Show us yer film shots then!

jgredline said:
Checking out the scenery

PentaxMESuperM50F14UltraMax40024.jpg
Click to expand...

I know its unkind but we can't help seeing things like they are, its a moment in time captured for the World to examine in detail, you can pretend you don't see it but its there, in glorious technicolour...
 
***Pentax ME Super on Fujichrome Provia 100F 1/250 f11***

At 100asa I would expect about 1/250 @f5.6 or F8 in Sept...... looks like you have proved me wrong.
 
Here are some which came in today. Feedback please on how to improve, especially the composition

No 1
sept11.jpg



No 2
sept12.jpg


No 3
sept13.jpg


No 4
sept14.jpg


No 5
sept15.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, to be brutal Ujjwal, I can see why you need AF... and as said above, they are a wee bit dark (scanner or original?).

Cannot comment on the scenic shots, but the waterfall may have been better pano/landscape, the last two I like although not sure about the looking down on things aspect.
 
Last edited:
thanks arthur, being brutal is what I need. The shots are all pin sharp ; so the softness is down to scanning ( or lack thereof :D).

Same for the darkness, they are ok in original.

My scanning is rubbish, hence the request for feedback primarily on composition

I am more interested in composition - to me, a badly composed shot with all its technical perfection is useless; but a well composed shot is always a pleasure.

A bit more brutality guys, its all for a good cause
 
Ujjwal, the rule of thirds is one of the best to follow if you're unsure how to compose something. Also try picking shots that have clean uninterrupted lines. The manipulation of your camera's aperture ring can also add interest to a scene.

Specific crit on you shots:
No. 1 - the centrally lighted area would have been better off to the lower of the left or right hand side thirds. Also, your exposure meter was metering for the bright cloud, but left your foreground underexposed - try using a graduated filter to bring out the foreground.

No. 2 - The tops of the trees messily break up the clean lines of the horizon. Perhaps you could have moved to an area with some detailed foreground to lead the viewer's eye towards the mountains?

3,4,5 - subjects are too central, though 3 does have interesting stuff happening in the foreground that leads the eye up to the house.

I like the train shot - can't fault really. The ruins are good too :)

I know you know, but sort out your scanning - the quality doesn't make me want to look at the shots for too long.
 
Last edited:
Well Ujjwal - since you asked - here's my take on your set above...

1 - a little dark, and the Horizon divides the frame in the middle (albeit up and down on the ridge) - I assume this was to get the cloud formation into frame... For me it's a classic case of a good basis for a shot, on another day, with better weather, and a little more attention to framing.

2 - Doesn't do much for me to be honest - just a few christmas trees in front of a hill. If it's a shot of the trees, it needs to show more trees, if it's the hill - loose the trees - or make a feature of one of 'em.

3 - Pity about the flat sky and it's a real shame you cut the bottom off of the boat. Just a little more breathing room in the framing would have helped. If you're shooting with a camera that has a 100% view viewfinder, give it a little extra space around the frame. I know it's nice to get it spot on in the camera, but just a little lattitude to straighten framing and crop accordingly is still a reasonably purist film approach honest!

4 - Again, for me it needs a little more "breathing space" around the edge of the building. Either that or fill the frame completely with details of the building.

5 - A little looser framing of the waterfall would again help here - I'd have liked to see a sharp scan of the shot - just to compare the static ground and the moving water - but with the slightly blurry scan, it's hard to pick up which blur is which.

6 - I can't work out where I'm supposed to be looking in this shot - are you trying to make me look at the upper tier of the building, the lower one, or the lake behind. I'm not sure what could be done to draw the attention to the part you want me to be interested in, but it needs something.

7 - Me Like ! good strong line leading through the shot, I think there's a good image hiding behind that sub-standard scan :thumbs:

Overall - as Mike said - you need to get your scanning sorted out a bit better than these. Also, I'm aware you've said before, you shoot handheld - and I'm going to repeat my advice yet again - if you're shooting landscape-ey stuff - USE A TRIPOD - not necessarily because it's going to stop wobbly shots, but because it'll give you more time to tweak, tweak and tweak your framing. Then sit down and wait for the light before hitting the shutter!
 
Thanks for the comments Mark, its a great help. The shots were with G1, but thats not an excuse for bad framing.

TheBigYin said:
Well Ujjwal - since you asked - here's my take on your set above...

1 - a little dark, and the Horizon divides the frame in the middle (albeit up and down on the ridge) - I assume this was to get the cloud formation into frame... For me it's a classic case of a good basis for a shot, on another day, with better weather, and a little more attention to framing.

Yes, I was trying to get the cloud formation. This one is scanned from a slide; and the slide shows a lot of the foreground ok. I think i should have done a bit of the ruler of 3rd composition on this.

2 - Doesn't do much for me to be honest - just a few christmas trees in front of a hill. If it's a shot of the trees, it needs to show more trees, if it's the hill - loose the trees - or make a feature of one of 'em.

Agreed Mark. Its didn't work

3 - Pity about the flat sky and it's a real shame you cut the bottom off of the boat. Just a little more breathing room in the framing would have helped. If you're shooting with a camera that has a 100% view viewfinder, give it a little extra space around the frame. I know it's nice to get it spot on in the camera, but just a little lattitude to straighten framing and crop accordingly is still a reasonably purist film approach honest!

The bottom is there in the slide; but the framing is too tight. It was taken from behind a glass window on a boat, and that didn't help. There was some nice story about the house though, the boatman was telling us, I forget. :D
4 - Again, for me it needs a little more "breathing space" around the edge of the building. Either that or fill the frame completely with details of the building.


5 - A little looser framing of the waterfall would again help here - I'd have liked to see a sharp scan of the shot - just to compare the static ground and the moving water - but with the slightly blurry scan, it's hard to pick up which blur is which.


6 - I can't work out where I'm supposed to be looking in this shot - are you trying to make me look at the upper tier of the building, the lower one, or the lake behind. I'm not sure what could be done to draw the attention to the part you want me to be interested in, but it needs something.


I loved this 14th century ruin, sitting by the side of a Loch. The idea was to give a sense of the setting; obviously I have failed. Maybe, I should have taken the shot from the lower story; and kept just the wall .

7 - Me Like ! good strong line leading through the shot, I think there's a good image hiding behind that sub-standard scan :thumbs:

Overall - as Mike said - you need to get your scanning sorted out a bit better than these. Also, I'm aware you've said before, you shoot handheld - and I'm going to repeat my advice yet again -

if you're shooting landscape-ey stuff - USE A TRIPOD - not necessarily because it's going to stop wobbly shots, but because it'll give you more time to tweak, tweak and tweak your framing. Then sit down and wait for the light before hitting the shutter!
I am sure you dont intend to put me up in your barn, but I try that, and divorce is a guaranteed outcome :D:D
Click to expand...
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Thanks for the comments Mark, its a great help. The shots were with G1, but thats not an excuse for bad framing.
Click to expand...

I never said it was, to be honest, I try and keep to a limited number of cameras, primarily as my little brain can't cope with the small differences such as the viewfinder coverage - 93% for the A1, 97% for the EOS-3, 95% on the 450D.... it all gets a little confusing for me, so I give the frame a little breathing room.:shrug:

To me it's all part and parcel of truly getting to grips with a camera - I start to feel at home with them after 10 films or so - hey - i'm a Slow learner!
 
Posting this not because it has any merit other than technical - taken on a balcony overlooking the Mediterranean in Southern Turkey on Retro 100 with the Hexar AF set on program mode. All I did was point and click - the camera did the rest.

hexar-light-800.jpg


Considering the (seriously) bright sunlight, white buildings, blue sky I am amazed that the camera managed to capture detail everywhere... even in the extremes of light and dark. I had mentioned to Ujjwal offline that I was thinking of selling this camera but now? Not so sure!
 
There's no doubt that the camera's metering has helped but I'd suggest that the huge tonal range recorded is more down to the film and developing than any magic in the camera. You could have shot that with a different film of the same ISO and the camera would have picked the same setting but you'd have got blown highlights and blocked shadows.
 
Ambermile said:
Posting this not because it has any merit other than technical - taken on a balcony overlooking the Mediterranean in Southern Turkey on Retro 100 with the Hexar AF set on program mode. All I did was point and click - the camera did the rest.

hexar-light-800.jpg


Considering the (seriously) bright sunlight, white buildings, blue sky I am amazed that the camera managed to capture detail everywhere... even in the extremes of light and dark. I had mentioned to Ujjwal offline that I was thinking of selling this camera but now? Not so sure!
Click to expand...


that's a great bright light detail ! :)

I have MF shots from canaries and they are bloody amazing.
this is very, very good as well. means that you can totally trust the camera.
 
Gosh they are good Joxby.

Were they taken in Hull?

Love the colours in the buildings. Were they all taken on the Mamiya 6 of yours?
 
Gosh Joxby, the b/w are lovely. I have tried taking b/w of ruins many times but they never come with the texture of yours. What do you meter off - the ruins themselves? Was there direct sunlight on the ruins? Do you adjust the contrast later? ( mine comes out kind of dull, and the texture not so sharp, and its not the lens or the focussing. It has to be the metering, or some trick I am missing.)

Here is an example.

sept18.jpg
 
Last edited:
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Gosh Joxby, the b/w are lovely. I have tried taking b/w of ruins many times but they never come with the texture of yours. What do you meter off - the ruins themselves? Was there direct sunlight on the ruins? Do you adjust the contrast later? ( mine comes out kind of dull, and the texture not so sharp, and its not the lens or the focussing. It has to be the metering, or some trick I am missing.)

Here is an example.

sept18.jpg
Click to expand...


Well if the scene looked liked that, then the camera has reproduced the shot faithfully.....I'm not an expert with B/W in Photoshop and couldn't improve on this shot much, so other reasons why a picture looks dull is:- underexposure, bad development or film/developer combo
 
joxby - those are a few frames to treasure :) I know the colour stuff is probably Velvia 100F, though what B&W did you use?
 
Joxby,

Its been said already, but I just had to say, Great photographs all three.:thumbs::clap:
 
Joxby - The first black and white glass building is a great photo, the reflection of the clouds really make that one.

Ujjwal - Looking at the difference between John's photos and yours I'd say the lighting is one difference. Although there are clouds in Johns, the shadows are fairly sharp which would indicate bright sunshine which is shining on the rocks fairly directly and not being diffused by clouds. Your photo has some shadows but not a lot and the sky is farily bland which suggest that you had some pretty flat lighting going on.

There's also some softness going on in your photo which could be one of three things, a not particularly sharp lens, camera shake due to exposure time or a scanning problem. If you put the negative on a light table or against a well lit window and view it through a loupe then you can see if the negative is sharp or not, this will point you to a problem in the scanning stage or the taking stage.

The other thing is that the photo lacks a bit of contrast, it's a very grey photo. If you don't use filters then green grass becomes quite grey in B&W photos and if that makes up a large area of the photo it can make the photo very grey. I suspect John may have used filters on his shots to give him the contrast range that he wanted.

The exposure itself seems about right so I don't think you have a metering problem in this case.
 
Thanks so much Kev, for the feedback

Kev M said:
Ujjwal - Looking at the difference between John's photos and yours I'd say the lighting is one difference. Although there are clouds in Johns, the shadows are fairly sharp which would indicate bright sunshine which is shining on the rocks fairly directly and not being diffused by clouds. Your photo has some shadows but not a lot and the sky is farily bland which suggest that you had some pretty flat lighting going on.

The light was indeed diffused, with clouds overhead on that shot.

There's also some softness going on in your photo which could be one of three things, a not particularly sharp lens, camera shake due to exposure time or a scanning problem. If you put the negative on a light table or against a well lit window and view it through a loupe then you can see if the negative is sharp or not, this will point you to a problem in the scanning stage or the taking stage.

The softness is down to scanning. I checked the 6X4 prints, its sharp enough.


The other thing is that the photo lacks a bit of contrast, it's a very grey photo. If you don't use filters then green grass becomes quite grey in B&W photos and if that makes up a large area of the photo it can make the photo very grey. I suspect John may have used filters on his shots to give him the contrast range that he wanted.

I haven't used a filter, I have to get a filter for the camera.

The exposure itself seems about right so I don't think you have a metering problem in this case.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the pointers
 
Lovely shots Joxby. I'd guess time of day too will make a big difference. Looks like Joxby's are taken in the evening with more oblique lighting which adds drama. I'm going to guess at Acros 100 as the B&W film?
 
#1

56280010A.jpg
 
The Pink Floyd tribute act 'Mac Floyd' at the Carnegie Hall in Dunfermline last week. A Nikon 28ti with Tmax 3200 film. The camera really struggled with focus in the low light, quite a few out of focus, but I liked this one..

4995784020_eb15477ff2_z.jpg


4995178391_8326765077_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Love the ruin shots Joxby.

That big white circle behind the stage is very ominous, Ian! Cool photos though.

I'm starting to neglect my other cameras now that I have my ETRS... It's just so crisp though!

Mix of TMAX 400 @ 800 and Tri-X:
Brighton10-BeachSullyFlo.jpg


Cornwall10-SmokeyTent.jpg


Kenilworth10-WaitroseFront.jpg


Cornwall10-HayleysEllie.jpg
 
****The other thing is that the photo lacks a bit of contrast, it's a very grey photo. If you don't use filters then green grass becomes quite grey in B&W photos and if that makes up a large area of the photo it can make the photo very grey. I suspect John may have used filters on his shots to give him the contrast range that he wanted.****

It's more difficult to get a good picture in B/W, that's one of the reasons I prefer colour. Can't remember if I posted these before, taken 40 years ago.... then to use colour was very expensive.

img323.jpg


Tak55mm taken about 40 years ago
chris673-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
****If I'm not mistaken, I spy St James' Park. :thinking:***

Indeed and I wonder if the tree is still there, and you might know the other one:- Kenwood house Hampstead.

...and the next quiz is:- does anybody know the car?

RB67 FP4 dev in Unitol
RB67-800px.jpg
 
Starastin said:
ummm ! FORD ? :D
Click to expand...

Close :lol:

and for Rob:- I think this shot was taken on the bridge at St James Pk..I suppose the sparrows are still as tame now although getting more scarce in places.

ETRSi
StJamesPk800px.jpg
 
excalibur2 said:
It's more difficult to get a good picture in B/W,
Click to expand...

True Brian. My question will be, how to get a good b/w capture, which has a wide tonal range ( I do not develop them at home, I get d&P done by a pro lab).

Certainly using filter is great tip, are there any more?
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
True Brian. My question will be, how to get a good b/w capture, which has a wide tonal range ( I do not develop them at home, I get d&P done by a pro lab).

Certainly using filter is great tip, are there any more?
Click to expand...

Well as said before the subject has to have a wide tonal range for a wide tonal result in print, so in your mind you have to translate colours into greys (which the camera meter sees also) so if you take a shot of a grey building surrounded by grey shrubs, with a grey sky..the picture is going to be erm a bit grey and dull looking.
IIRC I used to use a Yellow green filter and sometimes an orange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top