Tell me what you think about this image.

[marciofs]

Anything that come to your head eather if it is a good thing or bad thing. I don't get offended so don't try to be nice.

About composition, exposition, image quality, printing anything.

I just want to see the different ways people may see it.



Edited, I scanned the photo again trying to show more sharpness because the scan is not as sharp as the print.

 

[cliveh]

I note it is a pinhole image, but my initial reaction is that it is an out of focus mess, with no redeeming features in terms of composition, mood or anything else. Sorry, but you did ask for an honest opinion.

 

[marciofs]

I note it is a pinhole image, but my initial reaction is that it is an out of focus mess, with no redeeming features in terms of composition, mood or anything else. Sorry, but you did ask for an honest opinion.

Thanks.
Don't be sorry.

 

[Truzi]

I know pinholes don't give sharp images, but that looks a little like motion blur. Also, it is perhaps a little too "busy" (too many textures fighting for attention).

I like the fallen tree. I really want to look at it, but my eye is led away. My attention is drawn to the center of the photo, which is "busy," but has nothing to really look at.
The best I can think of is the fallen tree in the foreground is a nice subject, but either not enough of it is shown considering how much of the frame it occupies, or less should be shown to allow more background for balance.
On the other hand, my photos are worse

 

[DWThomas]

I prefer my pinhole shots to be of fairly simple compositions, so as has been said, this seems a little busy for my taste. Other than that, I don't want to say too much because I'm sitting in a motel room viewing it on an 8 or ten year old laptop!

 

[tkamiya]

In order for me to have an opinion, I have to see or at least think I think I see what the photograph and thus the photographer is trying to tell me. Analytically, I need to know what the main subject is and separate it clearly from everything else.

From this image, I don't see any of that. So I have more questions than answers. What is this a photograph of? What is it (supposed to) tell me? Why did the photographer take this image? What IS the main subject?

The fact that the image is soft and looks like affected motion blur is also an issue but if that's what it is supposed to be, then it's ok. But since the first question remains unanswered, I can't tell that either.

 

[marciofs]

I actually did't look enough to the scaned image to notice how unsharp it is. The print on my hands has no blur. I only notice how bad the scan is afterbreading the first comment.

I have being trying to morove the scaning but without success. I don't know if its the paper or the scan. Tomorrow I try scaning the negative instead of the print.

My intention was to photograph the richness of the florest shape.

Maybe it is because I took the photo but I really like it. And I predicted most people would not like it.

 

[NedL]

If you look very carefully at the upper left corner, on either side of the tree trunk with the moss or ivy growing up it, there is a texture of forest with a sense of receding into the distance and into the light. I like that, and I know I would like a photo of that. I also see some interesting textures on the fallen tree, and I think if I were there with a pinhole camera, I would put it directly onto the fallen tree to try to fill half the frame or more with those textures.

 

[chip j]

If it's not blurry, then I think it's nice. You should do a set of these.

 

[Truzi]

You know what? I just downloaded the photo and played with it in The GIMP. Changing the levels made the textures more distinct, and also altered my perception of sharpness. I like it.

Maybe print with a little more contrast - or perhaps something merely got lost in the scan.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I scanned the photo again trying to show more sharpness because the scan is not as sharp as the print.

You always need to apply some level of sharpening after scanning because sampling (scanning) is a low-pass (blurring) operation.

 

[snapguy]

Looking at it on my monitor it just does not look like it is in focus. It seems that you have the right idea about composition but in this instance it does not work. Too many distractions. I would say you are on the right track but not at the station house yet.

 

[dpurdy]

You could become an apug subscriber and then put your images in the critique gallery. I am not a subscriber any more after some years, so I don't post images. Really you have just started a thread to post your image and then asked for responses. ... just saying.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Regarding exposure, I would say you captured the entire curve. Fantastic tonality throughout. There is a lot with which the eye can be engaged.

The subject matter is unremarkable without a focal point.

Is this a first try or have you been taking pinholes for a while now?

 

[marciofs]

If you look very carefully at the upper left corner, on either side of the tree trunk with the moss or ivy growing up it, there is a texture of forest with a sense of receding into the distance and into the light. I like that, and I know I would like a photo of that. I also see some interesting textures on the fallen tree, and I think if I were there with a pinhole camera, I would put it directly onto the fallen tree to try to fill half the frame or more with those textures.

The texture is what I think are the most attractive in the image. I also like the composition. But I think most people will not like it because it kind look like mess, or too busy, but I like it because it is actually how forests are.

You know what? I just downloaded the photo and played with it in The GIMP. Changing the levels made the textures more distinct, and also altered my perception of sharpness. I like it.

Maybe print with a little more contrast - or perhaps something merely got lost in the scan.

It is the scanner. For some reason I can't get the sharpness the photo has. The scanner focus may be off.
I tried canning the negative but it was the raw image, with out the burning and dodge I have to make as I made for the print. And it wasn't as sharp ether.

 

[marciofs]

You always need to apply some level of sharpening after scanning because sampling (scanning) is a low-pass (blurring) operation.

Thanks for the tip. I will try now. I am not used to scan prints so I thought the less I touch it the more honest the scanned image would look like the print.

Regarding exposure, I would say you captured the entire curve. Fantastic tonality throughout. There is a lot with which the eye can be engaged.

The subject matter is unremarkable without a focal point.

Is this a first try or have you been taking pinholes for a while now?

I guess it was one year and a half ago I was building some pinhole cameras and I played with them for a couple of months with paper negatives. Then I stopped and restated now that I bought Ilford Obscura. This is the 7th photograph.

To be honest the raw image doesn't look very good. Some parts was way too bright and some others way too dark. And I think my fingers in the emulation may have some influence on it. So I had to make a lot of burning and dodge, but I had to print many times before get this result. Specially because I am not very experience and skillful in darkroom.

 

[marciofs]

I scanned again with sharpening and it actually looks more like the print. Thanks again for the tip.

You could become an apug subscriber and then put your images in the critique gallery. I am not a subscriber any more after some years, so I don't post images. Really you have just started a thread to post your image and then asked for responses. ... just saying.

I am thinking about. I will check it. What hold me back is that There are times I don't come here for months.

 

[Truzi]

That looks much better. The contrast is improved too.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I have discovered that this kind of subject is difficult for pinhole precisely due to the "messiness" of the composition. It becomes just a muddled mass of nothing. Having said that I think the sharper scan does the image justice. The print may indeed be nice. The thing I question compositionally is the horizon running exactly diagonally across the middle of the photo. It makes me go; wha...? and cock my head. Having said THAT it may be that this composition actually works in the print, I don't think we can tell here.

Steve

 

[digital&film]

My mind rejected it because it was a very muddled, out of focus image with no real "anchor" or central theme.

 

[NedL]

Hi Marcio,

You asked for "honest"! The upper left corner that I liked in the first version loses its charm for me in the second version! To me the increased contrast and sharpening have lost the the sense light. I guess there as as many opinions as there are viewers.

BTW:

Maybe it is because I took the photo but I really like it. And I predicted most people would not like it.

I take it as a good sign when this happens to me, as it often does... it means I am keeping "real" or "true to myself" and not changing my taste based on what other people think.

 

[marciofs]

Thank you everybody for the honest words.

Hi Marcio,

[...]

BTW:

I take it as a good sign when this happens to me, as it often does... it means I am keeping "real" or "true to myself" and not changing my taste based on what other people think.

I think it is interesting see how different people perceive things from each other and me.
I guess you are right, I don't mind when my photograph is not admired, I guess it is because I feel I am following my own path (it just came to my head now).

 

[marciofs]

Thanks,
I believe the harsh contrast may be caused because of two reason:

1. Pushing Delta 100 up to 400 developed with Ilfotec HC.
2. The agitation for roll negatives are not the same for sheet negatives, or maybe even the development time.

There is also the fact the moss and dark green leaves have a high contrast on bright green leaves and bright wood.

This is why I opened a topic earlier about stand development, because I knew the contrast would be harsh. But for some reason I thought about trying stand development with an other photographs, maybe because I was insecure about the result from stand development.

But take a look on this photograph took on the day after, same filme at ISO 400, developed in the same tank both negatives together and printed in the same paper:



This place was on a open cloudy sky and less mossy than the image above that was took in the middle of the dark forest.


On the first image I had to do a lot of burning and dodge because for some reason (maybe my finger on the emolution), some areas are very bright that you can bared see thing and the same for some other areas very dark. But they are like spot areas, the reason I think t may have be cause by my fingers.

But this second image have no burning or dodge at all. Of course I could make some burning on the bright ground (dry leaves) but it is just a test print.


I am shooting with Delta 100 at 400 because this is the way that came with the camera. When I finish with the last sheet I will play with HP5 (I have 5 sheets). And then I plan to buy Fomapan 400 which which is very forgiven and can be pushed nicely. Also because of the price, but I have good experience with it on 35mm and Fomapan 200 on 120 and I enjoy them alot.

 

[chip j]

I really like this one, too. I have a degree in Art History, so don't pay attention to the naysayers!

 

[DWThomas]

OK, I like the second one better, the composition is stronger, built around some major components rather than many many details. Someone up thread mentioned angled horizon on the first one -- I saw it as a steep slope (which I'm sure it is), the vertical trees in the background point to that. I have seen views very similar to that many times in my wanderings around the northeast US, I just don't find it grabs my attention, especially in pinhole. With many details, I would want higher resolution and sharpness.

But bear in mind,that's just me!