bill_tucker3

July 14, 2001

July 6, 2001

But, where'd you put the film?

July 3, 2001

Well composed, well exposed and very visually stimulating. Great work!

April 30, 2001

While, to be completely honest, the photo doesn't grab my attention, the title does. Simply naming your work can add so much impact overall experience. Well done. Oh, and I'm sure you're too good for her anyway. :)

April 10, 2001

Had it been me I think I'd have tried a wider lens, much closer to that wonderful domed headlamp housing (I think that's what it is) on the left fender. You'd get a sort of false fisheye view of the entire length of the vehicle. If you want to keep your original idea intact, perhaps shooting from a lower vantage point would have been more dramatic.

April 2, 2001

Thank you Allan, It is great to have a forum of your peers available at a keystroke. Close examination of the original slide reveals that the insect's thorax (I think that's it - the bit with the legs coming out of it-) is critically sharp. However, being Kodachrome 64 in a cardboard mount, (not elite 200)I suspect it wasn't totally flat in the scanner (photo CD). The tonality is also the pits compared to the slide, another pitfall of scanning Kodachrome. There should be some greens in the background, parts of that sad looking spider plant that had yet to succumb to my neglect. As for the hazy bit in the middle, I'm stumped unless it's some weird kind of flare resulting from having the lens reversed. Of course if could do it over, I'd rent a bellows and some studio strobes. Thanks for your comments, they're always welcome. When all else fails, blame the scanner:)

April 1, 2001

comments, suggestions?

March 30, 2001

Steve's got a point, that has to be one of the toughest lighting scenarios I've ever seen, very well done.

March 30, 2001

This is one of the most wonderfully inconsistant and original portfolios on photo.net. Congratulations

March 30, 2001

I can only imagine how this would look printed well on Forte or Oriental, selenium toned and properly mounted. Gorgeous.

March 30, 2001

Damn! I thought I was the only retard who'd jump through a hundred flaming hoops to produce an image the way it was originally envisioned. Keep it up.

March 30, 2001

Indeed this is a fairly busy shot. When I was making this image I tried various combinations of glasses, some filled with colored liquids etc. As of now however this is the only one I've had scanned. Thanks for your comments.

March 27, 2001

While I like the photo, I don't understand the title. Please don't tell me it's something sad, my sappy old heart couldn't stand it.

March 27, 2001

Any comments are welcome particularly regarding possible cropping.

March 26, 2001

A broken lens caused this shot to be underexposed by something like 5

stops. The scan isn't great I know, this slide is a film scanners's

worst nightmare, but the idea comes through.

March 26, 2001

Thanks for your commentary on two of the images I posted this afternoon, did you see the oversized inflatable Tide detergent box? In response, yes I've done some testing of this film for portraiture. Exposing it at EI 6-12 under fluorescent lighing gives some very interesting results. I'll post some examples tomorrow. Thanks again.

March 26, 2001

This is another example of Agfachrome 50 developed in C-41 chemistry.

Contrast goes bananas, as does the color saturation but the colors

don't shift to any measurable degree. I rate it at EI 25.

March 26, 2001

Any comments or questions?

March 26, 2001

The lens used was a 24mm f2.8 AFD Nikkor, a sharp and contrasty little gem of a lens. I made the print on an Omega D5500 color enlarger, the 35mm negative carrier of which has been filed out for that raw, full frame look.

March 26, 2001

I guess It sort of speaks for itself. Any comments?

March 26, 2001

Those clouds really look like the "render clouds" function in Photoshop. Not to say that manipulating the image in that way is bad, but if your intention was to achieve an undetected atleration it hasn't quite worked.

March 24, 2001

Thank you Guy, I agree the background is distracting, unfortunatly, it was so bright that day that a small aperature wasn't an option. Life goes on I guess.

March 23, 2001

What does everyone think of the framing/overall aesthetics?

March 22, 2001

Very nice! Love that Velvia, It's also great to see some sunny portrayals of eastern Canada. It's not foggy all the time.

March 20, 2001

Any awards this image has garnered are well earned.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Image Comments posted by bill_tucker3