sprouty

Didn't Michael Nichols shoot mainly with an M6 when he accompanied Mike Fay as he walked 11-gazillion miles through African jungles?

 

I'll have to go back and dig out the copy of NG. I'm sure it wasn't the only thing he used but I also remember reading something about him using just an M once he went "in deep".

 

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/sights_n_sounds/media.5.2.html

 

 

Regards

You know Ray I was wondering the same thing. I've had mine for almost a year now and I keep reading about the black chrome looking like shit after a while. Well how long is "a while"? Or better yet, so what?

 

I think the only people who worry about this stuff are the same ones who still have the plastic protective strip that comes on the bottom plate of new cameras.

 

Regards,

Mike, can you push it?

Yep, it's a favorite of mine but my regular shop wont touch it and the place that will develop it charges me at least twice what I pay for developing Tri-X. And they do such shit work with prints that I have have them do the negatives and my regular place do the prints. Uh, what a headache!

 

 

And for what it's worth I like the look of Tri-X and Delta 100, both different but nice.

 

 

Here is an example by Steve Patterson of Tri-X pushed that I find quite nice:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=394901

 

Regards,

 

sp

Same thoughts as the others, people in background and bulging shorts, just wondering if a lower perspective might have helped. It may be an illusion but the horizon seems tilted and finally, the lighting is also troubling, too dark to be a portrait, too light to be a silhouette.

 

OK enough of what's wrong, I do like the idea and if it was near enough I might go back and shoot it again. Only this time I might wait for the light to go on and title it "Idea". Ok so maybe that's a little over the top but hey, that�s what I thought of when I first saw it.

 

Regards,

"But of course kids are the most willing models either

'xcuse me? :)"

 

 

Yeah, should have been "kids AREN"T the most willing models either".

 

 

And believe me I know. I have an 8 year old that allows me exactly 3 seconds to get a shot off. You can't imagine how many shots I have of the the moment after the decisive moment.

As a "here is my kid doing something cute" kind of photo I can relate to it (heck that's practically all I shoot).

 

But if it I were to be really critical...I would have to say that I'm not crazy about the cropped foot, the fact that his face is mostly in profile (I wish it were turned more) and that it also appears a bit soft.

 

But of course kids are the most willing models either.

 

Cheers,

Good thread Marc,

 

Though I've noticed that sometimes the "obvious" coincidence is more interesting the moment you notice than later on, after exposure. For some reason the interest seems to fade. Unlike Karl's for instance.

 

This one, despite the poor composition, is still mildy amusing (well to me at least).

Since there are entire digital cameras (including the lens) that could fit into the body of the M6 what is the big technical challenge to fitting a sensor?

Better effort, I like some of the elements, fence, house, barbed wire, etc. But as mentioned the pole near her face and the contrast of her skin tones could be improved. Appologies in advance for my weak PS skills.

Currently I pay approximately $18 per 36 exp. From a high quality local lab for standard processing (3 day turnaround for one set of 4x6 prints with borders) C-41 is approximately $15 and transparencies are about $12 (plastic mounts, and next day is normal).

Considering that I�m normally shooting B&W and I have a local darkroom available from a community art center 1 mile from my house, with nearly free assistance, I�m very close to starting to process my own work.

To all who responded, thank you.

 

This was my first critique from the forum and I�m very happy with how the suggestions made me reevaluate the two images. Before I posted them I had some preconceived notions about their relative strengths and weaknesses and after reading all the comments I was surprised how off I was on some of the key elements. Anyway, I feel like this is a good project and I should have spent some more time and film.

 

Regards,

Great glass, and like Al said it's awkward to use but fun.

B&W?

Actually Marc, I didn't. Which, now that I think of it, is odd since that's pretty much all that I've been shooting lately. I'll give it a try.

 

Thanks,

Wow, thanks for the quick responses.

 

Some background, not excuses but just to let you know what I was thinking composition-wise. The first shot was the one of the bathroom. We were down visiting when my wife noticed all the medication and called me in to see it. We were both completely floored by how much stuff they had him on (we�re talking two-dozen plus prescriptions). The bathroom was a veritable sea of pill bottles. As I mentioned I asked him about it but he just joked. He seemed comfortable so I decided to take a few shots.

For the bathroom the first problem was the fact that both of the two back walls are completely mirrored. And while this adds to the effect of a lot of medication, I had to shoot it from a higher perspective than I wanted to to keep myself out of the shot.

 

 

I then took a few shots of my father-in-law and tried to keep a similar distance to maintain perspective. Then there was the problem of lighting. The bathroom was a mixture of incandescent and florescent while he was sitting in a combination of incandescent and afternoon sun. Not a great combination of lighting.

 

 

Unfortunately I just don�t have enough experience scanning and posting to really do the transparencies justice. What you�re looking at is a scan of a print of a scan of the slide. In the prints I had professional made from the original slides I can read text on some of the bottles. It�s that sharp.

 

As to the points brought up. I have to admit, I do see Karl�s point. I think the empty space in the bathroom shot (above and below the pills) doesn�t really add anything. And I also agree about the top photo being the stronger of the two (even though I was sure when I took them that bathroom shot would be the keeper). Funny how that happens sometimes.

 

 

Thanks again,

Uhm, I guess to be more specific, one is my father-in-law the other is his bathroom...

This is a pair of shots I took of my father-in-law. I asked him what

all the pills were for and he just smiled and said "Viagra" and then

went back to smoking his cigar.<div></div>

Order a sling, you won't regret it.

Status,

 

In practical terms there really isn't any big deal about carrying batteries and even with the M6 I do carry a spare (actually there are probably two in my bag most times). But for me it was just one less thing to have to worry about. Personal preference for mechanical mechanisms over electronics aside, the real concern for me was the view finder issue I mentioned above. I knew in less than a minute that I was always going to have a problem and that was the real deciding factor.

I went with a 6 for a number of reasons: (in reverse order of importance)

 

· Feel of the shutter speed dial (there is a difference feel between the electronic settings and the two manual speeds in the 7)

· Battery independence

· Cost

· And finally the one thing that I found unbelievably annoying was that the LED's for the light meter were lower in the viewfinder on the 7 than the 6. And for me

( a glasses wearer) I couldn't comfortably see both the LED's and the top of the 50mm frame lines.

 

Try them both before you buy�

Andrew,

First reaction: hmm, when was this taken, interesting group of women, I like the repetition of dark, hooded toggle coats and head scarves. Could have been the 50�s could have been yesterday.

Second reaction hmm, lots of tilted buildings with strong verticals that tend to give the picture an odd balance.

 

Specific to your questions: I don�t think the woman with her back to you �ruins� the photo but I can�t help thinking it might have been stronger with her more involved with the two women on the left. In fact I think the whole shot would have been better had they all been interacting. But of course there isn�t anything you could really do about that. As it stands they appear to be waiting for something and there just isn�t a lot of action. The facial expressions are not bland.

 

I might try it with a different crop (trim a bit off the top to emphasize the women) or if the buildings are an important element to you then at least try rotating the picture and then re-cropping it.

 

It is as you say a quite photo. I'd be happy with it or at least for recognizing the opportunity and nailing the exposure.

 

 

Regards,

Olivier, I agree with your comments on art, and understand that each of us will have very different reactions to a particular image, but that�s also not really what I was driving at with my comment.

I have no real issue with us disagreeing over content or technical merit in a constructive way, after all that�s what this site is all about. But this photo is lacking in so many areas (more on this in a minute) that the initial short comments of high praise seemed almost disingenuous and offered no real value to a person who I assume, is interested in an honest critique of his image. After all there is a thin line between honest encouragement and false praise.

 

I tend to follow, or am at least lately trying to follow, a simple recipe for analyzing a photo and offering advice. I think it came from Carl Root: ��This is the photographer�s purpose. Here are the elements I see. Here's how they contribute (or not) to the success (or failure) of the image.�

 

In addition to this I make an effort to try to understand what my personal biases are towards a particular subject before I type. This helps me avoid nasty comments about other people�s cats, back lit flowers and those black and white images with one small item that�s been colorized in PhotoShop.

 

Now this may be the same exact process you follow. And I�ll even confess to at least one short this-is-my-favorite-shot comment, but as I mentioned above I only really commented because I thought that since he asked for a critique he should get something of a little more value.

 

And finally, with regards to the technical merits of the photo, I stand by what I originally posted:

 

Exposure. Judging by the image presented it appears to me to be underexposed because I see no detail at all in the darker areas. And while this might not be a problem with certain images it is a major fault in one where the main subject(s) is/are almost entirely dark to begin with.

 

 

Softness. Yes it is a compressed jpeg but so is every other photo on this site and besides Sanford wanted to know how his image looks and lets face it as presented it�s just not that sharp. No great travesty, maybe it looks great in print, and it�s a scanning issue or maybe he needs to think about how to better brace himself to minimize camera shake. Either way he should know.

 

Perspective. Simple: get closer next time. The subjects are the couple and the dog not the road, the brush or the sky, all elements which are unnecessarily competing for attention. This would have filled the frame with your subjects and allowed the viewer the chance to actually identify the little black lump in the stroller as a dog without a title.

 

Composition. Include the faces next time, that�s the story your telling: how these people relate to the dog. Let them show it.

 

Regards

This is a "great" photo? With all due respect to Sanford this photo is soft, underexposed, and suffers from both weak composition and perspective. Please spare the false compliments and offer a proper critque.

I've shot (almost) every picture I've ever taken with one focal length: 50mm. I've never felt the need for more. But then again it suits my style and of course I'm not a professional.

 

Stephen Prouty