wayne_harrison

i think your first crop of the second image would look great on the

first image. got that? actually, i like this quite a bit, when

cropped. you were completely successful in your announced intention

to summon up the 40's-50's nuance. of course, the terrific bone

structure doesn't hurt, either.

 

<p>

 

wayne harrison

well, i surely don't want to appear cavalier about this, but i

have shot transparencies of people since the late 70's by metering

off my hand. in fact, i never open one from that reading. the key,

i suppose, is making sure the light on your hand matches the light on

the subject.

at least on my pc, the qualitative difference is striking. that is,

the "jan" image is far superior in contrast and clarity. the other

image almost appears almost opaque and flat.

 

<p>

 

again, though, the "jan" image is very effective.

my down and dirty slr kit is a nikon fg with a 24/2.8, and two series

e lenses: the 100/2.8 and the 75-150/4 zoom. hard to beat for a

combination of variety and convenience. with color film, then just a

polarizer and a 81b. with b&w, an orange and a green filter.

 

<p>

 

wayne harrison

i think this is one of those totally subjective areas of equipment selection. i, for one, have found that my 35 and 50 are my most often utilized focal lengths for landscapes, with a marked preference for the 50. fwiw, i shoot mostly mountain views in the appalachians. if i go to a longer length, i have to go all the way to 135 for any substantially different "look" than that produced by my 50. in short, i think this just depends on how your mind's eye prefers to see your world.