t.hayat
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- New York City
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
walking through fields
- Thread Starter t.hayat
- Start date
t.hayat
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- New York City
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #2
bump
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 20,746
- Reaction score
- 13,000
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #3
First, I love that you used a K1000, but I'm a bit biased towards them 
I like it but it doesn't quite do it for me. The colors are a bit flat, for one. I like the foreground focus but the one plant on the far right is a little too big and dominates for no other reason than its size (and not because it's interesting.) I also think it would have been stronger if the people in the background were doing something different. I'm not sure what, but they're both just walking and looking down so they seem a little but more in the way rather than part of the picture. Had they been just standing still, looking up, looking at each other, looking back at you...I don't know, something? Or maybe if there had been something a bit more interesting in the foreground - a more distinct flower or plant.
At first glance, I was interested and I still kinda like it, but it feels like an 'almost there' picture. It is exhibiting an interesting and well done technique of using selective focus and framing, which creates enough visual interest at first, but once you get past technique and start looking at the subject, the gaps in composition become a bit more evident.
I like it but it doesn't quite do it for me. The colors are a bit flat, for one. I like the foreground focus but the one plant on the far right is a little too big and dominates for no other reason than its size (and not because it's interesting.) I also think it would have been stronger if the people in the background were doing something different. I'm not sure what, but they're both just walking and looking down so they seem a little but more in the way rather than part of the picture. Had they been just standing still, looking up, looking at each other, looking back at you...I don't know, something? Or maybe if there had been something a bit more interesting in the foreground - a more distinct flower or plant.
At first glance, I was interested and I still kinda like it, but it feels like an 'almost there' picture. It is exhibiting an interesting and well done technique of using selective focus and framing, which creates enough visual interest at first, but once you get past technique and start looking at the subject, the gaps in composition become a bit more evident.
t.hayat
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- New York City
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #4
Thanks, I really appreciate the feedback! About the colors, what would you have done differently? I'm more experienced with digital photography and post processing pictures, but I'm completely at a loss about what to do with colors when it comes to film photography.
DGMPhotography
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 3,161
- Reaction score
- 718
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I left my feedback in your other thread.... And just to warn you, I feel like the mods might delete this or your other thread. I don't think you should post the same thing in different parts of the forum.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
- Messages
- 20,746
- Reaction score
- 13,000
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #6
(I hadn't realized there was another thread.)
First, if your film was scanned, then you have a digital image and you can bump the colors in post-processing the way you would with a picture you took with a digital camera.
Second, work on exposure. Does your camera have a light meter? Were you on auto exposure? Some color films can really wash out when over-exposed (unless it's Ektar, which oddly seems more saturated when over-exposed). The light in your picture seems pretty flat and overcast days can be kind of tricky to meter. There's often more glare than you realize so sometimes the shots get overexposed. Your picture has a lot of darker colors but the sky is all blown out. After looking at it again, it seems a stop or two overexposed.
What kind of film were you using? Some films are better for color saturation. Everyone is going to have a different opinion at this point. I just shot several rolls of Kodak Portra and love the colors. I was never really too impressed with the Fuji Superia, but others love it. It can be quite good but it seems to have less latitude than the Portra, which means you have to really be on your game with exposures.
First, if your film was scanned, then you have a digital image and you can bump the colors in post-processing the way you would with a picture you took with a digital camera.
Second, work on exposure. Does your camera have a light meter? Were you on auto exposure? Some color films can really wash out when over-exposed (unless it's Ektar, which oddly seems more saturated when over-exposed). The light in your picture seems pretty flat and overcast days can be kind of tricky to meter. There's often more glare than you realize so sometimes the shots get overexposed. Your picture has a lot of darker colors but the sky is all blown out. After looking at it again, it seems a stop or two overexposed.
What kind of film were you using? Some films are better for color saturation. Everyone is going to have a different opinion at this point. I just shot several rolls of Kodak Portra and love the colors. I was never really too impressed with the Fuji Superia, but others love it. It can be quite good but it seems to have less latitude than the Portra, which means you have to really be on your game with exposures.
