Colin_D wrote:

Your pics are interesting from a journalistic perspective (pun
unintentional), but the tonal gradation from that 3200 film is
shockingly bad, as is the grain, clearly visible even on the smallish
images.

I'm not the photographer, but I'd like to throw my 2 cents in too.

I disagree with you. The grain and lack of gradation give the pictures
a look which I think goes well with the subject. They have the "look"
of 1950's 35mm photography, or pre-WWII medium format.

What I disliked is the lack of cropping. For example, the picture of
the church has a large gray area in front of it. On paper, it may be
the street, on my monitor it just is a mass of gray grain. There are
no clouds in the sky ABOVE the steeple, so cropping there would make
the picture more interesting and leave nothing out.

On the whole, I think they would make a good exhibit on paper, and
with some judicious cropping, a good web display would be better.

If I had done a similar walk around a semi-derelict town and came back
with images like those, I would be deeply disappointed.

Everyone's taste is different. I found them interesting, well photographed
and the choice of film suited the subject.

Would Cartier-Bresson's (pardon any spelling mistakes) pictures of
Paris look as good if shot on the latest Kodak Consumer color print
film?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/