Princeton university

I only shoot digital so I can't comment on any 'Rolleiflex qualities.

I notice that many photos show arches in symmetry. This may be a feature of Princeton. But of the series, I like photos 2 and 5 the most.

I really like the lighting, contrasts and bicycle in photo 2. The light under which the photo is taken, varies from the dark roof down to a light floor. All the structure in the roof and walls is visible. The bicycle breaks up the symmetry. So the frame and 'starting point' for my eye travel is visually interesting in itself. My eye is then led through bright grey back to mid-grey to a band of dark-grey and back out into the light. So while the composition (except the bicycle :)) is symmetric, there's enough variation in light and contrast to keep things interesting. Similarly, I like photo 2. It's rather a common composition in cloisters but the interplay of light and dark make it interesting.

As in photo2, I would have liked to see a bit more light and structure in the frame of photo 1.

I also like the composition of photo 5: the way the zigzag staircase contrasts with the arch. Perhaps the best composition.

The remaining photos look fine fine as photos of 'Princeton scenes' but - for me - have less visual impact than the ones I mentioned bove.

Please tell us what film this was shot on? Not that that has anything to do with criteria for critique, just out of curiosity. I'm with Mike, in liking 2 & 5. I also like the light, texture and tones in #4 of this series.

I like your general "capture" of this place. You seem to have really caught the vibe. Not that I have even been there but it feels like you've managed to shoot some key elements that project the overall feel of the location. Most of your shots seem well exposed- there's little loss of shadow detail, and nothing is really overexposed. Although the final photo seems to be edging that direction a wee bit, it is not egregious, and the detail across the spectrum from light to dark is better than reasonably well shot. Even the "inner" aspects of this scene, beyond the arch has its detail largely intact. The shot #2 with the bicycle goes from dark to light to dark and back out to light in the distance- and there's detail all the way through the shot. Not an easy task, and I'm sure much better than I could do! In that final shot I'm seeing what looks like dappled shadows so the sun seems to have come out as you were making this photo. Otherwise, judging from all the photos you've shown us, it looks like you had a varyingly bright, but mostly overcast day to shoot in.

As a general rule, one thing I don't love about architectural photography is when a camera is tilted upwards and/or is skewed enough that distortion is super exaggerated. You've kept that to a minimum so well done on that note. Granted, sometimes one may do that purposely to create an "effect", for art or whatever, but what I'm seeing is a devout and faithful attempt to show us the essence of a lovely, majestic, historic group of buildings, which I imagine comprise the "old main" segment of campus. Clearly you've taken some time to frame each shot meticulously, rather than "shooting from the hip" or "running and gunning".

SO. Well done!

A couple points of curiosity for my own satisfaction, with some further observations:

*As stated earlier, curious as to what film?

*I'm guessing you had a tripod along for this foray, maybe a cable release too?

*You must have metered these to the hilt, I'm guessing you either are a proponent of the zone system,

or are highly experienced in the art of metering all aspects of a scene.

*A couple of these kinda sorta feel like you've done some masterful post work-

I'm assuming these are as-good-as-it-gets scans - maybe even drum scans (looking closer at the detail),

and you've applied an educated and judicious hand in tweaking the scans nicely.

Maybe there was some lens correction here also but again, and I'm totally guessing-

everything that might have been done in post has a nice subtle feel to it.

To sum it all up,

Overall, nice work indeed. These photos have a smooth and nearly 100% natural feel to them. A couple of them are absolutely superb, but maybe that's a subjective reaction on my part.

A lot of folks couldn't pull this off with a top flight camera of any variety, much less with an old twin lens reflex camera on film! Whether or not you developed and scanned these yourself, I am in awe of your photographic abilities. Probably jealous too! LOL

The actual mechanics of the set up for each photo seems perfect. If all my "observations" (read: guesses, assumptions, and suppositions) are on point, you're doing strong work across a broad segment of the spectrum of the technical aspects of photography, before and after the actual shutter "click". Not that I personally love every shot, but there is certainly not a single thing "wrong" with any of them! This is a nice series of photos. I'm well pleased to see them and I appreciate you submitting for critique.

You seem to have really caught the vibe.

I think the photos capture a (strong) vibe. The focus is on symmetry and geometry. I think the work is consistent, austere, stark, clear, and architecturally oriented. The black and white work adheres to a very functional principle. Only Number 2 is problematic as that patch of ground dead center is blown out and pulls at my eye.

Princeton's campus has much going for it, including the contrast of its stately and formal buildings to the country feel of small-town New Jersey. The warmth of the earth tones of its buildings against the lush greenery on campus can be intoxicating in certain seasons.

Though there's something to be said for the consistency of tone and texture in your series, it might be interesting to experiment with some different expressive uses of black and white to see if some of the warmth could be captured and add something to the austerity and geometry you're presenting.

These are formal shots, strictly composed, and I wonder what it would be like to have a breather in some additional shots that felt more relaxed, casual, or informal, which I think the campus also offers on certain pathways and from certain vantage points. That could wind up offering not just an alternative side of things but it could also wind up reinforcing the majesty of these shots.

Please tell us what film this was shot on? Not that that has anything to do with criteria for critique, just out of curiosity. I'm with Mike, in liking 2 & 5. I also like the light, texture and tones in #4 of this series.

 

I like your general "capture" of this place. You seem to have really caught the vibe. Not that I have even been there but it feels like you've managed to shoot some key elements that project the overall feel of the location. Most of your shots seem well exposed- there's little loss of shadow detail, and nothing is really overexposed. Although the final photo seems to be edging that direction a wee bit, it is not egregious, and the detail across the spectrum from light to dark is better than reasonably well shot. Even the "inner" aspects of this scene, beyond the arch has its detail largely intact. The shot #2 with the bicycle goes from dark to light to dark and back out to light in the distance- and there's detail all the way through the shot. Not an easy task, and I'm sure much better than I could do! In that final shot I'm seeing what looks like dappled shadows so the sun seems to have come out as you were making this photo. Otherwise, judging from all the photos you've shown us, it looks like you had a varyingly bright, but mostly overcast day to shoot in.

 

As a general rule, one thing I don't love about architectural photography is when a camera is tilted upwards and/or is skewed enough that distortion is super exaggerated. You've kept that to a minimum so well done on that note. Granted, sometimes one may do that purposely to create an "effect", for art or whatever, but what I'm seeing is a devout and faithful attempt to show us the essence of a lovely, majestic, historic group of buildings, which I imagine comprise the "old main" segment of campus. Clearly you've taken some time to frame each shot meticulously, rather than "shooting from the hip" or "running and gunning".

 

SO. Well done!

 

A couple points of curiosity for my own satisfaction, with some further observations:

 

*As stated earlier, curious as to what film?

 

*I'm guessing you had a tripod along for this foray, maybe a cable release too?

 

*You must have metered these to the hilt, I'm guessing you either are a proponent of the zone system,

or are highly experienced in the art of metering all aspects of a scene.

 

*A couple of these kinda sorta feel like you've done some masterful post work-

I'm assuming these are as-good-as-it-gets scans - maybe even drum scans (looking closer at the detail),

and you've applied an educated and judicious hand in tweaking the scans nicely.

Maybe there was some lens correction here also but again, and I'm totally guessing-

everything that might have been done in post has a nice subtle feel to it.

 

To sum it all up,

Overall, nice work indeed. These photos have a smooth and nearly 100% natural feel to them. A couple of them are absolutely superb, but maybe that's a subjective reaction on my part.

 

A lot of folks couldn't pull this off with a top flight camera of any variety, much less with an old twin lens reflex camera on film! Whether or not you developed and scanned these yourself, I am in awe of your photographic abilities. Probably jealous too! LOL

 

The actual mechanics of the set up for each photo seems perfect. If all my "observations" (read: guesses, assumptions, and suppositions) are on point, you're doing strong work across a broad segment of the spectrum of the technical aspects of photography, before and after the actual shutter "click". Not that I personally love every shot, but there is certainly not a single thing "wrong" with any of them! This is a nice series of photos. I'm well pleased to see them and I appreciate you submitting for critique.

Hello again,

First off, I mist say I am in complete astonishment at the kind words! I normally don’t post in photography forums, but I felt it may be time.

Let me introduce myself, and give you a bit of background. I am a police officer, and am a semi-pro, (I sell on Etsy-and do some stuff for neighbors and friends) I’ve been a photographer for about 10-12 years after taking a class with a pro photographer. I then took his second Class (Each was about 10 weeks) and so I was hooked. Digital photography at first, (Nikon d3000 followed by a 5100) then, about 6 months ago, took the dive into film and bought a Rolleicord. After seeing the results of what film could really do, I had to have a Rolleiflex. Bought a automat, then a 3.5e, in which the above photos were taken.

As I said, Princeton is my muse and architecture is what it shoot most of the time. I’m a native New Yorker, and have a love affair with the city and its architecture. Princeton is near where I live now, so it was a natural fit.

As to the photos, they were taken with a Rolleiflex 3.5E, planar using Kodak tri-x film. Every photo was handheld, metered with an iPhone app, and not post processed. The reasoning was that a after doing it for a while with digital, I felt that film should be taken straight out of the camera. Maybe it’s a naive way to look at it, but I felt that film separates the men from the boys so to speak. I have become a medium format convert and a disciple of the religion of rolleiflex! Just bought a 2.8f, and now I’m complete. I’ll sell the rest of the cameras, and concentrate on improving my photography! Thank you all for the kind words, I look forward to adding what I can to the forums.

Thank you all for the kind words

You may have thanked me too fast.

Maybe it’s a naive way to look at it, but I felt that film separates the men from the boys so to speak.

I don't know that it's naive, but it's an obnoxious thing to say to a forum of fellow photographers, many of whom are digital photographers, which doesn't affect our testosterone levels.

:rolleyes:

Welcome jc.. how much processing of film experience do you have? and how are you scanning the negatives > digital?

I ask because I look at these classic buildings and your rendering and the processing becomes a question for me.

Hi,

I send my film to a lab in NYC that processes and scans the negatives. Since I am still relatively new to film, and I was shooting slide film at first, I let them do it. Now that I’m shooting mostly tri-x, I may start developing myself. The lab emails me the scans and they go online.

Thanks. My observations would only come in to play if you controlled the processing and or scanning yourself. And not to be mysterious, my interest was in the lack of detail in the high and low ends of the tonal range... something that in architectural shooting has great flexibility. Even with some custom lab work.

The lab I use has a very good reputation, and seems to do great results for an amateur like me. If you live in NY, or visit, the lab is Bleeker Digital solutions on Kenmare street. Great service.

The lab I use has a very good reputation, and seems to do great results for an amateur like me. If you live in NY, or visit, the lab is Bleeker Digital solutions on Kenmare street. Great service.

I'm sure they do.No intent to belittle the lab. My bringing up custom lab work is to say they adjust from standard processing when prompted by the photographers instructions.. Unfortunately that most often bumps the cost. Like I said my observations would ring hollow unless you and or the lab were able to impose other than standard processing. Also I think that it is likely that there is more information that can be recovered in a new scan and or some post processing. I completely understand that you may not want it. ?

I'm sure they do.No intent to belittle the lab. My bringing up custom lab work is to say they adjust from standard processing when prompted by the photographers instructions.. Unfortunately that most often bumps the cost. Like I said my observations would ring hollow unless you and or the lab were able to impose other than standard processing.

I leave it up to them, and have not been disappointed yet. As I learn more about film processing I may have them do more processing, but I feel that they know best for my negatives. Plus, I pay enough to get my film developed lol

Be well, JC

Right up front, I am not now, nor have I ever been a professional photographer, artist, or critic. That said, anything I have to say as a critique has to be taken with a grain of salt. In any case at the end of the day a critique is basically somebodies opinion. Bottom line. The most important critique is the self one. The others may help, but the one that counts the most is that self one.

Image #1 I don't think it needs all that black around it. I think cropping a little off the right and left sides, and maybe a little off the bottom wouldn't hurt.

I also thing upping the contrast a little wouldn't hurt either. Not much mind you. Just a little.

Image #2 I think is right on. Alternating bands of highlight and shadow on the roadway (don't know what else to call it). The diagonal lines of the buildings on either side narrowing as they go back to what would eventually become a vanishing point lead the viewer forward into the image and provide a sense of depth.

Image #3 Doesn't do anything for me. It's a nice building and an ok image, but, (shrug). Others may see it differently but that's me.

Image #4 Is a classic. The diagonal lines of the arches along the ceiling, the windows (don't know what else to call them) on the right, the floor. That same sense of depth as in #2. The off center positioning, etc. All of it coming together to lead the viewer into the image. A classic.

Image #s 5,6, and 7 are to me similar to #3. Nice but no cigar.

IMHO, #5 is by far the best. It draws attention to patterns, such as lines and tonal contrasts, and it's a novel perspective. The main problem with #5 is the tilted verticals. I'll come back to that. The least interesting is #6, which is not a novel perspective.

Maybe it’s a naive way to look at it, but I felt that film separates the men from the boys so to speak. I have become a medium format convert and a disciple of the religion of rolleiflex! Just bought a 2.8f, and now I’m complete. I’ll sell the rest of the cameras, and concentrate on improving my photography!

As someone who started with film, doing my own developing, and now only does digital, I have to comment on this.

One of the things that separates better photographers from novices is control--making the image look like you want it to look. Some of this is control at the capture stage. Much of it, however, is control at the processing stage. In the case of film, some of that lies in developing the film itself, but most of it lies in printing. For example, see these examples of work by famous photographers: https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/..

For an even more striking example, you can find a video online (I've lost the link) that shows Ansel Adam's Moonrise Hernandez straight out of camera and after his darkroom work. They are dramatically different

If you are sending film to a lab, you have no control of any of this. of course, you could digitally edit the scan they provide, but then you are back into digital photography.

As someone who has done wet darkroom work, I think what separates digital from film is primarily the vastly greater control that digital provides. I never got to do my own color wet darkroom work because I couldn't afford the complex control it requires. In the case of B&W, the degree of control that digital offers is light years greater than most people can manage in a wet darkroom. For example, it's trivial to fix the tilted verticals in a good digital editor. I routinely do edits that I couldn't do in a wet darkroom--e.g., increasing midtone contrast only in a specific part of an image and increasing local contrast,

This is not to disparage film photography. If that's what you enjoy, that's what you should do. However, that isn't what separates the pros from the newbies.

@paddler4 great point:

If you are sending film to a lab, you have no control of any of this. of course, you could digitally edit the scan they provide, but then you are back into digital photography.

The lab I use has a very good reputation, and seems to do great results for an amateur like me.

I view asking for critique, whether by an amateur or professional, as a way to try to improve one's photos, or at least get feedback on what others are seeing.

Like you, I don't question the workmanship of your lab. They are doing the best they can, assuming you're not providing them specific personal orders you've given them in how they should process each individual photo.

But the workflow you're using, it would be good for you to be aware, is resulting in a less than optimum photo, especially for the kind of photography you're doing. You are working with classic buildings in a very classic photographic style, which has much to recommend it. Particularly in this kind of work, losing all detail in shadows and sometimes in highlights, and not achieving a good range of black and white and gray tones, really does take away from the effectiveness and beauty of these images.

Looking at that first picture, if we had some sense of depth in the now solid graphic black frame of the arch and the hanging lantern in the center, the photo would feel so much more natural and more textural. It would read more three-dimensionally. That's a worthy goal here.

This is not strictly about the difference between an amateur and a professional or film and digital (though obviously there are different processes in how you approach photos depending on the medium). It's simply about what a photo looks like.

Inoneeye's and Paddler4's critiques are great examples of giving you constructive feedback about what is being seen and what potential there is in these photos that's not being realized ... more than setting up a debate about process or moniker. That's how I read these critiques.