navarra

I just updated the portfolio with your suggestions (still very slow if you don't have a dsl). Feel free to visit it again at

http://www.simonenavarra.it/portfolio.html

Thanks again!

Simone

Thanks everyone! Responding to the last poster, thanks for pointing this out! I plan to use these images as a printed portfolio, I'll try to make a "lighter" online version. By the way, at this point it takes 3-4 seconds to load with my internet connection, but yes many people are still on dial up.

Simone

I just read the third post... yes I also believe a portfolio should be aimed to the people I'm showing it to, so in case of a social work I'd show the Red Cross images firts, then the portraits, and the "fine art" images at last telling "I also do stuff like this". I wouldn't want to remove them, since everyone seems to like 'em (well, almost :)

Simone

Thanks for the great analisis of mu pictures. I can see most of the problems you are pointing out and I usually try not to repeat the same errors when taking new photos... but it's easier said than done :) Of course I have much more pictures of the same kind, so I might switch the pics that aren't too good (or are flawed like the guitars' one) with better ones.

Do you think 20 x 30 (centimeters not inches!) prints of these images as a full portfolio have a chance to positively impress someone I might want to work with (or work for)?

Thanks again!

Simone

I'm not sure this is the right forum, but my question has to do with working

as a photographer so here it is:

I'm working of a portfolio, hoping it will allow me to introduce myself to

possibile subjects, associations, photo agencies, editors etc... my main

interest, at the moment, is social reportage, so I'd like my portfolio to look

professional enough for people to allow me to photograph them (for example,

I'd like to ask the fire department permission to photograph firemen on duty).

Of course i'll use a printed portfolio, but I built an online one for everyone

to speak their mind and help me fine tune it. You'll find the pictures here:

http://www.simonenavarra.it/portfolio.html

Thanks in advance!

Simone

As I stated in the gallery introduction, I couldn't hope to give a full representation of Japan after only a 2 week vacation. I just tried to show some images that I hope can give a small taste of this land and it's many contradictions (for one, the huge crowds you can see everywere as opposed to single people dressed as Elvis and trying to look "different" from all others).

The third picture shows a row of sake cans (not sure it's the right word) found in a temple. In ancient times, sake producers would give sake as a gift to the temple. Now the cans are empty and shown as a sort of advertising, while the sake company give money to the temples. At least, that's what I have been told when I was there :)

Simone

I took a 2 week vacation in this wonderful land, and here's the result:

http://www.simonenavarra.it/japan.html

Of course, your comments and critiques are well appreciated :)

Simone

Thanks for the nice words. As you can see from the captions I worked on these images for quite a long time and I believe I actually grew in photography while taking them. My next pics will hopefully be better thanks to this experience.

Simone

I'm a Red Cross volunteer, and I just added a gallery about (you

guessed :) volunteers in my homepage.

Would you like to take a look at it and leave me some feedback? I'm

working on a different reportage for Red Cross right now so your

advice might be extremely useful.

The address is:

http://www.simonenavarra.it/redcross.html

Thanks a lot!

Simone

Most naturist beaches here in Europe allow clothed people in as well, so if this is the case were you live of course you don't have to be nude.

Fact is, if you are a naturist/nudist you probably know some of the people you are going to meet, but if it's your first time to a nude beach it's probably going to be very hard to get permission to photograph. Taking pics without asking at a nude beach sounds like a dumb idea ^^

Simone

I ended up buying the Powershot SD450, since to my opinion the pictures look as bad as most other digicams while the size makes it very pocketable. Since I couldn't find what I was looking for, I decided to go all the way in one direction and tought size is the main factor that would make me choose another camera over my 300D.

I wouldn't have tought of the small ixus without someone pointing it out, so thanks for helping me. I hope to post some nice images soon, so keep an eye on me^^

Simone

Thanks again. I've looked through many reviews of all the cameras you mentioned, and I must say I still cannot decide. Most cameras are good but are either too big or do not use CF's, and overall the image quality leaves a lot to be desired (I'm used to my 300D).

My feel is that there is the technology but the producers are not interested in creating a "better" compact camera, for fear that people would not be interested in more expensive DSLR's. For example, Canon removed RAW support from the S80 and all the smaller models have no manual control whatsoever. These are all software related things that could be there with no effort, still they are not there.

I'll keep looking at the cameras you presented me, and see if I can decide for one... thanks once again for helping me out!

Simone

Thank you very much, I'll check out all the cameras that were pointed out and see if I find one that makes my day :)

Simone

I already own a canon 300d with several lenses, and I'm quite happy

with it. I have been looking for a "pocketable" digicam to bring

around all the time, just for candids and snapshots. The problem is,

there are 1000's of small digicams, and I'm not sure wich is good

for me. Here's a list of "features" I'd like:

1) Small (pocketable). I want to bring it with me all the time.

2) Fast focus and shutter. I like candids so maybe this is the most

important point.

3) Decent image quality (4mpixels, no big image problems but I'd

like at least acceptable enlargments). RAW mode would be great :)

4) Compact flash memory is a plus, since I already own several cards

and won't have to buy more.

5) Aperture (or shutter) priority. I know 99% of compact digicams

are full auto and I can live with it, still I'd like some manual

control.

Well, that's pretty much it. I know maybe I'm asking too much, but

there are so many cameras out today that I believe there must be

something at least very close to what I need.

Thanks in advance!

Simone

Nice one, Alan :)

Simone

To Jeremy

>Are you not being selfish by failing to see that just because you >don't see it that it isn't really there?

I believe a picture is supposed to "show" something. The image must tell the story, so if I don't see it to me this means the story isn't there. As an artist, a photographer should be able to show you that his pictures have contents rather than telling you. If a picture has got a special value for you, it's fine for me, actually I think it's great! But why show it to others knowing it might have no meaning at all to them?

To Bill:

Yes, it probably IS a cultural thing, but not strictly connected to American since I see similar pictures taken by my italian friends all the time. Documenting the vast space of the USA is actually a GREAT content to me (I have been there and "space" is the right word to describe your country), but I feel like most landscapes and such things are photographed just because the photographer happens to be there, not following a particoular purpose.

To Rich:

I've come to think people do not appreciate some kind of imagery simply because they are not used to it and don't understand it. Not that I believe they aren't smart or intelligent enough to do it, but maybe being exposed to the same kind of images over and over can induce neophites to believe that's the right direction to take. When I started photography some years ago I used to dislike reportage pictures as well, but once some good reportagist explained me what was the point the value of these images became evident.

Thanks for the nice discussion!

Simone

Looking at the pictures appearing on the site, I find that more and

more photographers tend to create image with an introspective

approach: there's no interest in showing the world or some concrete

aspect or life. People prefer to show intimate portraits, set up

images with complex meanings and similar images.

The strange thing is that others seem to prefer this approach as

well. I mean, people rate this kind of imagery more and with better

scores than, say, reportage or street photography. I find some very

good reportagists are totally ignored or receive very low ratings.

Do you think this is good or bad? I mean, I believe that expressing

ONLY our personal point of view in any art form is wrong. Notice I

said "ONLY". To me, this is too selfish: we all think our life and

our thoughts are somewhat more important and interesting than

others' but, obviously, they are not.

I do think personal expression is fundamental in art, but that

cannot be the only content we are showing. I recently bought a book

from Berengo Gardin to add to my collection, and I found a lot of

pictures showing past ages, beautiful people and lost moments.

Looking here I mostly find images with no story, so I wander wheter

this "normal" for today standards or not.

I'd like your thoughts on this!

Simone

That's a good point. But the price of the full TLR camera + accessories is probably less than a single good lens for a reflex. So now you got me really confused... what I learned with 35mm is that you can never have it all in photography. Prime lenses are faster but sometimes a zoom is more helpful; slides look better but have less range; compact digicams are pocketable but have a lot more noise and so on.

I guess I'll get what good offer I can find and will live with the drawbacks. Thanks!

Simone

Ok, I'm sold on the Yashica 124. The Zenza Bronica looked nice but the seller was not reliable and the Yashica is much cheaper since I won't regret not buying all the lenses since there's none :)

I know I'll get a SLR if I really get into MF, but starting with something very cheap sounds like a good idea.

I'm looking on ebay and shops already, thank you so much for all the input!

Simone

I actually found an interesting offer already on a magazine:

Zenza Bronica SQA limited series (?!) + 80mm + pentaprism (do manual cameras come WITHOUT one?!) + 2 magazines for 300?

I like that there's all to start shooting right away. I wonder if anyone here is using something similar. For the price consider cameras cost 1,5 times more here in Europe excluding change 250$ = 300? more or less.

Simone

Your help has really pushed me on the right track I believe: I'm very inclined thowards a 6x6 waist level camera. I've always been fascinated by those photographers looking in the mirror from above the camera before shooting. I always thought "I could take awesome pictures with that", only I didn't know how "that" was called.

I believe a 35mm equivalent is ideal for full figure portraits, so with some minor calculations a 50mm should be fine. Actually, coming from the 35mm format a 50mm lens sounds like the best choice for starting :)

For the model, I'm so used to SLR's that it seems natural to go on the same way, but size is probably a priority since what I'd like to do first is a series of street portraits. Thinking about size and bulk, I probably want a camera with built in meter... but the prices on the newer models are insane so maybe I'll have to live without it.

I already own a somewhat "old" Epson 2450 scanner. Does anyone use this or had I better think about upgrading?

Seems like I only need to go out and get the camera and lens. I'll check out the different models and update you once I decided. Your help was extremely useful, thanks again!

Simone

Thanks everyone for the interesting (well, most of them :) responses.

Sorry for not coming back earlier but really I couldn't find the time.

All your informations are very useful. I'll check out the cameras and lenses you talked about and try to choose something I like. With a first thought, I find 6x6 film more interesting than other formats since the first thing I notice in a MF print is the "square" size.

2 questions:

1) On a 6x6, what's the 35mm equivalent of the lenses? I know this might be wrong but I'm used to the 35mm sizes for "wide" "normal" and "tele".

2) Some say to scan the film and print it as a digital file. Isn't this going to spoil part of the final result? Won't the prints (expecially the colors) look much similar to those taken with DSLR's?

Thank you again, I really appreciated your help!

Simone

I have been using a DSLR for quite some time. I'd like to try medium

format to see if I can make something good with it.

Fact is: what equipment do I buy? Lenses, camera and film... I know

nothing!

I want to:

1) Take high resolution portraits or full figure people. See Uwe

Ommer 1000 families or Strand's portraits.

2) Shoot mainly in color getting very saturated and contrasted

images. I'd like to try B&W as well... but I cannot print pictures

myself.

3) Take the camera with me easily. I can use manual 35mm cameras, I

just have NO IDEA how a medium format camera works. I only know I

want it to be small :)

4) I want to produce real reportages. I got ideas and I know what

I'm doing. My dream is to produce some nice reportage and sell it,

publish it or show it in an exposition.

I'd also like your thoughts on this: does it make sense for someone

used to digital to go "back" to medium format film? Does it make

sense to try and print your own B&W images from medium format film

hoping to produce something I might actually sell or at least spread

around for others to appreciate me as a photographer? Funny how I'm

not even sure it's possible to print medium format film "in house" :)

Ok, I see I made a lot of questions... but I hope you'll find them

all interesting. Thanks for helping me!!

Simone

Actually some electronics should be used in the "proper" orientation and not rotated. Some televisions come to mind, and usually all heavy things with mechanical parts. However, cameras are built to be used horizontally and vertically, so I doubt that using a camera upside down will cause any harm since it's built to be rotated all the time.

Simone

I own the Canon 24/1.4 and use it on a drebel (1,6 crop factor). I find it a bit softer than I hoped when used wide open, and usually corners are softer than the center even at smaller apertures. This said, 90% of the pictures I took with it so far were taken at apertures between 1.4 and 2.0 (that's the reason I bought this lens) and while sharpness might be a bit lacking, color and contrast are very good. I find it a bit too big and heavy for my tastes as well, but I guess no lens of this kind is small and light. I say if you know what to expect from such a lens (mainly SPEED) you won't be disappointed.

Simone