[cohny]

I just started film photography and would like someone to point out some issues with a few shots. I know there are most likely lots of shortcomings with all of these, but I would like someone to critique them in a way that will help me to better understand what makes a good photo a good photo. In other words, expose me to common discourse surrounding truly great photographs by explaining to me why my shots are not nearly on the same level.

The first 3 are pretty much randomly selected for this exercise and the last one is what I consider to be the best picture I've ever taken on film.









Thanks!

---

Last edited by cohny; 10-13-2014 at 07:15 AM.

[normhead]

First one... heavy shadows cause by mid day sun.. change the shape of the subjects face. Background blur is just messy and distracting...nothing about the scene makes the image any more attractive.

But the absolute most obvious thing in all but the last shot is the blasted highlights and shadows to dark to see in to. A little work just taking some images and trying to reduce the amount of jet black and white would help. When I was teaching, one of the first assignments was to take an image with a grey scale across the bottom , so students could see the effect of using the whole dynamic range had on an image.

You need to understand the full use of dynamic range.

[cohny]

First one... heavy shadows cause by mid day sun.. change the shape of the subjects face. Background blur is just messy and distracting...nothing about the scene makes the image any more attractive.

But the absolute most obvious thing in all but the last shot is the blasted highlights and shadows to dark to see in to. A little work just taking some images and trying to reduce the amount of jet black and white would help. When I was teaching, one of the first assignments was to take an image with a grey scale across the bottom , so students could see the effect of using the whole dynamic range had on an image.

You need to understand the full use of dynamic range.

Thanks for your response. Could you elaborate a little more on the use of dynamic range? I can see the overly bright and overly dark areas on the shots, but I'm not sure how you'd improve one without worsening the others.

[normhead]

The problem with Daynamic Range is that there is much more dynamic range in nature than you can capture with any light sensitive material. IN bright sunlight contrast can be as much a 20,000:1. You'd be happy to capture 500:1 on any light sensor. The only way around this is to shoot in more controlled light. Images taken in full daylight are almost by definition bad. So you're right,,,boosting one would hurt the other.

That's why photographers who shoot in natural light tend to shoot early in the morning or late in the evening. Or in shady areas out of full sunlight. Extending your range with HDR is also a possibility. In some situations as in your first image, using your flash for fill light might have helped or having an assistant holding a reflector to direct some light to soften the shadows..but you have to be careful to just soften the shadows, and not blast the whole face. But in general shooting in direct sun at mid day is going to cause issues.

Also, in the first image that background would be more pleasing if it was more out of focus. Using a larger format camera, and fast glass wide open would have helped, but you have to be prepared to pay for that. Larger format = a lot more money. Fast glass = a lot more money.

To get unusually good pictures takes working in unusually good light with unusually good equipment. In landscape the unusually good light is important. In portraits, the equipment becomes more important, but good light is still essential.

[aleonx3]

IMHO, film photography is not a good way to fine tune your skill because of the lack of instant feedback. I didn't like photography until I get my hands on a DSLR. A good photo for me would likely be something with a story line behind what the photo-taker wish to convey. For example, in the second picture, I see several Ducati lining up there, and a person (on lower left corner) drawing; in the middle, several people engaged in discussion. I don't see any interesting points...

[cohny]

IMHO, film photography is not a good way to fine tune your skill because of the lack of instant feedback. I didn't like photography until I get my hands on a DSLR. A good photo for me would likely be something with a story line behind what the photo-taker wish to convey. For example, in the second picture, I see several Ducati lining up there, and a person (on lower left corner) drawing; in the middle, several people engaged in discussion. I don't see any interesting points...

I see your point; the second picture really doesn't have a message to present to the viewer at all. I appreciate the honest feedback on the composition and context, I'm going to really make an effort to improve in that department.

You mentioned that I should get a dslr. I had a one for a while and took a couple thousand shots on it. It was definitely nice to get the feedback so quickly, and I got much better much faster, but I began to hate how limited I was equipment wise. The lenses I had sucked, it wasn't full frame which made new lenses worthless, and trying to do anything about it was far, far out of my price range. I was able to get some really nice equipment for next to nothing as far as film is concerned. I know that film is obviously expensive over time, but it happens in digestible increments.

[tuco]

...
That's why photographers who shoot in natural light tend to shoot early in the morning or late in the evening.

Not with BW film. You can shoot in the sunny daytime and with a single exposure capture ALL mother nature can dish out! You just have to process for that kind of exposure.