markwilkins

The thing that strikes me most about this is that the red in the center is very flat and without detail. Perhaps the scan is the problem, but different light would have helped a lot to bring out the detail, I think.

I like the blue of the boat against the orange of the flags. One question: did you enhance the saturation of this image after the scan? I notice the net has a strong blue color which seems a bit out of place.

Thanks for posting this! The color is beautiful and the view through the doorway makes it more than just another building-front.

If you shot this on TMY, as your tech info says, I'd suspect you may have detail in the highlight that burning in would reveal. If burning it in really does yield a flat gray, leave it.

 

If you really are stuck and there's no highlight detail, you could just crop the blown-out area and leave the top two fingers. I don't think that would hurt the image and it would keep the bright hand from drawing attention away from the face.

 

My only thought is that the title detracts a bit, for me, because my initial thought was "What in hell is she looking at?"

 

The reflection in her eyes is an interesting geometric complement to her hair and the texture in the blown-out background, and for me it makes the photo. However, using the title to ground that in reality kind of takes away the mystery.

I'm just getting started with a more serious interest in available-

light photography at night, and while I have plenty of photos with

something sharp in the image, the ones featuring lots of motion

blur are often the most interesting to me.

 

Thoughts?

This image just gets more strange the longer I look at it.

It's a beautifully abstract and graphic view of your subject! My only wish would be that the building in the lower-right corner wouldn't be there. I think that makes the subject too closely rooted in reality.

 

A pot of flowers can be so cliche, and maybe this is too, but I like

the representation of strong primaries in this photo and I'm

curious what others think.

... although someone else who uses the darkroom where I work may have filed the edges of the negative holder for me without my knowledge!

 

I print full frame not because of some deep artistic motivation but because it's the only convenient way to get a wide white border on my prints with the easels they have where I do my printing. Frankly, sharp 1/4" white borders or full-bleed printing are both irritating to me because I don't want to get fingerprints on the image area when I'm picking up a print. In any case, surely even if you view the frame as an affectation it doesn't detract from an image that would otherwise be strong.

I think I like the detail over the subject's left shoulder in that it

adds some environmental interest to a fairly tight portrait.

Thoughts?

Family in the frame -- does it support or distract from the

image?

Sorry, I could not get the tones of the building to come out well in

the scan.

 

Let me know where I might go with this!

There seems to be an unstated assumption in this thread that the Epic is a seriously deficient camera. While one is victim to its choice of exposure, one isn't so much so with negative film, and the sharpness and color of the thing rival those of my Nikons or my Pentax 67 with a nice, new lens.

 

I have no doubt that this photo looks more impressive in a high-quality print than it does scanned and posted to photo.net. Probably it holds up better detail in the foreground and probably the mountain jumps out more from the background.

 

 

-- Mark

This is one of the few photos I've seen on here which really conjures up all kinds of imagined contexts.

 

... and fairly well-executed within the constraints of what you had to work with.

 

My only suggestion for improvement on this would be altering the composition slightly so that the very top of the nearest tower were visible.

 

those are exactly the things I like about it!

Your opinion counts!

It's a flatbed scan on a poor scanner from a 3"x5" print. The print and the neg are exceptionally sharp. The screwed-up monitor on the computer attached to the scanner is also the reason for the harsh contrast.

 

Same qualification applies to the other two photos in this folder (which are all from the same roll of 10 photos.)

 

... however since the photo was, in fact, a snapshot made in a crowded room under severe time pressure I won't apologize for the distracting background detail.

 

Had I had the time to put more care and thought into the composition, it would have been possible to address the issue.

 

Note that I did not post this photo with the intent of it being critiqued in its own right (although I did invite attention in one thread) but only because I found the light and shadow on the foreground terra cotta piece to be interesting.

 

By the way, in response to the first poster's comment, I would have definitely used fill flash had I had photography as the primary intent of my trip and had I been allowed to use flash. Unfortunately, flash and the use of a tripod were forbidden.

 

Thanks for taking the time to comment!

 

Comments specific to the printing are appreciated particularly.

A still life from the holidays. Thoughts?

No.

 

There are two reasons to take a picture of someone else's artwork (copyright issues aside) -- if (1) you are somehow adding something (context, lighting, whatever) or (2) you are attempting to document the artwork somehow (in order to remember it, for insurance purposes, or whatever else.)

 

Your photo was made for the second reason, as I see it, and it's unlikely that you'll ever be able to convey a fraction of the emotional impact that being there in person would. However, it may well be valuable in helping you, or someone else, remember the artwork at a distance.