harry_akiyoshi

Actually, she IS that flexible.

You're 16, you just started photographing, and you bought an N80? That's a heck of a way to start. Nice picture, though--the diagonal lines are very strong. I wasn't there, of course, but the background looks intriguing; I would like to have seen more of it. Be careful about using your zoom lens--just because you can zoom in to 70mm doesn't mean that you should. Everyone who gets their first zoom lens instantly thinks that the tightest possible framing is the best. A looser crop would be interesting to look at, partly because I think the diagonal lines in the ceiling could be more emphasized.

A baby photo where the mother isn't staring adoringly at her little bundle of joy. Her detachment is startling. Not a stereotypical picture--very real, and more cynical that most people are prepared to be.

Uh-huh. More flower porn. Nice shot. :-)

 

BTW, you might remove the dust from the neg. Details, details. . .

I know it's clichéd, but I think this might look better with a catchlight.

Yes, the blue color is the sky's reflection. It's such a deep blue because this frame is a deliberate underexposure... EliteChrome (actually, most slide films) will saturate all over the place in conditions like that. True to life? No. But I liked the effect. Oh, and additionally, the light right then would have had a blue cast, probably. . . I was out kayaking in the early (EARLY) morning.

I've always had a tough time getting good results out of Max 400 for stuff like this. It's a pretty good film, for the money (about $6 a roll cheaper than Supra or Portra 400-speed films), but it lacks the fine grain of slower films. In high-contrast, sharp-focus kinds of situations, the resolution is impressively good for a 400; but for flower pictures, when most of the picture is going to be out of focus, you might be better off with a slower, finer-grained film, or at least one with a prettier grain structure than Max 400. Give Fuji Superia Reala a shot. . . the grain is pretty good for a print film. I like it a lot for stuff like this. Alternately, Portra 400VC is not bad, if you want something faster.

I like the contrast and the colors--great photo. A very good take on an overused subject.

It looks like you used a black and white radial gradient on Difference mode. Is that what you did?

There is just enough detail in the face--it works beautifully as a semi-sillhouette. Captivating.

Your photography is better than your rhetoric. Very intense image, beautiful.

An excellent photograph. I'm not a huge fan of flower pictures (on the grounds that 99% of them look the same), but this is an exceptional image.

Nice photo, pretty sharp looking for a photo taken with an reversed lens. I'm not sure about the colorization--it looks a little oversaturated, maybe. Colorizing it is potentially a good idea, it just doesn't look quite right. Good photo, though--it's just that the colorization could have been a little more subtle.

It seems a little obvious to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Light/dark, feminine/masculine, sharp/smooth. . . isn't it just a contrast study? I admit that it's well-executed. . . the symmetry of form is near-perfect and the principal lines converge nicely. However, I'm left thinking that a photograph this graphic MUST have a point. It's interesting, surely, but is it justified?

An interesting subject . . . the quality of the actual photograph is more disappointing. Cool idea, though--could be improved with better lighting. Are you using on-camera flash?

An interesting photo. What focal length did you use? A photo like this should have a lot of dimension. . . I have the feeling that it should be popping out at me more than it is. If the flash was farther to the right, perhaps--you might then get a little more shape out of those central. . . cactus parts. Whatever they are. Honestly, I'm grasping at straws here. . . it could be a matter of using less diffuse light, it could be a matter of using a wider lens, it could be a matter of shifting your camera and shooting from a higher angle. It's already a good photo, but it's frustratingly close to being an excellent one.

Very contrasty, saturated--well, that's Velvia for you. The light is quite harsh; most photographers prefer to shoot flowers in more diffuse light. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to move beyond the flower-calendar stereotype? Most photographers use flower pictures to convey an impression of peace or femininity, a delicate sort of balance. This, on the other hand, is a very masculine photo. I'm honestly not sure what to say about it until I know what you were trying to achieve.

The cropped version is far better than the original. The implicit motion is terrific--it's just a very engaging image.