bob_osullivan

I also prefer the 2nd one. Here's why. While the first image obeys the "rule" leave your subject somewhere to go. As in if they are looking right leave room to the right. However sometimes you need to break the rules. The ducks are clearly moving away from the POV. So this conficts with that rule. You'd have to be looking at the ducks faces not their behinds for that rule to really apply. The message I get from this image is "Goodbye". So it works to have them nearly out of frame, again since we are seeing them from behind. Second, and perhaps more important, the clouds in the 2nd image have a bit more Drama for me.

Miller's Professional Imaging

She's a Flake, and doesn't value your service. If you re-book collect a "booking fee". Not a deposit. A deposit can be construed as refundable. A booking fee is non - refundable. Make that clear. It does not go on your calendar until the booking fee money is cleared in your account. If she flakes, it's a day off with pay. Don't call out sick from work for this client. Book it on your day off if at all.

$10 / month gets you both lightroom and photoshop, not to mention bridge and a host of other apps. Just do that if you're serious about commercial shoots.

To simplify it, exposing for shadows usually meant over expose the film some. However, this would potentially blow out highlights. So, under developing could compensate to save the highlights. Light hitting negative film causes emulsion to be retained in development more. More emulsion blocks light from the enlarger hitting negative paper resulting in lighter areas. Having less emulsion allows light to hit the paper creating darker areas. So underexposing saves the shadow are details, and reducing development time, agitation or temperature saves highlights that would have been burned out. This is basically "Pull" processing. Pushing film would be expanding the contrast not compressing it as the Pull does. You'd push when your film ISO / ASA is not sensitive enough for the lighting. Pushing usually loses detail in highlights or shadows but allows a usable image in under lit situations.

If those are your only two options definitely Tiff. See if there's a driver software update that will allow DNG files. They are smaller but still lossless and compatible with most platoforms.

You could use a gradient or mirror the background in PS to match the roll off of the light to balance the background.

Magnificent shot! The only change I would consider is to crop out the lower branch which is a tad distracting.

As a follow up project, this composition would be great at night after a heavy rain with streetlights glowing and reflecting on the soaked bricks. Just a thought.

I would try to catch it again another day at another time with better lighting. The image is flat. Lighting at 10:00 or 2:00 would add texture and shadows making it more interesting. And yeah, definitely B&W.

Out of your list the only one I have is the ETRSi line. I still have these with many lenses and viewfinders. Why? I just can't let them go. These are awesome cameras, simple to use. Ubiquitous so cheap. I've put together a 3 body, 5 lens, 5 back, 3 view finder and speed handle system for under $300 all in. They work will with studio lighting via pc sync cord. Others may be better, but you can't go wrong with the Bronica ETRSi. They are built to last.

Hence the recommendation for three lenses. A wide, a normal and a telephoto. A zoom simply emulates having multiple focal length prime lenses. Limiting a new shooter to 3 fixed focal lengths aids in the learning curve. This is better than infinite focal length choices of a zoom assuming one wants to learn the craft. Sitting in one spot with a zoom and being too lazy to move your body to get the best perspective, is the mark of a snap shooter, not a photographer IMO. You pick your best focal length and you pick your best position. Yes you can do the same thing with a zoom. The problem is new users don't bother to do more than fill the frame with a zoom which is not ideal.

The banding on the film photos looks like a film processing problem. Too little agitation, bad chemicals, wrong temperature or expired film. I'd try again with fresh chemicals and fresh film.

It would help if you could post a photo sample.

Glen, let's not overcomplicate this. Claire is a beginner and asked if stacking some filters I assume she already had would make sense. Answer, NO. She just needs an R72, like others have stated, to start learning infrared photography.