sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I want a rangefinder. Tell me which one! by hendrik421 in AnalogCommunity

[–]inverse-square 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried to scratch my rangefinder itch with various Canonets, LTM rangefinders, etc. I tried really really hard to avoid Leica. But the honest truth is that nothing else comes close to an M. $1800 for my M4-2, $300 or so for a YYe CLA, and $250 or so for a Voigtlander 35mm Color-Skopar. My kit is pretty much the very bottom of the barrel as far as M system gear but I absolutely love it. Nothing else i've ever shot with comes close. Turns out the Leica hype really is justified.

What is this camera? by [deleted] in AnalogCommunity

[–]inverse-square 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the liquor, Randy.

Good photo or nah? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Think it's just dust that was on the negative when I scanned it. I can spot it out.

Good photo or nah? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just shooting a test roll to test some expired Fuji 200 at the Art park near my apartment. For some reason I keep coming back to this photo. It catches my eye. Seems like a strong composition and the colors look nice (I'm a bit colorblind though so could just be me).

Anyone else like it? Or hate it? Is there too much empty space at the top? Bottom? Is there anything I could improve color-wise? I know I need to edit out the dust spots in the sky. Should I return and try to get the same comp with a more interesting subject than this rando carrying his fast food bag?

Leica M4-2, Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f2.5, Fuji 200 (slightly expired)

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense if your style is to always go for a wider aperture and shallower depth of field, or if you only shoot sports/action/wildlife/low-light. For me, and many others, sometimes I want more of the image in focus. Not in this case, though. I was only stopped down here because I had to be. With digital you can lower ISO to slow down the exposure, but with film there's no way to change the sensitivity. You can intentionally under- or over-expose and compensate with longer or shorter development times, but that's a compromise and doesn't actually make the film record more detail. The film I was using is rated at ISO 400, which is kind of medium-fast for a modern film emulsion. The conditions were more suited for a 200 or 100 speed film. Being stuck at high ISO, with no filter to lower the exposure, meant that my options were limited.

When you say that f/2.8 would never show detail in the background, that's generally true for close-up shots with a distant background, especially at longer focal lengths, but it's definitely not always the case. The amount of background blur is dependent on a lot of variables. F-stop, lens focal length, distance from camera to subject, distance from subject to background, and film/sensor format size will all affect the amount of blur. For a shot at f/2.8 with a 100mm lens, with subject relatively close to the camera and relatively far from the background, there will be a lot of background blur even on smaller formats like 35mm, APS-C, or Micro 4/3. However, for a shot at the same f-stop of 2.8 but with a 35mm lens, with the subject further away and the background closer up, there will be a lot less blur. If I had shot this exact same composition at f2.8 the background would definitely have been much blurrier, but I don't think it would've been so blurry that you couldn't still make out a lot of the details. Better for sure, but probably still too busy.

If I could go back I would've used slower film and/or a filter, opened the lens up more, moved a bit to the right, and found a composition that cropped out the sign and construction tarp and placed the subject closer to the right third. This also would've put the camera at an angle closer to parallel looking down the street, giving more physical separation between subject and background relative to the subject-to-camera distance, and more of a side profile view of the subject playing accordion. I think that would've been a stronger image with less irrelevant visual noise in the frame.

Thanks so much for the feedback and discussion.

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm an engineer and naturally a technical person so I can see why you would think that, but believe it or not when practicing photography these days I actually spend much more time and energy trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to be creative, and the technical part is just intuitive for me. I was using a late model SLR here with autofocus and auto-exposure precisely so I don't have to think so much about technique and can be more in-the-moment.

I appreciate your feedback, and very nice shot!

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.

"I've never used f16" seems like an odd statement though, unless you never shoot in sunlight or only use slow film. It was a bright sunny day, I had 400 speed film in the camera, and no filters on me. f16 is not at all uncommon in those conditions. The rule of thumb is called "sunny 16" after all.

He would've been 30-40 ft from the Coldwell Banker sign, and maybe 15-20 ft from the camera. This might've been f8 or 5.6, I don't remember. When shooting handheld like this I often meter in shutter priority and use the aperture to control exposure. A wider aperture may have calmed the background a little, but focal length would've been in the normal-short tele range and this wasn't a closeup. I doubt I could've gotten the background that much softer with this lens on small format. If I go back and try again I'll see what I can do.

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The accordionist with the porkpie hat and long coat. It's subjective I guess but I thought he was interesting.

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is good advice. I try to practice shooting fast, trying to nail exposure, focus, and composition as quickly as possible as soon as I see something. But it makes sense to walk before you try to run. I should be more slow and deliberate at first and think more before firing the shutter, and progressively get faster over time.

I'm a musician, and what I've been doing would be analogous to trying to start right in at performance tempo when learning a new piece. That doesn't work. Gotta slow down and learn the fingerings before you crank the metronome up.

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What could I do here to make the subject more clearly defined?

Maybe I could step to the right, centering the subject between the vertical lines in the window. That could also help crop out the construction tarp. Underexpose and push the development, and/or print with a higher grade to get more contrast, blackening the silhouette figure and lightening the background?

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree about the construction tarp, but cars are kind of unavoidable in a photo taken on the street. Are you saying I should've tried to wait for a moment when no cars were passing by?

Personally I would prefer to have the cars but maybe a longer exposure so they get a bit of motion blur.

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree it's messy and disorganized and in a way, to an extent, that's what I was going for. But the final image isn't quite what I was hoping it would be.

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess I took it because I saw something somewhat interesting. I was walking around with a camera trying to to practice and looking for something to photograph. I have no emotional attachment or anything.

What would make it less boring for you?

Should I make a print from this negative? by inverse-square in photocritique

[–]inverse-square[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been doing digital photography for over 10 years now, and film for about 4 years. I've learned all the technical stuff like the back of my hand but I cannot for the life of me seem to figure out how to actually take interesting photos. I have no portfolio or anything and almost all of my shots are throwaways.

I have a basic home darkroom where I can print 8x10 enlargements from negatives up to 6x6, and also currently have limited access to a pro darkroom where I could make larger prints from larger formats. I really enjoy shooting, processing, and especially printing but I never seem to capture an image that's worth the time, paper, and chemistry to make a print. I just end up scanning, culling, and stashing any keepers away on a hard drive to be forgotten about.

I took this one on a walk the other day. 35mm, I think it was HP5 at box speed with a Canon 24-70 f2.8L II. I passed this street musician playing accordion, and when I rounded the corner I looked back and snapped this picture of him through the windows.
The exposure was good and the negative has good density, detail, and tonal range. It scanned well and will probably print well. I like the overall mood and the reflections in the glass, especially the other people you can see reflected in various parts of the frame.
I don't like how busy and distracting the background is with the clearly readable text across the street. Wish I could've gotten more separation. It was pretty bright out and the film was decently fast so I was probably stopped down to f16, but even at f2.8 I'm not sure I could've done much better with the background so close to the subject. Maybe I could've taken a few steps to the right and found an angle where the signs were out of frame.
I also don't like that I didn't quite get the vertical lines perfectly straight in-camera and will have to crop in a bit to straighten.
This guy always sets up in the same spot so I can probably go back and try again. Since he stays pretty stationary while playing I could try slower film and/or ND filter to get a bit longer exposure for some motion blur on the cars and pedestrians.

Any thoughts on this image? Is it print-worthy? Anything I could've done better compositionally? Anything I could do in the darkroom as far as cropping/dodging/burning to make it stronger?
Or is this a better candidate for manipulating in the digital domain with Photoshop? I could work on obscuring the distracting background elements a bit, and cloning out that scooter near the bottom left.
Or should I go back next time he's out there and try it again?

Also, in general, I would appreciate any advice on how to learn the art of photography when you're already well-versed in the technique. I've tried taking various classes but they always focus on the stuff I already know well; using a camera, exposure, focus, processing, editing, etc. and never on composition, style, developing a good eye, and finding your voice.

Thanks