subject and the best way to shoot it without clutter and distraction?
    Yes. At least that is my philosophy. For example look at the first image you posted below. What are the main subjects? The bike rack and the kid looking at it. Look around the image and see if you see other things that are not part of this subject or are just general distractions. Personally, I think the ramp with the people is distracting from the bike/kid. So I would crop off the top 1/3rd of the image to remove that. Even if I just hold my hand up over that portion of the image it instantly looks a lot cleaner.


    And yeah, the second set are the ones where I like the composition and subject but thought the execution (especially focusing, still need to learn how to judge the how to manual focus on my camera) was off.

    The focal point was off a bit in those images, but I think the bigger problem was you were using such a shallow depth of field. This is generally caused by using a lower aperture (f/1.8) and being close to the subject.
    Also the link you gave was really useful. Do you have any books on photography to recommend btw? I'm more interested in subjects of street photography and product photography.
    Antihippy wrote:
    You know, that one single statement made me understand what DR is more than any other camera review. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> Though I didn't really look too hard into it.

    Is there anyway to compensate for it?

    Use a tripod and bracket then merge the multiple exposures back into a single image. Or just make sure you focus on a point that is halfway in between. For example if you have a bright sky and a mountain try and focus / pick your exposure point right on the edge of the mountain and sky. If you focus on some cloud in the sky the mountain will be too dark. If you focus on some lower part of the mountain/foreground the sky will be too bright. Even doing things this way you will not get a perfect dynamic range. The human eye has WAY better dynamic range than a camera sensor.

    Is this HDR photography?

    Shooting with a tripod, bracketing and then merging the images back together is HDR photography. It can be done well and it can also be done horribly. Of course this is all opinion. The type that I like looks like this (NOT MY PHOTOS):

    xin.jpg

    salva.jpg

    This is the heavy handed HDR that makes me want to punch my eyes out:
    hdr-68.jpg


    The second part I talked about above with regards to focusing/metering at the horizon is not HDR. That is just my method of getting a good equal exposure in a single picture between the light and dark parts of the image.

    As for books, I am not much of a street photographer so I don't know any good books. For photography basics you might just want to go to a library and browse around until you see something you like. Personally I've learned 95% of what I know from internet photo critique sites, forums, and blogs. Then again I've been doing that for about 12 years so I've had a long time to glean some good information out of all the chaff that is out there. Once you understand the basics its pretty much just getting lots of practice and critiques.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • LinkSmashLinkSmash Registered User regular
    OMG you guys. What incredible, INCREDIBLE works. I seriously just browsed all 69 pages. Wow...

  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    Hot damn, just realized this thread is almost 2 years old and still truckin'

    Pfffffffffflickr ||Steam: IamBic || Bnet: IamBick#1264
  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    What is bracketing?

    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • wonderpugwonderpug Registered User regular
    Taking more than just one shot, with a variety of shutter speeds so that you are sure to get some underexposed shots and some overexposed.

    With HDR processing, it more or less takes the best parts of each shots (the part of the leaf catching sunlight in the dark exposure, the part of the leaf in shadow in the bright exposure) and combines them into one picture that could not have been achieved with a single shot.

    Some cameras can automate bracketing, others you have to adjust shutter speed on your own.

  • LustyDLustyD Registered User regular
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    Think I am going to be getting my AlienBees lighting set soon. Trouble is, I am not 100% sure what I totally need.

    I'm going to be getting 2 of the B400s. So I will need 2 light stands. I'll also be needing some way to trip them since my camera doesn't have a sync jack and besides, cables are messy, so I'll get a wireless transmitter and a wireless receiver. I think I will only need 1 receiver since I will mostly be using these indoors and not at all with other light kits in the same fucking room.

    But then the AlienBees come with a ton of shit, but then I don't know what other shit I might need on top of that.

  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I went ice climbing yesterday. The third guy we were with only hung out for a couple pitches and then after that there were no free hands to take pictures so I have none of myself. So imagine a picture of me in there. I did these climbs so it doesn't take too much imagination. My climbing partner even used my tools in the first photo, that bastard!

    6768037605_09b02406e4_z.jpg

    6769503489_d9a4a26dac_z.jpg

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Think I am going to be getting my AlienBees lighting set soon. Trouble is, I am not 100% sure what I totally need.

    I'm going to be getting 2 of the B400s. So I will need 2 light stands. I'll also be needing some way to trip them since my camera doesn't have a sync jack and besides, cables are messy, so I'll get a wireless transmitter and a wireless receiver. I think I will only need 1 receiver since I will mostly be using these indoors and not at all with other light kits in the same fucking room.

    But then the AlienBees come with a ton of shit, but then I don't know what other shit I might need on top of that.

    If you already have a strobist flash setup you might not need 2 ABs. My sb-24 is 2 stops less powerful than my AB800. So often times I would use my AB800 as a main and the SB-24 as a secondary light. As for wireless transmitters, I really like my Elinchrom triggers which are about $100 per trigger or receiver. So that is about half the price of the pocket wizards and they don't suck nuts like the ebay radio triggers.

    I love my softbox with my AB800, but that is the only light modifier I have for it. I also sprung for the 13' stand which is pretty damn big and works great for outdoors in windy situations. If you are only shooting indoors then you could probably go with one of the smaller ones.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    The Alienbees Radio recievers and what not are compatible with Pentax so I am happy to use them. The Pocket Wizards are not- save for one of their generic ones which is still more expensive and does the same thing as the Alienbees. If my needs change, I'll just get another set of Radio Transmitters, but I doubt I will.

    Right now I am thinking a pair of SB800s with two giottos light stands, 2 soft boxes, one boxy and the other a tall skinny one, and yeah, the aformentioned radio goodies.

  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    Went out to take a few more pictures. Got some okay ones. Again, would love some critique.

    DSC03078.jpg
    DSC03255.jpg
    DSC03225.jpg
    DSC03233.jpg

    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Watermark success. Someone wanted to pay for the use of an image of mine for a press release for their upcoming fashion show. The image was from the same fashion show in 2010.
    The Alienbees Radio recievers and what not are compatible with Pentax so I am happy to use them. The Pocket Wizards are not- save for one of their generic ones which is still more expensive and does the same thing as the Alienbees. If my needs change, I'll just get another set of Radio Transmitters, but I doubt I will.

    Right now I am thinking a pair of SB800s with two giottos light stands, 2 soft boxes, one boxy and the other a tall skinny one, and yeah, the aformentioned radio goodies.

    I'm assuming you mean AB800 and not the SB-800 (which is a nikon flash). Also, the skinny soft boxes are called strip boxes.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    Antihippy, your handle worries me.

    That being said, keep shooting. Just keep going nuts, and you will burn out of the current phase of "oh that looks cool *snap*" which from there, you will get to develop your 'eye' more.

  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Thanks for that. What do you mean by developing my 'eye' though?

    But yeah, I am still at that phase where I'm just trying to learn how to take shots. Don't really know what type of themes or style I really want to go for yet, though I do like street photography and want to learn product photography. Right now I'm just learning how to take good compositions. I think the umbrella one in the latest batch is the best in that aspect.

    edit: btw, on dynamic range, does faster shutter speeds or aperture size affect it, or does it all have to do with how exposed the camera sensor is?

    Antihippy on
    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • TheWarningTheWarning Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    is it just me or is that guy in the purple shirt sporting a stiffy

    took my camera to work with me yesterday any critiques?

    6801270209_a2dbb66d73_z.jpg

    6801271065_f004019ee6_z.jpg

    6801272221_ccc0eb3d66_z.jpg

    6801273333_f53eec251e_z.jpg

    6801274045_93e7e67bd6_z.jpg

    6801275051_040d6b4ce0_z.jpg

    6801275403_267c3296e8_z.jpg

    6801276075_b4e38fcd6a_z.jpg

    TheWarning on
  • ObilexObilex Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    fooling around in post
    tiltshift_test1.jpg

    tilt2.jpg

    Obilex on
  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    Is that from a lensbaby?

    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    Looks more like (and from what he said) he's somewhat doing a similar effect in post.

    Pfffffffffflickr ||Steam: IamBic || Bnet: IamBick#1264
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    Quite happy with the processing but I am not 100% sure on the composition itself. I might have to dodge some of the foreground ice to really make it more vivid. Critique?

    IcyHDR.jpg

  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Are you making a banner or ad Cynic? If so, I think your text needs to be a bit bigger.

    Camped out in southern Utah for a couple of nights. Did a little light canyoneering in Ding and Dang Canyons and wandered around the San Rafael Reef area a bit:

    Giant potholes in Ding Canyon:
    6808109369_8318a519a3_z.jpg

    The vertical relief and depth of Dang Canyon:
    6808149471_7fb36af8cc_z.jpg

    Just behind the Reef in 'Sinbad Country'
    6808164033_786a8d40a0_b.jpg

    The weather turned and I woke up to tiny avalanches off my tent this morning so I decided to pack it in.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Antihippy wrote:
    Thanks for that. What do you mean by developing my 'eye' though?

    But yeah, I am still at that phase where I'm just trying to learn how to take shots. Don't really know what type of themes or style I really want to go for yet, though I do like street photography and want to learn product photography. Right now I'm just learning how to take good compositions. I think the umbrella one in the latest batch is the best in that aspect.

    edit: btw, on dynamic range, does faster shutter speeds or aperture size affect it, or does it all have to do with how exposed the camera sensor is?

    A lot of the "eye" thing is about picking interesting subjects and then imagining what you want the photo to look like even before you put the camera to your face. I still think most of your subjects are pretty run of the mill. Things most people could see in their day to day life. Some of the best street photography images I've seen are showing the despair or happiness on homeless people's faces. Yes, homeless people are a common thing people /can/ see while walking around but most of us avoid looking at them or even acknowledging their existence. That is why I think a lot of the homeless people portraits are striking because the average person doesn't stop have a conversation with the homeless person and then snap a picture at the same eye level as the homeless person 3 feet away. The only picture you have that you have that is vaguely out of the ordinary is the guy standing on the boxes in the grocery store, but even that isn't that interesting to me as a photo.

    @Obilex I don't really care for that processing or the lensbaby look in general.

    @Cynic That watermark is REALLY distracting.

    @Gafoto: Your photos quite often have a washed out sky. Have you tried using a polarizor? Also a lot of your shots look very similar. Even if you are shooting the same subject you might want to try some different techniques.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • ObilexObilex Registered User regular
    @Obilex I don't really care for that processing or the lensbaby look in general.

    Is there any particular reason it's bad? Not really giving me much to go on other than "I don't like it." I was watching Sherlock on netflix and noticed all the cut-scenes of London were done in a similar fashion. I still couldn't wrap my head around how they made them, so I gave it a go.

  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    @Gafoto: Your photos quite often have a washed out sky. Have you tried using a polarizor? Also a lot of your shots look very similar. Even if you are shooting the same subject you might want to try some different techniques.

    Damn winter clouds! I will look into getting a polarizer though. I'm on the verge of upgrading my camera to something different though. I'm waiting for the G1 X to drop so I can see what it looks like.

    I think it might be because I've posted so many slot canyon pictures. These two canyons are literally one mile down the road from the other canyon I've posted a lot of pictures of (Little Wild Horse). These pictures of slot canyons do tend to look very similar, I'll admit. Part of the problem is there isn't any way to change my position without doing some kind of crazy climbing. I'm very open to suggestions though. Or, do you mean how the pictures are composed? I don't 100% of the time adhere to the 'foreground element situated below backround' kind of landscape photography but....it it's not uncommon in my photos.

    sierracrest.jpg
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Obilex wrote:
    @Obilex I don't really care for that processing or the lensbaby look in general.

    Is there any particular reason it's bad? Not really giving me much to go on other than "I don't like it." I was watching Sherlock on netflix and noticed all the cut-scenes of London were done in a similar fashion. I still couldn't wrap my head around how they made them, so I gave it a go.

    I meant as more of a personal preference I don't really like the tilt shift / lens baby / fake miniature look. (Then again I'm kind of assuming that is what you are going for. So let me know if that is a bad assumption.) On the other hand I can at least see when it well executed even if I don't like it. Those were not very well executed because they were done in post in such a way that it looks like haphazard Gaussian blur and not actual effects from shallow DOF. The tiltshift or fake tilshift look done in post is usually done from a much more overhead view. Think about looking at a model. You are most likely looking down at it somewhere in the 45-90 degree angle. The images you captured are from a very shallow angle. In the first image there is no clean focal plane and no clear subject. You have the tree on the left the car in the middle and a little bit of the trees and building on the right. The second image doesn't really have anything that is in crisp focus and it looks like it has that "dreamy" senior portrait post applied to it. Sometimes a blur can be good and stylistic but usually it has to be done in some sort of well structured way. If you do the fake tilt shift you need to have a crisp well defined "focal plane" and subject. If you do a motion blur there needs to be some sort of reason for it like taking a picture of a person in motion. Someone who is dancing, running, etc. The blur on the second image doesn't seem to have any cohesive purpose.

    Some examples of more well executed fake tilt shift, IMO:
    Spoiler:

    If that is the look you are going for you should just go google for some tilt shift tutorials in photoshop.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    Gafoto wrote:
    @Gafoto: Your photos quite often have a washed out sky. Have you tried using a polarizor? Also a lot of your shots look very similar. Even if you are shooting the same subject you might want to try some different techniques.

    Damn winter clouds! I will look into getting a polarizer though. I'm on the verge of upgrading my camera to something different though. I'm waiting for the G1 X to drop so I can see what it looks like.

    I think it might be because I've posted so many slot canyon pictures. These two canyons are literally one mile down the road from the other canyon I've posted a lot of pictures of (Little Wild Horse). These pictures of slot canyons do tend to look very similar, I'll admit. Part of the problem is there isn't any way to change my position without doing some kind of crazy climbing. I'm very open to suggestions though. Or, do you mean how the pictures are composed? I don't 100% of the time adhere to the 'foreground element situated below backround' kind of landscape photography but....it it's not uncommon in my photos.

    All of your photos seem to be taken at or around eye level with a very wide DOF looking straight down the canyon. You could do something like lean up against the left wall of the canyon and tilt the camera towards the right wall so the end of the canyon is on the left 1/4 or 1/3rd of the frame. You could try laying on the ground. You could try taking a picture down one of the walls while you are right up against it. You could try to use a shallow DOF and get on the ground and tilt the camera downwards and take a picture where the focal point is one of those little pools of water or an interesting rock. Maybe take a picture of just the reflection of one of the water pools. In your first picture some of the parts of the rocks formations on the ground have nice curves to them. You could use those as leading lines if you get down and close to them. Basically consider taking pictures of things IN the canyons and not just the canyon as a whole. Maybe if you can get on top of the ridge of the canyon you could shoot down into it.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • ChromatomicChromatomic Mr. DCRegistered User regular
    Well Crap. Looks like I'm back on the photography bandwagon. I mean yay!

    Picked up a used Canon T1i and a few lenses.

  • ObilexObilex Registered User regular
    thanks for the feedback CC! I'm a complete nub when it comes to photography, more of a painter than anything.

  • Uncle_BalsamicUncle_Balsamic Registered User regular
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    Uncle Long wrote:
    Hauled an XTi? Lawl.
    YXA6y.jpg A bit late to the party, but my current standard work backpack. Working in the fashion industry as first assistant.

    ps. Hi again everybody.

  • YorkerYorker Registered User regular
    So, I just scored this:
    Spoiler:

    It's my first film camera (kind of) so I've got some questions, mainly about film choice (my local shop has like two dozen different types, and I don't know shit about any of them) and stuff I should be aware of coming from a digital SLR.

    Hopefully I'll be posting my first film shots here in a couple of weeks.

    76561198037322631.png
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User
    Yorker wrote:
    So, I just scored this:
    Spoiler:

    It's my first film camera (kind of) so I've got some questions, mainly about film choice (my local shop has like two dozen different types, and I don't know shit about any of them) and stuff I should be aware of coming from a digital SLR.

    Hopefully I'll be posting my first film shots here in a couple of weeks.

    Ask any questions you may have.

  • YorkerYorker Registered User regular
    Well, what films would you recommend for black and white or colour photography in daylight, mostly street or landscape stuff?

    Will my 50mm 1.8D work with the F90? Everything I read indicates so, but I want to be safe.

    Are there any rookie mistakes I should watch out for? I know my way around a DSLR but I've never operated a film camera before.

    76561198037322631.png
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User
    edited February 2012
    Yorker wrote:
    Well, what films would you recommend for black and white or colour photography in daylight, mostly street or landscape stuff?

    Will my 50mm 1.8D work with the F90? Everything I read indicates so, but I want to be safe.

    Are there any rookie mistakes I should watch out for? I know my way around a DSLR but I've never operated a film camera before.


    Well, a lot of things translate. Obviously a higher ISO film will give you more speed as well as more grain. You may also want to consider what type of grain structure you want. Do you want virtually no grain, or are you looking for something more like classic reportage grain?

    BW: Tabulated modern emulsions: Fuji Acros 100, Kodak TMax 400
    Standard "round" grain emulsions: Fomapan 100 Kodak Tri-X 400 (This is the classic of classic BW films currently on the market)
    Fuji Acros 100
    6105605267_d5b600976e_z.jpg
    165mm test by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    TMax 400
    6118596010_a251eb6af2_z.jpg
    Boston Sunday 9/4 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    Tri-X
    6838363121_ddb478a2db_z.jpg
    Ice Crystals on a Stream by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    For color, the best C41 emulsions right now are the Kodak Portra 400 and 160 lines. 160 is a little more muted but quite sharp. 400 has a little bit of a richer pallette and is also sharp, but more of this is due to contrast. Both are exceptionally fine grained. You can also shoot some Kodak Ektar 100 for some really punchy colors, but I think it's a little difficult to get exactly what I expect with that emulsion. Other photographers love it, but I stick with the Portras almost exclusively.

    Portra 400 (With the same 50mm you're using, but on a F100)
    6144190841_149b722636_z.jpg
    Emmart-Levitan 4 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    6035669022_1eee602764_z.jpg
    Rain in Boston Explored 8/13 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr


    Portra 160
    6144757436_7cdd00b380_z.jpg
    Emmart-Levitan 10 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    Ektar:

    4575808989_3b0e1f005a_z.jpg
    Duggan's Pub by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr


    If you want C41 that's going to make people say, "gee, that looks like film" run down to your drug store and get some Kodak Gold 400.

    Gold
    5902547325_edaac4e716_z.jpg
    Cape Weekend 4 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    Fuji Pro 400H is nice, too, but I don't think Fuji has anything that can compete with the latest Portras.

    Pro 400H
    5527620963_b0ac3b3c45_z.jpg
    Bridge Across the Canal by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr
    Fuji does, however, have the market on slide film. If you're shooting landscape you're going to want to use Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. If you're not sure then go for Portra 100.

    For now I'd stick with C41 emulsions due to the ease of finding processing at reasonable prices in stores that may actually be near your home. E6 will likely have to be sent out. If you really want to get into BW then get a daylight processing tank, a dark bag and start developing yourself. Get a cheap scanner and scan your negatives to share.

    Velvia 100
    5590374094_3b245d3796_z.jpg
    Wrangell in Velvia IV by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    Velvia 50

    4715929699_dc89aae5ce_z.jpg
    High Country by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr

    A couple of tips: Unlike digital, you're going to want to expose for the shadows. Highlight clipping is much less of an issue on C41 negative film due to the much wider dynamic range in the C41 emulsions and extremely wide range in BW. E6 is very finicky and you want to nail the exposure each time, so be sure to meter exactly what you want to expose at 18% gray.

    I find I get better results, generally, if I err on the side of overexposure on anything except Ektar and E6. I like to slightly (1/3 of a stop) underexpose E6 to bring up saturation slightly. I think a slightly darker image in E6 is a little more juicy, and I'm usually shooting landscape for the color if I'm shooting E6.

    Anyway, get out there and try a bunch of film and start to look at what you like and what you don't like. It takes a long time to really articulate what look you're going for both when asked and when you're assessing your own images.

    Uncle Long on
  • MolybdenumMolybdenum Registered User regular
    Should one even bother with CVS and other store-brand films?

This discussion has been closed.