my first pictures for photography 101

Scan10030.png
 
sorry they're so big, but there you go. which one sdo you guys like or hate or if you just wanna give me feed back on each one it would really help me.
 
the one my professor liked the most was the Piller one, that one was a ***** to develop took me over to 900 seconds of exposure to finally get that image, it was alot of burning. these arent digital by the way.
 
They look good man. Some people don't know how to pull off all the PS effects (ME!) and make it still look nice. Good use of available lighting.

I'm just glad after all this build-up that they don't suck! Keep up the good work.
 
Nice work. Reminds me of the work of Mario Algaze. I would have liked to see a little more tonality in some of the shots. The very first one shows a complete range, the back wall and foreground look wet as they should. Has an omnious feel, something that could have been used for a movie intro.

The one of the two kids holding hands was my favorite. If you could have framed it a little more to the right or left it would have been spectacular.

Black and white what a wonderful medium.
 
Last edited:
DivotDan said:
They look good man. Some people don't know how to pull off all the PS effects (ME!) and make it still look nice. Good use of available lighting.

I'm just glad after all this build-up that they don't suck! Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

PS effects? what do you mean.
 
egproductions said:
It's more impressive if you say they are digital

900 seconds is obsurd, You sure your aperture was opened up enough? What size print? how far was your enlarger from the paper?
Click to expand...


why is digital more impressive is it harder to get good pictures?

And in regards to the 900 sec exposure; no, the print was regular 8 x 11, it's just that it's taken at the lincoln memorial in the day time, and I was trying to make all the tourists look like ghosts, so I had to lower the shutter(or raise? I forgot which ones the right terminology) and it was day time and I used bulb.It was until later that someone told me about using an ND filter. It came out extremely over exposed the negetive was completly black; but I knew somewhere in there, was a picture, so I exposed the hell out of it. Took me half abox of paper to get it right.
 
Tonality. Getting all the dynamic range on the film that you can. B/W film has eight distinct zones of tonality. Zone 1 is total black with no detail, zone five is what your cameras light meter tells you to expose for, middle grey. Zone 6 is the tonality of caucasion skin, zone 7 is white with detail and zone eight is white. Each zone happens to be one f stop apart. So if you want to expose for a face, take a meter reading and then open up one stop. Everything else will fall into place relative to the face.

The challenge as a photographer technically is to be able to expose and process your film so that your zones fall in the 2 to seven range. Look at an Ansel Adams print and you will see that what at first appears black, upon closer inspection, actually reveals detail in there. Snow for instance will have a stark white yet still maintain a granular appearance.

You may want to read Zone VI by Fred Picker, if you can find it. My copy is thirty years old. By God it is still available http://www.amazon.com/Zone-VI-Works...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198193947&sr=1-1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top