allen_r1

<p>Its funny. I am the same way. The very thing that makes digital so appealing to some (its immediacy) takes all of the fun out of it for me. Picking up film (for those of use who don't do all of our own developing) is like a little bit of Christmas with every roll-and who'd want to take that away?</p>

<p>The above link has nothing to do with "beauty shots". And I've never heard of beauty shots done with natural light. When you think "beauty" think about the images above the make-up counter in your local department store. Simply Googling "beauty shots" will steer you in the right direction.</p>

<p>Beautiful images. Thanks for sharing. They don't look like MF (or any film) to me. I'd say DSLR.</p>

<p>I think Ryan has a point. Of course it is a generalization but it is also a "generalization" to say that men are taller than women. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone doesn't change the fact that it is still true of most.<br /> In my experience, male photographers are more interested in the technical side of photography than female photographers who seem to focus almost entirely on the artistic side of the craft. Again not everyone but on average. And if anyone doubts this, try this little exercise: ask a male and female photographer what type of camera they own. The male will probably give you a more detailed response than the female who is likely to say simply "Nikon"/"Canon". For women it isn't about the technology but the art. And digital makes it much easier for those not technically inclined to shoot a wedding. And by the way, there are HUGE differences between male and female brains both structurally and functionally. The people who deny this are the ones who are "behind the times"- fMRI research is as cutting edge as it gets...There are also huge gender differences in vocational preferences for technical vs nontechnical jobs. I am not suggesting either sex is better but we are undeniably different.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't know about "best" but there is no doubt in my mind that most photographers are loners (and nonconformists).</p>

<p>Well not every image must be high resolution and beautifully composed (sometimes there might be artistic reasons for not doing so). That said, I agree with the previous posts. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. And IMO if you are serious about photography, and want be be recognized as such, you really should purchase quality equipment.</p>

<p>This is actually kind of interesting. On the Street Photographer forum, photogs are always complaining about how they are told to stop taking photos (by security, law enforcement or the person being photographed) and they adamantly proclaim, justifiably in most cases, that they have every right in a public environment to take the photo. So it is interesting to have the tables turned and having photographers, operating in public, telling other photographers they can't shoot (and as is the case with law enforcement, usually give a pass to those using P&S camera-its only those with serious cameras that get targeted). For those who support this, I am curious as to what your rationale is and do you think you have a right to tell other photographers to cease taking photos.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with the last two posts. I don't quite get this type of thing. IMO photography requires capturing something interesting and taking the time to compose a shot. The photo should evoke an emotion, make a statement, etc. Taking random shots of people and fixing them in PP is not my idea of good street photography.</p>

 

<p>I don't think they are all the most flattering I've seen but, technically speaking, I don't see anything wrong with the photos. I agree that a "portrait studio" may not be the appropriate standard of comparison. </p>

<p>But obviously as someone who knows virtually nothing about photography, he can't make specific requests. And yes, I do want it to be a surprise.</p>

<p>For the record, I did talk to him about it and he is open to both film and digital, new or used, Canon or Nikon.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I will follow up on each of thses suggestions. And to be clear, I am more than willing purchase something thats not a current model. I am also open to both new or used, film or digital. Interesting suggestion about the assignment J.D. We all know young people can sometimes get interested in something only to forget about it a short time later. That would be a good way of gauging his long term interest.</p>

<p>On Thanksgiving, I discovered that my nephew has developed an interest in photography and really wants a "professional" camera. I want to get him a camera for Christmas but I don't want to invest a large sum of money (he is 15 by the way). If you were in my situation (and some of you might be) what camera would you choose? I am looking for a very low end SLR/dSLR.</p>

<p>I agree completely with Keith's point(s). This is really a matter of composition. Had you moved more to the front of the couple and perhaps gotten a little closer, I think you might have achieved more of what you seem to be looking for. Post processing is not the solution to every problem.</p>

<p>I agree completely with Keith's point(s). This is really a matter of composition. Had you moved more to the front of the couple and perhaps gotten a little closer, I think you might have achieved more of what you seem to be looking for. Post processing is not the solution to every problem.</p>

<p>I do not claim to be a street photographer but am a photographer who has done, viewed, and greatly appreciates street photography. I think, and this seems to be confirmed by the responses so far, that most street photographers tend to incorporate the background into the photo rather than viewing it as a "distraction". The latter view reflects more of a portrait mindset. IMO, context is very important in street photography and not something to be photoshopped away. </p>

<p>I totally support this idea but I am having a heck of a time enlisting other local photographers. </p>

<p>Kayam, With your flair for writing about all-things-camera in such a delightfully entertaining manner, you no doubt have a future career as a highly successful photography author. Maybe you'll get the money for those lens yet...<br>

And thank you for making my evening. </p>

<p>Kayam, With your flair for writing about all-things-camera in such a delightfully entertaining manner, you no doubt have a future career as a highly successful photography author. Maybe you'll get the money for those lens yet...<br>

And thank you for making my evening. </p>

<p>I started out as a Canon film guy, then moved into MF. And my dSLR, which is relatively new, isn't Canon or Nikon. So I am not expert on either digital system. But I have noticed that most wedding photographers I've seen use Nikon but that doesn't mean the system is better -most top sports photographers shoot Canon. So I think these trends reflect something other than camera performance. As others have said, if we viewed a series of photos with different systems we would not be able to tell the difference. I think you have some great photos and I don't think switching to Nikon would make them any better (Now switching to a Hasselblad is a different story...;))</p>

<p>My favorites have been:<br>

Tri-X for BW<br>

Fuji NPS 160 for color</p>

<p>"Progress is about innovation. Progress can’t be avoided"<br>

Alan, not all change is "progress". Evolution does not occur in a singular, linear fashion. There are many branches and dead ends (of which digital could be one).<br>

Digital is not superior to film simply because it is newer. Yet the pro-digital arguments always seem to come back to this point. If you want to make a compelling argument, defend digital on its merit not by the calender.</p>

<p>I agree with the above comment. 100 photos is entirely too many. I tend to be more selective both in what I shoot and what I post (likely due to my film background). There is no way to provide a global comment because the photos have different strengths and weaknesses. And remember a portfolio is only as good as your weakest photo. As Marco stated, the weaker ones pull down the impression created by the stronger ones. But many of them are quite good.</p>

<p>I have decided that the best policy is to never put anything in written form-especially electronically- that you are not comfortable allowing the world to see. But as Matt said, that horse has left the barn. At this point, my recommendation is not to worry about what others think of your views.</p>

<p>I'd say if you have only been shooting since May these are extraordinary. You say that you were particularly concerned with getting the photos of Vincent correct and I think it shows. Those are among my favorites. I especially like 3, 4, 14, and 23 (with 3 being my absolute favorite). I agree that 10 is both strange and unattractive-my least favorite. I also agree that 29 doesn't work at all. And I would characterize most of the rest as attractive and competent photos. I would be careful not to become too cliched with some of the poses. Again I think this is fine work. Best of luck!</p>