Jump to content
  • Recent Gallery Images

  • Recent Forum Wide Posts

    • Just to illustrate how a developer can go off: Here's what happened to a bottle of T-max concentrate I had over a period of about 2 months. Prior to that it had been fine for ages.  First, a good development of some 5052 TMX (left) next to one that turned out a bit 'thin' and rang alarm bells. Part of fully-fogged leaders shown, as would be seen on a light-box -  And a few weeks later -  The Dmax 1.8 was (luckily) just a clip-test of the developer. Showing that it was 'clapped out' and gone bad.  The brown tone of the thin film's leader also indicates a problem with the developer.  The 'thin' film with Dmax 2.3 was still perfectly printable/scannable BTW. So a slight under development is no big deal. Under-exposure, OTOH, just can't be properly rescued.  I'm not so sure about the density of frame numbers and other edge markings being a reliable guide to development. In my experience they vary widely between film types and even between batches of the same film.  FWIW, the densities were read using a Sakura PDA-81 analogue readout densitometer. It's calibration was recently checked using known ND filter gels. Probably not up to NPL standards, but close enough for general photography! 
    • So I went back to this and straightened it out a bit. Thanfully there's enough general space to have done so without sqeezing any one aspect of the photo too closely. I think in this rickety old canopy structure, there are off kilter elements, which I think (hope) adds to the surreality of the scene.   
    • While I am sure there are cameras on your list that deserved to be reviewed, it probably made sense for DP Review to focus on camera systems that are more affordable and also those used by most working professionals.  Vast majority of photographers also like cameras that have AF and can use zoom lenses, which doesn't include the M system. 
    • A straight-up documentary photo like this seems much better suited to the bigger picture of a trip to (wherever), but it's a great look at a beautifull old building. Just checked your web site and looked around a bit. I really like that you are dedicated to film photography (as am I). Your website looks great and you obviously put a whole lot of time and energry into both your photos and the site. NICE WORK! 
    • A few things, not all of which you can change at this point: 1. Unfortunate that the branches hang so low at the top. Would have been better if the light and top of the arch were more visible. 2. Bright opening at the left is distracting. Experiment with cropping just to the left of the drainpipe. 3. If the image data can support it (that is, if you shot in raw), do some work in post to bring out the pattern and texture of the stones on the ground. 4. The drainpipe is an unfortunate element. Not too bad, though. Maybe it could be toned down a little. 5. Make the structure brighter, and tone down the bright background that you can see through the arch. I think the giraffe stonework is the most interesting element here. 
  • Create New...