tom_menegatos

Looking for input on the lighting, pose, etc.

My nephew, a few hours after he was born.

I think it's too green... I don't think I color balanced it right :( time to reclibrate I guess.

Looking for feedback

Every once in a while I get into these high key type portraits. Is

it just a strange preference or do other's like it as well?

Ivar,

 

Thanks fo the feedback. I think the scan looks grainier than the original. I should probably crop in a little tighter to get rid of some space on the right but I'm not sure about that.

 

I mainly develop TMX (and TMZ) in Rodinal myself but I needed a little extra speed without sacrificing contrast. Diafine does that.

From a shoot at Eastern State Penitentiary. Looking for feedback.

Will probably be posting more soon.

Looking for comments.

Been a while since I've taken any concert shots. This is a shot of my

cousin in her first gig opening up for a fairly popular greek band in NYC.

Nic job panning.

Just looking for info. I'm realizing more and more my favorite part

of black and white photography is the black half :) Beel a while

since I've done any concert shots so I posted some in this folder.

Would love some feed back.

Shot from a Toys for Tots Ride.

very noisy

All these prints scream for better contrast

face is a little too washed out... she looks like a mime.

Looking for comments

From a test roll of Tri-X 35mm in diafine.

That's the iceman isn't it?

Darrell,

 

I think you're confusing a photograph of architecture with architectural photography.

 

Architectural photography is a lot like product photography. Product photography is supposed to make the viewer want to buy the product. A photograph of a guy on a horse with a hemlet that has a broom sticking out of the top or a picture of underwear on the floor may help sell condoms but you wouldn't call it product photography. Architectural photography is commissioned by people that want to sell homes, office space, book rooms in their hotel, have people visit their historical site or architects or builders that want to have a good record of their work. For the reasons I stated previously I think this photo fails in the category of "architectural photography". Just like you can take a picture of a painting, change the saturation, add digital effects, etc to make it look different, and still have a nice photo but you wouldn't call it copy work.

 

I don't think it's clearly evident that these are stairs. This could be some strange playing field with black ilines or a parking lot for all we know without reading any further descriptions.

 

I also see it more as a portrait than an architectural photo. Someone else had mentioned this but it seems to have been deleted. Based on the potographer's own title it seems that he considers it more of a portrait himself.

I'm not sure how this qualifies as architectural photography let alone good architectural photography. Not to say it's a bad picture I actually think it's quite interesting and creative but I wouldn't call it architectural photography.

In architectural photography, the main subject should be the architecture. In this photo the architecture is more of a backdrop. I'm assuming it's a shot of stairs but that's mainly because it was labeled as an architectural photo.

The purpose of architectural photography is to make people want to visit the structure after seeing the photo. This doesn't do that in my opinion. Except that some photographers may want to go and try to recreate this picture but they're not going for the structure they're going for the picture.

Also, you're calling this an architectural photo. The distortion in the photo is very bad. Photographers may understand barrel distortion but regular viewers may just think they stairs have been built poorly. I'm not sure the planners/builders would be too happy about that.

It's a nicely composed and lit portrait and the colors work well together. There's a little too much room on the top for my tastes that I would crop out. The highlights on the face and dress are washed out. I don't know if that's a result of using a consumer film, consumer processing or the scanning. You have a perfect profile, the light is hitting her face just right and the covered bridge provides enough shade to give some contrast and depth. The back of the hat is given just a bit of fill and highlight in the ribbon by an opening behind and to the left of you it seems.

I think my favorite part of this is the way the out of focus flowers

in the background look. I think I might try just trying a whole shot

that looks just like the background.

I'm not sure if the nd grad was positioned properly. I think you need a stronger grad filter for this scene.

I don't normally take bug or flower pictures but I was standing

outside and saw this bee... When I looked again I saw the bee stuck

on a leaf and I was wondering how that could happen. Looked closer

and I realized the leaf was EATING the bee. Hey, that's no leaf!

 

So I ran and got a camera, a 100mm lens and a tc. I don't have any

macro equipment. I used a speedlight with ocsc and small softbox. I

wonder if using a 300mm lens with tc would have been a better choice

to get in closer but I don't know if I would have been able to get

the same backround darkening with the flash since I would have need

to be a little bit further away. I also didn't really have time to

think about it.

 

I kind of like the wider composition. It makes it look innocent when

you first have a look.

Looking for comments. The focus was a bit off but I think it helped

soften up the face a bit. Looking for other people's input on that.