I do not understand theses comments. I am rarely concerned with film, developers, cameras, paper, shutter speeds ect. I am concerned with photographs that say something, an X or Y says nothing. What do you really think?
i like this image, really good composition and you have some great tones and detail. It would be interesting to know what camera you used and the location etc.. but its not essential, well done.
I like this image....it's great. Overall I would like to see it darker with some dodging on the statue. That would focus attention on the statue...but thats the way I would do it so take my comment as only my opinon. Whats right is what works for you. Thanks for sharing the image.
How can we think as APUG photographers that a digital image looks anything like the real print? It is as perfect in person as I can do and I would not change a thing. It was an 8x10 camera with a 355mm lens, the negative was Tri-X the f-stop was enough to put everything in focus, the shutter speed was enough to create density on the film to make an average negative. I use HC110 developer, the paper was what ever I was using at the time. I used what ever Fred used, first Ilford Gallerie or Brilliant, depending on if it was a cold or a warm subject but I moved to using only one paper Ilford multi grade cold tone double weight fiber based paper. The print was made in Peru thats in Illinois (the s is silent); Yes I 'm being sarcastic, I'm good at that or bad however you look at it. It's in a carport in my grandparents back yard, they are long gone but I have 3 Aunts who still live there, Helen, Rose, and Ethel. When I was young Saint Francis was in the garden but over time my Aunts decidecd that he could be discarded, I am the worst speller that ever put finger to keyboard, so please bear with me. The paper developer was Zone VI, I have used this or Dektol for 25years and I do not change things unless I'm not making good prints. The "whatever" from a previous comment is a bench that is leaning agnist the garage I think it adds to the geometric aspects of the composition, another intersting aspect of the print, I believe. Your turn.
Well James, I don't think anybody believes the digital image looks anything like the real print but unfortunately that all we have to work with in these galleries when giving critiques.
The "whatever" from a previous comment is a bench that is leaning agnist the garage I think it adds to the geometric aspects of the composition, another intersting aspect of the print, I believe. Your turn.
I don't quite understand why you would make posts to the critique gallery if you did not want a critique. You obviously feel the need to point out that the image is perfect in person and that you would not change a thing. Ok, thats fine but the critique gallery is for people that are open to suggestions from others. Perhaps the general gallery would be more appropriate for your work.