Oh, that first one wasn't a redo; I took two separate shots of that scene, one landscape and one portrait. That one's the other shot. I kind of liked the landscape shot better, personally, though I figure my familiarity with composition leaves a lot of room for me to be wrong.
Anable - Is the one you thought too aggressive New Amsterdam, five? I really like how much this one pops. We might just have to agree to disagree on this Really, it almost sparkles.
The glasses in this one aren't nearly as good though.
Anable - Is the one you thought too aggressive New Amsterdam, five? I really like how much this one pops. We might just have to agree to disagree on this Really, it almost sparkles.
The glasses in this one aren't nearly as good though.
That's still window lighting actually. This is the shot I used a strobe on:
Anable - Is the one you thought too aggressive New Amsterdam, five? I really like how much this one pops. We might just have to agree to disagree on this Really, it almost sparkles.
The glasses in this one aren't nearly as good though.
That's still window lighting actually. This is the shot I used a strobe on:
Interesting look. The diagonal makes it feel very impromptu. I think I kind of like the direct ones better, but that's just a personal taste.
I got a holga camera for Christmas just because the photophreak wants to share the love and I know fucknothing about photography but I'm fooling around with it anyway and I have a few questions
anyone in here deal with holga cameras? or even just film cameras?
I can't get my hands on 120 film for some time so I was told that I could do put 35mm film on it. I did modifications and whatever and the 35mm film is in nice and smooth and I took a picture for testing but I'm sorta lost on a few parts.
How do I know its working? I took a shot but have no idea if it really took it. I think I did everything right. Do I just find out when the film processes and look like a numbskull if everything is bad?
How much light does it take to shit on the film? I'd like to open it up to make sure the film is on the spool aligned correctly now that I've wound through a few shots but I'm afraid I'll overexpose it if I open it again.
What do yo mean you can't get 120? Just order it from B&H, Amazon.com, whatever, tons of places sell it. It's usually about $4-5 a roll if you buy a 5 pack.
If you open the back at all while it's in the camera you just fucked over your film.
I got a holga camera for Christmas just because the photophreak wants to share the love and I know fucknothing about photography but I'm fooling around with it anyway and I have a few questions
anyone in here deal with holga cameras? or even just film cameras?
I can't get my hands on 120 film for some time so I was told that I could do put 35mm film on it. I did modifications and whatever and the 35mm film is in nice and smooth and I took a picture for testing but I'm sorta lost on a few parts.
How do I know its working? I took a shot but have no idea if it really took it. I think I did everything right. Do I just find out when the film processes and look like a numbskull if everything is bad?
How much light does it take to shit on the film? I'd like to open it up to make sure the film is on the spool aligned correctly now that I've wound through a few shots but I'm afraid I'll overexpose it if I open it again.
I've had zero experience with Hola in particular but I can say that it takes the light of a cell phone in a completely black room to ruin film. It's crazy sensitive and you'll blow any shots you've taken and probably the whole roll if you open the camera. Essentially you won't know if it works until you've processed it. Also, you can find 120mm film on Amazon. Most places to process 120mm they have to ship it off so expect processing to take longer than the one hour photo at Walgreens.
I got a holga camera for Christmas just because the photophreak wants to share the love and I know fucknothing about photography but I'm fooling around with it anyway and I have a few questions
anyone in here deal with holga cameras? or even just film cameras?
I can't get my hands on 120 film for some time so I was told that I could do put 35mm film on it. I did modifications and whatever and the 35mm film is in nice and smooth and I took a picture for testing but I'm sorta lost on a few parts.
How do I know its working? I took a shot but have no idea if it really took it. I think I did everything right. Do I just find out when the film processes and look like a numbskull if everything is bad?
How much light does it take to shit on the film? I'd like to open it up to make sure the film is on the spool aligned correctly now that I've wound through a few shots but I'm afraid I'll overexpose it if I open it again.
The model you have doesnt have flash?
When I used 35mm film I put black electric tape over all the possible leaks, and definitely on the red window where you choose 120 or 220, because its translucent. Keep in mind, part of the appeal to holgas are lightleaks.
Anable out of the two portraits I like the first the most, their could be a bit more light playing off the model though. Bouncing a speedlight off to your right would have probably improved it a little more.
Here is an old two shot composite I did ages ago, thought I would fix it up and re-release it, I should probably reshoot a whole series of these.
Okay, so from what I take it I can only open it in complete dark in order to do anything more to it now that I have taken shots. Can I have any indirect light? like a small candle on the floor while I work on a table?
Yeah I ordered 120 film but it hasn't come yet. I want to bring it to the new years party so the girl can show me other things to do with it along with see me actually using it instead of thinking I tossed it to the side in favor of my digital. So until the 120 film comes I have 35mm.
My model does have flash. I don't mind light leaks, I'm keeping some of the crevices untaped just to see how much I'll get. Maybe after I get film processed I'll tape the rest up.
@anable: That first portrait is pretty awesome but I think her head placement could have been better, obscure the railing behind her. Right now her cheek's almost making a tangent with the railing. Great product shots too, I like the slanted ones better imo. @Flyingman: That shot is incredibly hot but goddamn the vignetting, it doesn't help much and it's taking away detail in the model's face.
Holy fucking shit I had no idea ISO 400 in film was so incredibly grainy. Also I am pleased that even though my f301's light meter functions slightly differently from my D50's I managed to get all 36 exposures done w/o having a single unusable shot. I hate all the film artifacts around though but I guess that's what happens when I'm too lazy/inexperienced/unwilling to have a go at developing my own film.
Some of the better ones: (Ok, these are about the only good ones but hey I hate being 'forced' to shoot stuff)
I was real lucky to get this shot with my 55mm lens, it's not every day you see a monkey at the fucking beach.
You can tell I'm getting desperate to finish the roll at this point. I mean, snow globes.. Really.
And the classic birds on telephone wires shot:
FUN NOTE: The camera and lens were bought before I was born. All the other filters my dad bought with the camera have either broken or become unusable with age (mold, etc). Only the original lens UV filter remains unmarred, testament to German kraftsmanship.
All photos are untouched except for cropping. Also my scanner sucks at scanning negatives but does 27SGD ~ 19 USD seem a tad too much for development and film scanning of this roll?
Anyway I have another roll of fuji neopan 400, so expect more ULTRA GRAINY stuff in maybe a week or so? Depends on how much free time I get off. =\
And no new year fireworks this year because I had to attend a family dinner. Pooh.
EDIT: Also I don't claim to be any expert seeing as I have never developed film but iirc it depends. Safe lights are generally not recommended I think, you're basically supposed to work in complete, meaning complete darkness, and I think b&w film cannot have safe lights around at all. Or something like that.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, either, but from what I can sort of recall, since film is so much more sensitive than the paper (which safe lights can be used on), film needs to be in total darkness. Once again, can't remember if that's completely true, but it's what I remember.
sonictk, I particularly like the flower, an to a milder extent, the 7 (though that seems compositionally more problematic to me). The first two have good lines, but I think that the tonal range in most of the shots are lacking, which is really more a result of your scanning the pictures instead of printing them (where you have control over contrast and other aspects of the pictures), and less of photographic skill. Interestingly, I've got a similar setup in camera; my dad bought it in the mid or late seventies, and then gave it to me when I went off to college.
Okay, so from what I take it I can only open it in complete dark in order to do anything more to it now that I have taken shots. Can I have any indirect light? like a small candle on the floor while I work on a table?
Yeah I ordered 120 film but it hasn't come yet. I want to bring it to the new years party so the girl can show me other things to do with it along with see me actually using it instead of thinking I tossed it to the side in favor of my digital. So until the 120 film comes I have 35mm.
My model does have flash. I don't mind light leaks, I'm keeping some of the crevices untaped just to see how much I'll get. Maybe after I get film processed I'll tape the rest up.
In order to remove the 35MM film yes you will need to be in complete darkness as even the smallest amount of light could potentially fog the film. Now this will be different once you obtain the 120 film since it rolls into itself, then you can remove it at any time (away from DIRECT sunlight is best)
As someone stated earlier Holgas are known for the random light leaks that affect the picture but thats what makes them fun. I took a couple rolls with a borrowed Holga, fun camera to play around with but I like my Brownie more for 120 film
If I remember correctly the only light that may shine is that of an infra-red lamp.
As Craw already mentioned, the only light that can hit paper is the red/orange lights you associate with darkrooms. Film itself is entirely too sensitive and any light will ruin your shots.
Sonic - I think the snow globe is an interesting idea. There's some nice texture going on with the "snow" there, but the composition isn't quite pulling it off. You have a big lamp reflection on top and the negative space on the bottom isn't contributing. I like the flower shot below that quite a bit. It has a simplicity that I think is accentuated by the black and white, as well as by the grain of the film. The plant itself is very plain as well. I dunno. I like it. There's also that bokeh that digital just doesn't ever quite capture the same way as film does.
Anable: Great comp on the portraits, but I just don't think there's enough lighting on the subject. The background seems to stand out more because of it (being brighter and all).
Edit: oh also didn't get to say it but I love the alchyhol shots from the last page, as well as the one nO(?) linked on your flickr.
Sonic: I completely agree with anable, the second and third from last shots are great (the "7" and the flower). Love the film bokeh/feel to both.
I already commented on flickr but I like this series a lot.
Anyhow, i finally managed to eek out some images I'm happy with. I got a Speedlite 430 EXII for xmas (not used in any of these images but I thought I'd share the happiness).
Holga, 400iso color about 5 second exposure:
Playing with perspective. I really like architecture:
Here Sheri, go inside. It's all rainbows and sunshine I guarantee it:
I... take pictures of my toys. Sorry. :P (just a note, the only "photoshopping" done on the toy image was to push levels and contrast. everything else was as shot.
Why does your tank have a goddamn laser mounted on it and why do none of mine have such armaments
also I like the perspective shot but is it just me or is the building tilted ever so slightly? Also that tree being cut off halfway on the left is slightly noticeable. The holga shot would be pretty cool smaller sized methinks. All blown up, it looks =\ to me when I can see artifacts in their full glory.
Also thanks for the crits on my film experience (first time shooting totally b&w or more like first time shooting film since I was a kid) but wait:
I don't understand how making prints would actually give me more control over tones? I am planning to edit these in lightroom anyway (I just wanted to get them uploaded first since I was going to play l4d :P) and I have a couple more I want to post for crits actually after I finish post-processing them I guess.
Anyway anable snow globe, uh. Frankly I was tired and looking for anything to shoot so that I could get the roll developed asap and my mom happened to bring that back from a wedding dinner. I'm thinking of getting a black background for it and shine a backlight instead, it would be a lot cooler. Probably.
Also how the hell do you guys get past needing to see the results of your skill right here right now? Every time I hit the shutter on the film camera I find myself hesitating like for a full second while I recheck focus (the split ring focus system is pretty cool), composition, exposure settings and whatnot because if I screw this up...with my d50 I'm like ok this should work BOOM hmm maybe up the shutter speed a widdle bit BOOM perfect. I also have trouble sometimes deciding exactly what aperture to use when I want to have bokeh while still not totally screwing my main subject over with blur.
I don't really mean to say that making prints gives you more control than editing them on the computer will; both are post-processes (to be perfectly honest, computer processing can probably do many things analog development couldn't). Nevertheless, aside from being hardcore oldschool and all that, I suppose if there were an advantage to printing them the old-fashioned way, it'd be that you're working with the original, so there might be more you can pull out of it, kind of like working with RAWs over JPGs. If you do feel like experimenting in a darkroom at some point, I'd see if I could find some sort of guide to the various techniques; from what I've gathered, a great deal of what you can do on the computer you can do with the enlarger and its various filters, and other techniques--most of the tools and terms of computer editing come historically from its analog counterparts.
Anable: Great comp on the portraits, but I just don't think there's enough lighting on the subject. The background seems to stand out more because of it (being brighter and all).
Edit: oh also didn't get to say it but I love the alchyhol shots from the last page, as well as the one nO(?) linked on your flickr.
I concur with this. Try and remember with portraits everything else in the frame should be secondary to the person. I've done a lot of shots where I love a wall or something in the frame but I end up cropping it out because that cool wall distracts you away from the person that is suppose to be the center of attention in the picture.
The photo with the light bridge draws my eyes to the people in the background because of the leading lines which kind of lead to her face but not as well as if her face was a few inches to the right.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
2ndly, don't open the back of the camera ever unless you're planning on taking the film out after exposing the entire roll.
As far as film goes, get some iso 400 for general shooting. You'll need a flash or a lot of light if you're shooting indoors. Throw the lens cap away as it will cause you more problems than not.
Take pictures. That's what you need to do. A good film place (I.E. not a drugstore) will have 120 film. It's not uncommon.
I find that shooting film, because of the costs involved and the lack of instant results, makes me pause a lot more and think about what I'm shooting.
Why am I taking this shot? Is the composition good? Do i like the lighting?
With digital, those concerns come up less. They should come up more.
Hell, go out with a digital SLR and tell yourself you're only taking 12 shots, no erasing or deleting and no preview and see how it changes your perspective. It's a good drill.
Mordarion that shot is great, normally I dislike overly-orangey saturated images but I think I like more how the colour of the sky in it helps to make everything else look more natural. Is there something wrong at the bottom of your image, though? Looks corrupted or something.
Anyway I need to go back to work tomorrow and I may not have a lot of free time then so I'll just post a few more of the b&w shots. I still haven't gotten around to working on them so they've just basically been given cropping treatment with nothing else =\ I like how lightroom recognizes that they're film images though and automagically renames them as such.
Also yes the composition/focus here is a little screwed up, I was trying mainly to get the trunk texture to pop out but keep the cross-section area as a point of focus.
Bleah incredibly grainy:
Once I finish working on all the shots I have a couple more that I think would be presentable with some contrast adjustments, I'll get them here then.
Those are boring as hell. Not trying to be an ass. There's nothing happening.
The trunk would be a good texture study, but there's no direct light to cast shadows and part of it is out of focus. The others are just... well, there's nothing in the frame to take me in and keep me.
Edit: altman - that's a nice shot. No need to clean it up. It's just too big for web.
Got a flash for Xmas (promaster 7500edf) and am bugging the hell out of my cats while I learn to use it.
Nico:
Misha:
Both shot indoors at night with little interior light. Flash at full power and bounced off the ceiling. Avoiding "flash shadow" is high on my list.
PS - it's tough to get good subject/background separation when the subject is a black cat who wants nothing more than to hang out in front of dark colors. :x
I... take pictures of my toys. Sorry. :P (just a note, the only "photoshopping" done on the toy image was to push levels and contrast. everything else was as shot.
How were you able to capture such an intense red laser beam?
I had a laser mounted pointing exactly at the gun. Took about 5 minutes to get it right. Also, smoke does wonders on long exposures I just buy some cheap cigars and blow all over the frame. The light comes to life after that.
This post is directed to Doxa as I hadn't seen his post.
[stuff]
oh wow, that site is the bomb. Thank you so much.
I agree that film makes you think about what you take. I took the camera to a new years party. I only took 8-12 shots as opposed to the 30+ shots I would usually take carelessly and delete most of them. I fooled around with the color flashes, double exposure, and other basic stuff in the book. I can't wait to take more and get this film developed to see what went right and what went wrong.
Mordarion that shot is great, normally I dislike overly-orangey saturated images but I think I like more how the colour of the sky in it helps to make everything else look more natural. Is there something wrong at the bottom of your image, though? Looks corrupted or something.
Thanks, the bottom is just something my scanner does...for some reason I decided it was deliciously chancey and decided to leave it in.
Guys - I updated my online photo gallery today. I would love some feedback. Here are my areas of concern:
1. Speed - Is the slight delay upon loading each sub-gallery a deal-breaker or is it acceptable?
2. Front Page - Is the overall aesthetic of the front page pretty decent?
3. Navigation - Works? Flows ok?
4. Subgallery Content - Are the topics for each gallery ok?
Things to keep in mind: The site is not intended for commercial purposes at all - I won't be selling my photos in the forseeable future. This is supposed to be a webspace to showcase some of my better work, not unlike a physical art gallery, so the aesthetic is an attempt to be minimal and merely to show the images.
I would really appreciate any/all feedback you guys might have to offer.
Guys - I updated my online photo gallery today. I would love some feedback. Here are my areas of concern:
1. Speed - Is the slight delay upon loading each sub-gallery a deal-breaker or is it acceptable?
2. Front Page - Is the overall aesthetic of the front page pretty decent?
3. Navigation - Works? Flows ok?
4. Subgallery Content - Are the topics for each gallery ok?
Things to keep in mind: The site is not intended for commercial purposes at all - I won't be selling my photos in the forseeable future. This is supposed to be a webspace to showcase some of my better work, not unlike a physical art gallery, so the aesthetic is an attempt to be minimal and merely to show the images.
I would really appreciate any/all feedback you guys might have to offer.
I think categorically, the layout is good. I fully understood what I was gonna be looking at from the subsection titles. I dig the design of the front page, but I wish something were off to the bottom right to counter balance everything (first thing that came to mind was a signature...kinda cliche, but eh...think about it). My only complaint is the change-up of the navigation. The category thumbnails have a greater visual draw and I used them to navigate the site, but when I wanted to go back home or to another gallery, there was no option to do so and I had to go up top. I thought that was a bit jarring.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll consider the change in navigation. I hesitate to use layers of thumbnails (in a subgallery there are thumbnails for navigating the pics in that gallery, so to re-add the mainpage's thumbnails would be ... odd (possibly).
Putting something (sig?) bottom right - do you mean on mainpage or on everypage? What if someone naviates with smaller resolutions? Should I still worry about that at all, or is that a concern of the past?
Crits later because I'm really lazy right now, but just wanted to say I definitely don't think there's any need to clean up the holga shot. I think that's part of the magic of holga shots in the first place.
Posts
The glasses in this one aren't nearly as good though.
That's still window lighting actually. This is the shot I used a strobe on:
Interesting look. The diagonal makes it feel very impromptu. I think I kind of like the direct ones better, but that's just a personal taste.
anyone in here deal with holga cameras? or even just film cameras?
I can't get my hands on 120 film for some time so I was told that I could do put 35mm film on it. I did modifications and whatever and the 35mm film is in nice and smooth and I took a picture for testing but I'm sorta lost on a few parts.
How do I know its working? I took a shot but have no idea if it really took it. I think I did everything right. Do I just find out when the film processes and look like a numbskull if everything is bad?
How much light does it take to shit on the film? I'd like to open it up to make sure the film is on the spool aligned correctly now that I've wound through a few shots but I'm afraid I'll overexpose it if I open it again.
If you open the back at all while it's in the camera you just fucked over your film.
I've had zero experience with Hola in particular but I can say that it takes the light of a cell phone in a completely black room to ruin film. It's crazy sensitive and you'll blow any shots you've taken and probably the whole roll if you open the camera. Essentially you won't know if it works until you've processed it. Also, you can find 120mm film on Amazon. Most places to process 120mm they have to ship it off so expect processing to take longer than the one hour photo at Walgreens.
The model you have doesnt have flash?
When I used 35mm film I put black electric tape over all the possible leaks, and definitely on the red window where you choose 120 or 220, because its translucent. Keep in mind, part of the appeal to holgas are lightleaks.
I live outside of LA so this is probably why, but there is a place just a block away that will process my 120 in 3 hours provided I get it in by 11.
Here is an old two shot composite I did ages ago, thought I would fix it up and re-release it, I should probably reshoot a whole series of these.
I did some major tonal shifting on this, since the sky was bland and boring. Any thoughts, especially on composition?
Yeah I ordered 120 film but it hasn't come yet. I want to bring it to the new years party so the girl can show me other things to do with it along with see me actually using it instead of thinking I tossed it to the side in favor of my digital. So until the 120 film comes I have 35mm.
My model does have flash. I don't mind light leaks, I'm keeping some of the crevices untaped just to see how much I'll get. Maybe after I get film processed I'll tape the rest up.
@Flyingman: That shot is incredibly hot but goddamn the vignetting, it doesn't help much and it's taking away detail in the model's face.
Holy fucking shit I had no idea ISO 400 in film was so incredibly grainy. Also I am pleased that even though my f301's light meter functions slightly differently from my D50's I managed to get all 36 exposures done w/o having a single unusable shot. I hate all the film artifacts around though but I guess that's what happens when I'm too lazy/inexperienced/unwilling to have a go at developing my own film.
Some of the better ones: (Ok, these are about the only good ones but hey I hate being 'forced' to shoot stuff)
I was real lucky to get this shot with my 55mm lens, it's not every day you see a monkey at the fucking beach.
You can tell I'm getting desperate to finish the roll at this point. I mean, snow globes.. Really.
And the classic birds on telephone wires shot:
FUN NOTE: The camera and lens were bought before I was born. All the other filters my dad bought with the camera have either broken or become unusable with age (mold, etc). Only the original lens UV filter remains unmarred, testament to German kraftsmanship.
All photos are untouched except for cropping. Also my scanner sucks at scanning negatives but does 27SGD ~ 19 USD seem a tad too much for development and film scanning of this roll?
Anyway I have another roll of fuji neopan 400, so expect more ULTRA GRAINY stuff in maybe a week or so? Depends on how much free time I get off. =\
And no new year fireworks this year because I had to attend a family dinner. Pooh.
EDIT: Also I don't claim to be any expert seeing as I have never developed film but iirc it depends. Safe lights are generally not recommended I think, you're basically supposed to work in complete, meaning complete darkness, and I think b&w film cannot have safe lights around at all. Or something like that.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
sonictk, I particularly like the flower, an to a milder extent, the 7 (though that seems compositionally more problematic to me). The first two have good lines, but I think that the tonal range in most of the shots are lacking, which is really more a result of your scanning the pictures instead of printing them (where you have control over contrast and other aspects of the pictures), and less of photographic skill. Interestingly, I've got a similar setup in camera; my dad bought it in the mid or late seventies, and then gave it to me when I went off to college.
In order to remove the 35MM film yes you will need to be in complete darkness as even the smallest amount of light could potentially fog the film. Now this will be different once you obtain the 120 film since it rolls into itself, then you can remove it at any time (away from DIRECT sunlight is best)
As someone stated earlier Holgas are known for the random light leaks that affect the picture but thats what makes them fun. I took a couple rolls with a borrowed Holga, fun camera to play around with but I like my Brownie more for 120 film
As Craw already mentioned, the only light that can hit paper is the red/orange lights you associate with darkrooms. Film itself is entirely too sensitive and any light will ruin your shots.
Sonic - I think the snow globe is an interesting idea. There's some nice texture going on with the "snow" there, but the composition isn't quite pulling it off. You have a big lamp reflection on top and the negative space on the bottom isn't contributing. I like the flower shot below that quite a bit. It has a simplicity that I think is accentuated by the black and white, as well as by the grain of the film. The plant itself is very plain as well. I dunno. I like it. There's also that bokeh that digital just doesn't ever quite capture the same way as film does.
Edit: oh also didn't get to say it but I love the alchyhol shots from the last page, as well as the one nO(?) linked on your flickr.
Sonic: I completely agree with anable, the second and third from last shots are great (the "7" and the flower). Love the film bokeh/feel to both.
My Portfolio Site
Just amazing.
The colors here are fantastic.
I already commented on flickr but I like this series a lot.
Anyhow, i finally managed to eek out some images I'm happy with. I got a Speedlite 430 EXII for xmas (not used in any of these images but I thought I'd share the happiness).
Holga, 400iso color about 5 second exposure:
Playing with perspective. I really like architecture:
Here Sheri, go inside. It's all rainbows and sunshine I guarantee it:
I... take pictures of my toys. Sorry. :P
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
also I like the perspective shot but is it just me or is the building tilted ever so slightly? Also that tree being cut off halfway on the left is slightly noticeable. The holga shot would be pretty cool smaller sized methinks. All blown up, it looks =\ to me when I can see artifacts in their full glory.
Also thanks for the crits on my film experience (first time shooting totally b&w or more like first time shooting film since I was a kid) but wait:
I don't understand how making prints would actually give me more control over tones? I am planning to edit these in lightroom anyway (I just wanted to get them uploaded first since I was going to play l4d :P) and I have a couple more I want to post for crits actually after I finish post-processing them I guess.
Anyway anable snow globe, uh. Frankly I was tired and looking for anything to shoot so that I could get the roll developed asap and my mom happened to bring that back from a wedding dinner. I'm thinking of getting a black background for it and shine a backlight instead, it would be a lot cooler. Probably.
Also how the hell do you guys get past needing to see the results of your skill right here right now? Every time I hit the shutter on the film camera I find myself hesitating like for a full second while I recheck focus (the split ring focus system is pretty cool), composition, exposure settings and whatnot because if I screw this up...with my d50 I'm like ok this should work BOOM hmm maybe up the shutter speed a widdle bit BOOM perfect. I also have trouble sometimes deciding exactly what aperture to use when I want to have bokeh while still not totally screwing my main subject over with blur.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
I concur with this. Try and remember with portraits everything else in the frame should be secondary to the person. I've done a lot of shots where I love a wall or something in the frame but I end up cropping it out because that cool wall distracts you away from the person that is suppose to be the center of attention in the picture.
The photo with the light bridge draws my eyes to the people in the background because of the leading lines which kind of lead to her face but not as well as if her face was a few inches to the right.
Firstly, about the holga which I use alot, I've probably put around 20 rolls through mine. This site is a MUST:
http://www.squarefrog.co.uk/
Guy explains everything and has videos.
2ndly, don't open the back of the camera ever unless you're planning on taking the film out after exposing the entire roll.
As far as film goes, get some iso 400 for general shooting. You'll need a flash or a lot of light if you're shooting indoors. Throw the lens cap away as it will cause you more problems than not.
Take pictures. That's what you need to do. A good film place (I.E. not a drugstore) will have 120 film. It's not uncommon.
I find that shooting film, because of the costs involved and the lack of instant results, makes me pause a lot more and think about what I'm shooting.
Why am I taking this shot? Is the composition good? Do i like the lighting?
With digital, those concerns come up less. They should come up more.
Hell, go out with a digital SLR and tell yourself you're only taking 12 shots, no erasing or deleting and no preview and see how it changes your perspective. It's a good drill.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
This is rad. Clean it up a bit though, move up the contrast and post it.
:winky:
Considering some filters, or possibly a bag. Or maybe even a shitton of prints.
Alternatively, anyone have a suggestion of a cheap, quality way to digitally display my photos?
Anyway I need to go back to work tomorrow and I may not have a lot of free time then so I'll just post a few more of the b&w shots. I still haven't gotten around to working on them so they've just basically been given cropping treatment with nothing else =\ I like how lightroom recognizes that they're film images though and automagically renames them as such.
Also yes the composition/focus here is a little screwed up, I was trying mainly to get the trunk texture to pop out but keep the cross-section area as a point of focus.
Bleah incredibly grainy:
Once I finish working on all the shots I have a couple more that I think would be presentable with some contrast adjustments, I'll get them here then.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
The trunk would be a good texture study, but there's no direct light to cast shadows and part of it is out of focus. The others are just... well, there's nothing in the frame to take me in and keep me.
Edit: altman - that's a nice shot. No need to clean it up. It's just too big for web.
Mordarion - that's cool. What was that shot with?
Nico:
Misha:
Both shot indoors at night with little interior light. Flash at full power and bounced off the ceiling. Avoiding "flash shadow" is high on my list.
PS - it's tough to get good subject/background separation when the subject is a black cat who wants nothing more than to hang out in front of dark colors. :x
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
How were you able to capture such an intense red laser beam?
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
cats have fucking big pupils
oh wow, that site is the bomb. Thank you so much.
I agree that film makes you think about what you take. I took the camera to a new years party. I only took 8-12 shots as opposed to the 30+ shots I would usually take carelessly and delete most of them. I fooled around with the color flashes, double exposure, and other basic stuff in the book. I can't wait to take more and get this film developed to see what went right and what went wrong.
Documenting the evening. Don't want to spam here, if anyone is interested in more from the set -
http://flickr.com/photos/needoptic/sets/72157611961290219/
We're About to Have Lift Off
4 | 3 | 2 - (Four people, three glasses, two ciggies)
What is he doing?
Thanks, the bottom is just something my scanner does...for some reason I decided it was deliciously chancey and decided to leave it in.
It's just a regular 'ol C-print from my FTb. It came from a bunch of shit I shot in Italy on an art school trip a few years back.
Here's smore!
1. Speed - Is the slight delay upon loading each sub-gallery a deal-breaker or is it acceptable?
2. Front Page - Is the overall aesthetic of the front page pretty decent?
3. Navigation - Works? Flows ok?
4. Subgallery Content - Are the topics for each gallery ok?
Things to keep in mind: The site is not intended for commercial purposes at all - I won't be selling my photos in the forseeable future. This is supposed to be a webspace to showcase some of my better work, not unlike a physical art gallery, so the aesthetic is an attempt to be minimal and merely to show the images.
I would really appreciate any/all feedback you guys might have to offer.
www.mchristianphotos.com
EDIT: Fixed URL
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I think categorically, the layout is good. I fully understood what I was gonna be looking at from the subsection titles. I dig the design of the front page, but I wish something were off to the bottom right to counter balance everything (first thing that came to mind was a signature...kinda cliche, but eh...think about it). My only complaint is the change-up of the navigation. The category thumbnails have a greater visual draw and I used them to navigate the site, but when I wanted to go back home or to another gallery, there was no option to do so and I had to go up top. I thought that was a bit jarring.
P.S. I really dig the colors in your photographs
P.P.S The URL you posted has the a & i reversed.
Putting something (sig?) bottom right - do you mean on mainpage or on everypage? What if someone naviates with smaller resolutions? Should I still worry about that at all, or is that a concern of the past?
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Crits later because I'm really lazy right now, but just wanted to say I definitely don't think there's any need to clean up the holga shot. I think that's part of the magic of holga shots in the first place.
My Portfolio Site