Sunset photo.

[malkav41]

Let me know what you think of this photo. Does it scream Snapshot or no?

 

[LaFoto]

Don't know what it is about the resolution of this one, but to me it at least "says" (as not to say "screams") phone-shot.
The scene as it presented itself to you certainly was one of "nature's most beautiful scenes", and we still get to see that, i.e. I know why you decided you wanted to take THIS photo THERE and THEN.

But either you compressed it to extremes, or you used the lowest resolution settings of your camera or whatever it is you did: the picture quality - as we get to see it here - is poor.

And large parts of the "anchor" (land, ground, street, houses) is just black. No detail left there.

 

[malkav41]

I forgot to meter the shot using the sky, and not the sun, so the sun made the meter underexpose everything else. It was a rush job up to a point as I didn't properly/fully plan the shot.

I used a Minolta Maxxum 7000 film camera w/ a 70~210mm Quantray zoom @ 210mm, and Fuji Superia 400 speed film.

I'll look through my photos and see if there is a better shot.

 

[391615]

The image quality is poor, it just doesn't work. even though you are focussing on the sunset there needs to be far more to captivate the viewer to the shot. I'm not a professional but If I had taken this shot I wouldn't have converted it from the Raw file.

 

[malkav41]

I shoot only with Film. I do not own a DSLR or have Photoshop so it's pretty much hit or miss for me. This was a big swing and a miss.

 

[malkav41]

I looked through my photos of that sunset, and they all were a miss.

I found this one:

Is it better, worse, or 'bout the same? Shot with a Pentax ME super film camera, and a 135mm lens. 400 speed Fuji Superia film.

 

[LaFoto]

Judging by the dust specs on the second, may I assume you scan your PRINTS (same as I would if I were to digitalise photos taken on film just so I could show them on the web)? Could the low resolution be your scanner's "fault"? Are the prints a lot better in quality and still show a lot more than we get to see in the digitalised version?

Though I like the many colours the sky has in the second photo, I can't help but stare at the funny flare at the top or the noise (real grain?) around the bare tree at the bottom.

Does a lab make your prints?
Would you know if they felt the need to push your films (if that is the word ... me talking about developing films means I tread on thin ice!)? What I want to ask is: is the negative maybe even a lot darker than this print shows and they brightened it further in the process?

 

[malkav41]

1. Yes, I scan my prints, the low resolution is not from the scanner as it is at the max setting of 300dpi. It is the print. Looks I need to be sure to dust off the scanning surface before using it to avoid dust specks.

2. I was shooting with 400 speed Fuji Superia X-Tra so there is a bit, of not a lot of grain in the print. I'm not so sure what caused the flare at the top as the sun had set behind the mountain.

3. Yes, They were processed at Wal-mart in one hour. Which probably was not the best idea. I don't know if the operator pushed the film, but I suspect the computer in machine did brighten the print a bit as the negative is not dark.