Ballerina

Hi! I'm really not too sure if this photo of mine should be

categorized as "Fine Art", but I guess it's the word that connects

with me when I think of my work and what I aim for.

 

This picture is one of my personal favourites, and I just wanted to

see what other people think of it, and have a listen to what

suggestions/advice more advanced photographers might have tio improve

it. I'm always open for criticism.

 

If you happen to have some time, I would really appreciate it if you

could critique my other photographs as well. I'm a new member to

photo.net, so I"m not sure exactly how all the procedures flow ...

but, I'm guessing that you can see everything in my portfolio right

now and are able to add comments to it? I will try to submit my other

photos through this forum whenever I have time. If you like, you can

also view my photographs at:

 

http://www.employees.org/~schan/ttmg/

 

And you can email me at schan@ieee.org

 

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to hearing from anyone with

any comments at all!

 

Sam

Don't you think at least something should be in focus?

Hehe, yeah, I know what you mean. By keeping my negatives in the PrintFile archiver when exposing them onto the paper, it seems that the print will be quite foggy compared to the negatives. I'm also wondering if it matters whether using a clear glass (7 watt) light bulb or a frosted white glass bulb makes a difference ... I'm using the frosted type, and perhaps that diffuses the light more such that fogging is more likely to occur with my print? I'll have to get an enlarger one day, plus some filters to control contrast. Right now it just doesn't work with my budget. If I get an enlarger, I'll make a "real" print and replace this current one.

 

Thank you very much, Bernhard, for all your comments throughout my portfolio. I really appreciate it.

 

Just one thing Sam, I'm glad you didn't get my sometimes snotty comments wrong, they might sound rough, but are really intended to contribute something positive.

 

I thought the blur was intended (artistic) not a technical problem. Why don't you take the contact print out of that plastic thing and put it right on the glass of the scanner? Why not scan the b&w negative (if your scanner has a light in its lid) and invert it in the scan software or in one of those shareware picture editors if you don't have photoshop? This will help us to see what kind of picture you really took.

I actually like the picture blurry. Too many macro shots are surgically in focus. Maybe this is how you'll make a name for yourself. Anyways, on the topic of enlargers. You could probably try this: set your exposed film on the film rails in the FM2, and the FM2 below the light bulb as though it is an enlarger lens. Wrap an old leather skirt (available in Goodwill for $2) around the camera+light. Set the camera on B and try to keep the shutter open while focusing, until the image below is in focus. Then expose a grade 3 or 4 paper for 25 seconds or so and develop. It might work.

I intended the background to be blurred, and since the spider was moving I expected some slight motion blur in the legs, however the blur you see around the body may not necessarily be there had I exposed the contact print without the 2 layers of plastic enveloping the negative. When I get an enlarger, I'll see how it'll really turn out.

 

As for the scanning, I used a scanner at work, and it's fairly scratched up, dusty, and oily, so I didn't want to put the negatives on there.

 

About enlarging ... wow, that's a pretty neat idea ... I've never heard of using a camera like that before. It seems like it would work when I think about it. I guess the only concern is that of heat from the bulb when it's close to the negative.