If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Old stuff comments
Hi,
I still feel that most people here have a lot more knowledge about pictures than I do, but I have now been benefiting from your knowledge since SI 1, so I'll try give my comments this time. Browser: I really like your picture. The colors and the details in the tree stump is just greath. I only would wish that the leaves would have a bit more clear color or at least details. Martin Djernaes: Mine. No comments. Simon Lee: What a funny picture. Old rolls of 35mm film, I guess it's meeting the mandate. Vic Mason: Somehow I find the picture to messy and somehow a bit soft and/or unclear. The plane is really nice and surely isn't new, but somehow it's loosing it's value in the "mess". Somehow the "mess" never makes this picture for me. McLeod: Hmm. Old yes, but I hope not "stuff" ;-) Are there any reason why it's so soft? Ken Nadvornik: What a great photo. The light is really soft and fits very well to the black and white. If I have to find something to ask for, then it would be a bit of detail in the shadow. Brian Fane: What a nice sky color and generally a nice composition. The only thing which bother me in this picture is the splash of brown grass (or what is it?) in the front. Eric Quesnel-Williams: This is such a nice picture. Lot's of nice details in the (top) stamp - I can almost feel the paper. Also the colors from the other stamps below is a great backdrop. Brian Baird: For a while I didn't know what I feelt was wrong with this picture, but now I know. The barn has almost no color, while the trees and grass around is having color. I think this gives this picture an almost mystic feeling. Graham Fountain: Nice picture, but somehow it makes me think about these pictures from the 20'es or so. Doug Payne: Nice seen with the red/rose wheel in the middle. I'm not sure I like the thing (stone?) in front of the first wheel, but else I like the clear detail in the wood. Jim Kramer: Hmm Alan Browne: This is a nice picture, which gives a nice sense of working. Does the blacksmith use his hammer? I would which that I could have seen that more clear in the picture. Christian Gatien: Interesting idea and I think you go a nice result. The fact that I can see the beetle clearly and the roof line is following the curve of the hubcap makes this photo, imho. Al Denelsbeck: Some kind of fossil? Michelo: I don't like the motive, but I think the picture is pretty good. You have lot's of detail in the whole picture, which I find really nice. Bob Hickey: This would have been such a nice picture i I didn't get the feeling that I was looking through some kind of milky glass. Mojtaba Talaian: Is the lap old? I like the modtive, but somehow I think that either the graffiti should have been more colorfull or it shouldn't have been there. Mike Henley: This is a nice picture. Maybe it's not quite what I like, but I think the picture is well done, which a nice balance in the light. The colors on the left of the picture is nice and warm and I almost forget to see the statue, standing in the (cold) shadow. Chibitul: Not only is this an old radio, but it looks like you just found in up under the roof on some old farm ;-) Colm Gallagher: Hmm .. old .. maybe. Details are nice, but I just lack something in that picture. Steve McCartney: This is an interesting picture. Lot's of old feeling in here, but with new (modern) stickers on the windows. I like this picture because of the mood it gives me. That's all folks. Martin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Djernæs" wrote;
Ken Nadvornick: What a great photo. The light is really soft and fits very well to the black and white. If I have to find something to ask for, then it would be a bit of detail in the shadow. Hi Martin, Thank you for both the compliment and the criticism. Regarding the latter, you have echoed my original concern exactly. The problem with the three shadow areas along the sidewalk was that only the center one had any detail available in the negative. The outside two were essentially blank. (Even with the Plus-X film rated one stop over at ASA 64.) This left me with a decision to make. I could try to subtly dodge the center shadow in an attempt to open it up a bit. But if I succeeded, in order to preserve a sense of reality, I would also have had to equally dodge the other two. Doing so, however, would have resulted in only blank gray patches in those areas. (I did try this and that is, in fact, what happened.) The second possibility was to let the three shadows naturally drop to their near total black rendition. This I felt would help to key the other tones - especially the nearby vertical, white "Retreading" sign - in the eyes of the viewer. Since the overall area of each of these individual black shadows was not especially large, this is what I decided to do. In retrospect, a better solution might have been to open up the shadows right on the original negative by using a bit of fill light. I did have in my camera bag a GN 130 Vivitar 292 electronic flash unit which could have done the job. I just didn't think at the time to use it. (Damn, I hate it when that happens... grin) Utilizing the resulting additional detail, back in the darkroom I could also have then conceivably created a contrast mask to precision "dodge" the shadows. Unfortunately, although I have made masks in the past with large format negatives, I have not tried them with the much smaller 35mm negatives. Ken |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Djernæs" wrote;
Ken Nadvornick: What a great photo. The light is really soft and fits very well to the black and white. If I have to find something to ask for, then it would be a bit of detail in the shadow. Hi Martin, Thank you for both the compliment and the criticism. Regarding the latter, you have echoed my original concern exactly. The problem with the three shadow areas along the sidewalk was that only the center one had any detail available in the negative. The outside two were essentially blank. (Even with the Plus-X film rated one stop over at ASA 64.) This left me with a decision to make. I could try to subtly dodge the center shadow in an attempt to open it up a bit. But if I succeeded, in order to preserve a sense of reality, I would also have had to equally dodge the other two. Doing so, however, would have resulted in only blank gray patches in those areas. (I did try this and that is, in fact, what happened.) The second possibility was to let the three shadows naturally drop to their near total black rendition. This I felt would help to key the other tones - especially the nearby vertical, white "Retreading" sign - in the eyes of the viewer. Since the overall area of each of these individual black shadows was not especially large, this is what I decided to do. In retrospect, a better solution might have been to open up the shadows right on the original negative by using a bit of fill light. I did have in my camera bag a GN 130 Vivitar 292 electronic flash unit which could have done the job. I just didn't think at the time to use it. (Damn, I hate it when that happens... grin) Utilizing the resulting additional detail, back in the darkroom I could also have then conceivably created a contrast mask to precision "dodge" the shadows. Unfortunately, although I have made masks in the past with large format negatives, I have not tried them with the much smaller 35mm negatives. Ken |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Hickey:
This would have been such a nice picture i I didn't get the feeling that I was looking through some kind of milky glass. Actually, the picture IS going thru milky glass. The glass on my scanner is fogged out and I can't get this stupid thing apart. Anybody know how to get an HP 3400c apart, or at least get the glass out? The prints go in looking a little like a Ken Nadvornik shot, and come out looking like sunrise over Linden N.J. Hellooooo Exxon. I got an HP 5200c and the program won't run. Tech support is about what you'd expect, so fogged it remains, with predictable results. This is scanner 5 or 7 and my enlarger is about 30 yrs old. I love this digital crap. Bob Hickey www.pbase.com/bobhickey/galleries |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Hickey:
This would have been such a nice picture i I didn't get the feeling that I was looking through some kind of milky glass. Actually, the picture IS going thru milky glass. The glass on my scanner is fogged out and I can't get this stupid thing apart. Anybody know how to get an HP 3400c apart, or at least get the glass out? The prints go in looking a little like a Ken Nadvornik shot, and come out looking like sunrise over Linden N.J. Hellooooo Exxon. I got an HP 5200c and the program won't run. Tech support is about what you'd expect, so fogged it remains, with predictable results. This is scanner 5 or 7 and my enlarger is about 30 yrs old. I love this digital crap. Bob Hickey www.pbase.com/bobhickey/galleries |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Djernæs wrote:
Alan Browne: This is a nice picture, which gives a nice sense of working. Does the blacksmith use his hammer? I would which that I could have seen that more clear in the picture. http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ol...rowne_oldb.jpg |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Djernæs wrote:
Alan Browne: This is a nice picture, which gives a nice sense of working. Does the blacksmith use his hammer? I would which that I could have seen that more clear in the picture. http://www.aliasimages.com/images/ol...rowne_oldb.jpg |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , says...
For a while I didn't know what I feelt was wrong with this picture, but now I know. The barn has almost no color, while the trees and grass around is having color. I think this gives this picture an almost mystic feeling. I wanted the colors to be very subtle, almost like a hand-painted image from ye olden days. Sucking out the red and blue color managed that fairly well, and a toned down the green so it wouldn't be so obvious. Thanks for the comments! -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
Ken Nadvornick wrote: Ken Nadvornick: What a great photo. The light is really soft and fits very well to the black and white. If I have to find something to ask for, then it would be a bit of detail in the shadow. Thank you for both the compliment and the criticism. Your're welcome ... and thank you for your detailed explanation. In retrospect, a better solution might have been to open up the shadows right on the original negative by using a bit of fill light. Actually I appreciate your explanation a lot as it tells me something about how I need to look at a scene .. before the image is taken. I'm still pretty new at the game and can *alwas* see later that "I didn't think of that" .. somtimes I'm just lucky, other times .. well I'm less lucky ;-) Martin |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] - Entrances & Exits - my comments | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 46 | August 6th 04 08:29 PM |
[SI] Brian's Comments | Brian C. Baird | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | July 22nd 04 04:20 PM |
[SI] Local Culture - The Dave comments... | The Dave© | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | July 5th 04 04:17 PM |