Film v Digital v HDR

[Authentic Southerner]

Hello... I am new to the Photo Forum... long time amateur photographer now in my 2nd phase.... I rode the film wave back in the 80s... veered off to the world of "family" digital for the 90s+...and have now veered back to the world of more serious digital and more serious film photography in a big way...

I have a Flickr page of course... and I post there many scans of my 35mm or 645 film transparencies and negatives....

Call it a crisis of confidence if you will... I think I am pretty good... for sure better than average... but... I get the sense that about 2/3 of the photos that get all the juice on Flickr (and probably elsewhere) are so heavily edited/effected/HDR'd that the photos I take just don't shine in comparison... as an example this is a shot made with a Nikon F5 (don't honestly recall which lens) with long expired Fuji Reala 200 35mm film.... I massaged the color some post scan but not much...

I understand of course the basics (I think ? ) about composition, framing, contrast etc etc... I think others here must understand what I am saying... frequently my 35mm/645 negatives just don't hold up to the Nikon d810 shots I make...and that is understandable I suppose... but occasionally I get a negative or transparency that is just like WOW..... that is amazing ..like even better than the Nikon d810 .... but still ... none of my shots (digital or film) get the WOW remarks from Flickr users like the wildly edited photos seem to...

As a newcomer here, who really enjoys shooting film... I wonder if anyone might share thoughts on how I can share my shots to receive constructive critique or praise if merited ?

Apologies in advance if I have missed some other point of entry... sometimes I refuse to read instructions...

Thanks...

 

[Lucryster]

The vast majority of photos i see on flickr, aren't hdr. And that photo you posted is way cool.

And both flickr and 500px can be a popularity contest, especially 500px. 500px is mostly Ill like your photo if you like my photo in return kinda thing.

 

[Authentic Southerner]

Thanks ! and I know they aren't all HDR... I suppose I meant collectively "heavily massaged" to the point that many verge towards the HDR end of the spectrum... not in the sense that there is a true 5 image merge, but more a synthetic HDR ? if that makes any sense... Could be the type photos I often shoot... abandoned/derelict Southern houses/structures in states of decay...

 

[dxqcanada]

Some viewers like the surrealness that post processing can give you.
Newer digital photographers typically have a different reference.
As a film shooter myself, I don't try to do it ... instead to equal what was actually there (if that is possible).

 

[Authentic Southerner]

As a general concept... where best to post film photos for feedback/critique ? Here or elsewhere ?

 

[Lucryster]

Thanks ! and I know they aren't all HDR... I suppose I meant collectively "heavily massaged" to the point that many verge towards the HDR end of the spectrum... not in the sense that there is a true 5 image merge, but more a synthetic HDR ? if that makes any sense... Could be the type photos I often shoot... abandoned/derelict Southern houses/structures in states of decay...

Yeah, in that category they tend to be processed a lot and even a lot of hdr. They are going to the horror movie affects.

 

[Lucryster]

As a general concept... where best to post film photos for feedback/critique ? Here or elsewhere ?

Probably the alternative techniques and photo gallery under in the film section

 

[timor]

Don't rely on flickr opinions. Print a dozen of your best pictures and take thestem to your local galleries, show to the right people and you will know, how you doing.
Pic you posted here is cool, but the background is not too good for wall hanger. We talk here a lot about compo and such, but the real test is print, frame and wall. It is much different from screen, very, and final as the real print is the final goal of any method of photography. Most people usually do not go there. Too far...

 

[Lucryster]

Id definitely hang that shot on my wall.

 

[limr]

I think it has something to do with what people have come to expect from a "good" photo. When they see things that are familiar, it's good and they are attracted to it. If they are measuring the other photos based on that expectation, then they won't be wowed by anything that doesn't match the expectation.

My 2 cents. I quite like that picture you posted and now am very curious to see the rest of your pictures.

As for posting for feedback - I'd post it in the Photo Gallery that matches the subject. (If it's a landscape, post in Landscapes....etc) I don't post mine in Alternative Processes just because they're shot on film. I only post things like Polaroid or pinhole stuff there.

 

[timor]

Benjamin,be specific, you disagree with what ?

 

[Lucryster]

Benjamin,be specific, you disagree with what ?

That the background is "not too good for a wall hanger"

 

[dxqcanada]

FYI, we like pictures of old abandoned stuff ... especially taken with film.

 

[timor]

Benjamin,be specific, you disagree with what ?

That the background is "not too good for a wall hanger"

I see. The temperature of the colour in the BG is too close to the car and mixes with it.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

sounds like you aren't posting into the right groups on flickr. try following and posting in film groups and following like minded people on there.

as for critique, this forum has a lot to offer so try and stick around if you can. Another one I frequent is RangeFinderForum. Almost all film on there along with an older user base.

looking through my own work, ive had both film and digital blow me away. Its hard to say which is better but I do get more joy out of film for whatever reason. The sounds, the physicality, developing, processing. . . it feels much more hands on.